1st Republican debate

[findingZzero]

As the resident progressive, libtard, libertarian, I like Kasich. He would give Hillary a real challenge. Whoever they choose, I think Trump should be the anger surrogate (a la Key & Peele).

 

[AA&E]

Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo after the debate. Didn't have the balls to say it to her face, though.

Donald Trump vs. Fox News - Aug. 7, 2015

He stood to gain nothing for having done so. Hell hath no fury as that a woman scorned.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

He stood to gain nothing for having done so. Hell hath no fury as that a woman scorned.

Maybe she'll give him less air-time.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA doubt it.

 

[AA&E]

His undoing needs to be on his lack of understanding of the job of president and his overconfidence of his ability to do it. It does NOT need to be about PC BS with the flames fanned by a news organization that a lot of us support with our viewership.

That describes every person that ever ran for president. No clue what is actually required until you are there and figure it out first hand, and overly confident in your ability to be the best to do it. Who on that stage doesn't fit that description?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I didn't get to watch the debate last night but hope to watch the recording tonight. All I've seen so far are the clips on the news this morning. Regarding the clip of Paul and Christie talking about NSA surveillance, it'll be interesting to see how Paul's part of the interaction played with voters. I agreed with him, especially in light of Christie's apparent position but his loss of cool and then the little smirk while Christie was talking about hugging victims may not set too well in the mind of some/many. The "...get a warrant!" response is something I'd expect to hear on a youtube video or a curt response on a forum such as this but it didn't seem very...."presidential".

 

[Dead Duck]

I think Carson is the dark horse.

Racist

***REPORTED***

 

[jamil]

That describes every person that ever ran for president. No clue what is actually required until you are there and figure it out first hand, and overly confident in your ability to be the best to do it. Who on that stage doesn't fit that description?

There's that, and then there's that on steroids. Trump is way over the top THAT compared to everyone who has been president in my lifetime.

I didn't get to watch the debate last night but hope to watch the recording tonight. All I've seen so far are the clips on the news this morning. Regarding the clip of Paul and Christie talking about NSA surveillance, it'll be interesting to see how Paul's part of the interaction played with voters. I agreed with him, especially in light of Christie's apparent position but his loss of cool and then the little smirk while Christie was talking about hugging victims may not set too well in the mind of some/many. The "...get a warrant!" response is something I'd expect to hear on a youtube video or a curt response on a forum such as this but it didn't seem very...."presidential".

I was disappointed in Rand Paul's performance. I wish he would not have lost his cool. That contributes to making him unfit to be president. He was right on his points. But as right as he was, he did not articulate the rightness of his position better than Christi. Christi had the sound bite that tugs at the hearts of especially those traditional republicans, even though, substantively, it does not make him right.

I would liked Rand to have baited Christi with the question of how far would he would go to protect Americans. Christi is so passionate about it, and he's even said before, that he would do anything. Anything? Is there no personal liberty he would trample to keep us safe? Where is the constitutional authority to support "Anything"? I wanted Paul to nail Christi to commit to what crosses the line.

Another thing, Rand touch on the fact that Christi at the time, had to get warrants for all those terrorists he bragged about prosecuting. I'd liked to have seen Rand bring that point across more vividly because all the success he brags about tends to demonstrate that its unnecessary to spy on everyone to find and prosecute terrorists.

I don't disagree that Rand Paul did poorly. I think Christi did worse. I dislike the fat ass puss bag even more now. He reinforced that his apparent view that the President has an unlimited mandate to do *anything* to keep Americans safe. **** him.

I hope Rand Paul takes a good look at the results and doesn't just go into denial about it. It happened. He performed poorly. Being right about a point doesn't make you the winner in public opinion.

 

[steveh_131]

I hope Rand Paul takes a good look at the results and doesn't just go into denial about it. It happened. He performed poorly. Being right about a point doesn't make you the winner in public opinion.

Yes, he needs to do a better job of playing the game. He's better at it than his dad, but still needs more improvement. Christi had the great "Boo hoo, my wife was 20 blocks away from ground zero" or whatever sob story. Yes it's idiotic and has no logical bearing on the discussion, but it still compels voters - and Rand should have eased up on the snark when he made his [correct] response.

I like Rand and I hope he can learn from this. I wish more Republican voters could see past the games, but apparently they can't.

 

[funeralweb]

I also feel that by the time the press is done spinning and butchering them, and the primaries finally come to Indiana, it will all be a moot point.

A nationwide one-day primary would be especially helpful this time around. Let us all narrow the field with one popular vote.

Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo after the debate. Didn't have the balls to say it to her face, though.

Donald Trump vs. Fox News - Aug. 7, 2015

Don't see her as a bimbo so much as another 5-letter word that begins with "B". Perhaps actual journalists made good debate moderators back in the day but today's media personalities are not who I want slanting questions to people we're all going to be struggling to decide to follow going forward in 2017.

 

[jamil]

Yes, he needs to do a better job of playing the game. He's better at it than his dad, but still needs more improvement. Christi had the great "Boo hoo, my wife was 20 blocks away from ground zero" or whatever sob story. Yes it's idiotic and has no logical bearing on the discussion, but it still compels voters - and Rand should have eased up on the snark when he made his [correct] response.

I like Rand and I hope he can learn from this. I wish more Republican voters could see past the games, but apparently they can't.

His loss wasn't because of the game. People, well, at least most conservatives, don't like their presidents to be snarky. Democrats seem to like that, but Republicans don't. Paul could have minimized the importance of Christi's sob story without looking bad for it. Paul has to get a handle on his temper. When he loses it he gets snarky and that just doesn't work. Heck, I don't want a snarky president. That's a disquallifier in my book, even if he's on point. If he doesn't fix it, I'll be looking for another candidate to support.

A nationwide one-day primary would be especially helpful this time around. Let us all narrow the field with one popular vote.




Don't see her as a bimbo so much as another 5-letter word that begins with "B". Perhaps actual journalists made good debate moderators back in the day but today's media personalities are not who I want slanting questions to people we're all going to be struggling to decide to follow going forward in 2017.

A one-day primary would be a good start, but the "first past the post" method in our electoral system, especially in a field this large, virtually ensures the majority of the Republican voters will not get a nominee they want.

It would be better if we voted for the top 3 or maybe top 5 candidates, ranking in order of favor. That would certainly solve the trump dilemma. He has the highest percentage of favorability and also the highest percentage of unfavorability. If he maintained his lead all the way through, he would win the nomination with only 1 in 4 liking him, while the majority of the party hates him. That will keep Republicans home on election day. I would not be able to vote for Trump if he won the nomination. I'd prolly have to write in Darth Vador, even though he's a dickhead.

 

[steveh_131]

His loss wasn't because of the game. People, well, at least most conservatives, don't like their presidents to be snarky. Democrats seem to like that, but Republicans don't. Paul could have minimized the importance of Christi's sob story without looking bad for it. Paul has to get a handle on his temper. When he loses it he gets snarky and that just doesn't work. Heck, I don't want a snarky president. That's a disquallifier in my book, even if he's on point. If he doesn't fix it, I'll be looking for another candidate to support.

That all sounds like a game to me.

I don't mind a little snark when a stupid person is saying stupid things. Let's be honest about this, Christi was baiting him with his comments about his speeches to congress going up on the internet right after. But yes, he should have stayed on the high road and rose above it because that's what people want to see. That's the game. Figure out what the voters want (Hint: Only about 20% of it has anything to do with policy) and give it to them.

I think we're on the same page on this. I guess my point is that being right is a small portion of this. Getting elected is a game.

 

[jamil]

That all sounds like a game to me.

I don't mind a little snark when a stupid person is saying stupid things. Let's be honest about this, Christi was baiting him with his comments about his speeches to congress going up on the internet right after. But yes, he should have stayed on the high road and rose above it because that's what people want to see. That's the game. Figure out what the voters want (Hint: Only about 20% of it has anything to do with policy) and give it to them.

I think we're on the same page on this. I guess my point is that being right is a small portion of this. Getting elected is a game.

I'm not sure we are on the same page. I don't want President Paul to snark like Obama about everything, or anything really. That only divides. He can't act unilaterally like Obama does. That usurps authority not granted by the constitution. I want him to enact the right policies, and he needs to operate within the checks and balances established by the constitution to do that. If he can't work with people without throwing a tantrum, he won't be able to get anything on his agenda accomplished. It's not just about playing the game. I will not vote for Rand Paul in the Primary if he doesn't fix this, even if he has the right policies.

 

[Alpo]

It is still early in the cycle and I don't believe R Paul damaged himself all that bad. Christi is a low-density lipoprotien grenade and anyone he explodes near is going to draw some reasonable sympathy.

But the GOP needs to pare down this come-one-come-all venue to potentially electable candidates. I'd say Pataki, Fiorina, Paul, Rubio, Kasich and Carson. The rest were so off the mark (or so boring in the case of Bush) that they ought to get the very nice parting gifts and home game and come back in 4 years.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not sure that responding to this idiot, in a debate, with an appropriate level of snark indicates an inability to work with people in general. He's demonstrated an ability to play the politics game already, in my eyes. Now I'd like to see him up his 'people' game enough to get elected.

But I hear ya, and what you're saying isn't a 'nothing' issue. It matters. But the divide on policy is big enough between these other candidates that it's not enough to sway me very much at all.

 

[PistolBob]

Did not watch it...what did I miss? Nothing? Awesome.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not sure that responding to this idiot, in a debate, with an appropriate level of snark indicates an inability to work with people in general. He's demonstrated an ability to play the politics game already, in my eyes. Now I'd like to see him up his 'people' game enough to get elected.

But I hear ya, and what you're saying isn't a 'nothing' issue. It matters. But the divide on policy is big enough between these other candidates that it's not enough to sway me very much at all.

We NEED someone whom the disparate, nay warring factions of conservatives can support and coalesce around. It has GOT to be a Republican or Libertarian standard barrier that gets elected this time around. I REFUSE to believe this country cannot be righted and saved and the defeat of Hilary et al is a CRUCIAL first step. Don't spend so much time planning the war that you lose the initial engagement

 

[Woobie]

It is still early in the cycle and I don't believe R Paul damaged himself all that bad. Christi is a low-density lipoprotien grenade and anyone he explodes near is going to draw some reasonable sympathy.

But the GOP needs to pare down this come-one-come-all venue to potentially electable candidates. I'd say Pataki, Fiorina, Paul, Rubio, Kasich and Carson. The rest were so off the mark (or so boring in the case of Bush) that they ought to get the very nice parting gifts and home game and come back in 4 years.

"Low-density lipoprotein grenade" is probably the most accurate description one could possibly make of Christi. Very clever, very funny, very descriptive.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There's that, and then there's that on steroids. Trump is way over the top THAT compared to everyone who has been president in my lifetime.




I was disappointed in Rand Paul's performance. I wish he would not have lost his cool. That contributes to making him unfit to be president. He was right on his points. But as right as he was, he did not articulate the rightness of his position better than Christi. Christi had the sound bite that tugs at the hearts of especially those traditional republicans, even though, substantively, it does not make him right.

I would liked Rand to have baited Christi with the question of how far would he would go to protect Americans. Christi is so passionate about it, and he's even said before, that he would do anything. Anything? Is there no personal liberty he would trample to keep us safe? Where is the constitutional authority to support "Anything"? I wanted Paul to nail Christi to commit to what crosses the line.

Another thing, Rand touch on the fact that Christi at the time, had to get warrants for all those terrorists he bragged about prosecuting. I'd liked to have seen Rand bring that point across more vividly because all the success he brags about tends to demonstrate that its unnecessary to spy on everyone to find and prosecute terrorists.

I don't disagree that Rand Paul did poorly. I think Christi did worse. I dislike the fat ass puss bag even more now. He reinforced that his apparent view that the President has an unlimited mandate to do *anything* to keep Americans safe. **** him.

I hope Rand Paul takes a good look at the results and doesn't just go into denial about it. It happened. He performed poorly. Being right about a point doesn't make you the winner in public opinion.

I agree with your assessment. Teach it rather than just snark it. Explain where the differences lie and how yours is based in the constitution and explain how his isn't. Use an example or two of how well meaning laws and policies have had demonstrable effects on peoples' lives and freedoms. Talk about how, even with all the NSA spying (that, if you believe Christy, is required to keep us safe) hasn't stopped Chattanooga, Charleston, Dallas, et al. Rather than lose his cool, he must see it as an opportunity to educate how the status quo is slowly robbing us of our freedoms.

 

[bwframe]

... the GOP needs to pare down this come-one-come-all venue to potentially electable candidates. I'd say Pataki, Fiorina, Paul, Rubio, Kasich and Carson...

Interesting choices.
I'm pretty sure the GOP doesn't get to pick the candidates?