1st Republican debate

[BugI02]

Check this out.... https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/ben-carson#article-13

Thank you for posting. A very useful tool over and above answering the question in play. Concise and succinct.

 

[rambone]

Rand Paul Got Least Airtime During First 2016 GOP Debate

Rand Paul needs to get aggressive, and fire his managers.

The current talking point is that Fox News hates Trump. And moderator Megyn Kelly especially hates Trump!

But if that is true, why do they give him inordinate amounts of airtime on the network? Even at their moderated debate, they unfairly gave him over double the talk time of other candidates.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The current talking point is that Fox News hates Trump. And moderator Megyn Kelly especially hates Trump!

But if that is true, why do they give him inordinate amounts of airtime on the network? Even at their moderated debate, they unfairly gave him over double the talk time of other candidates.

I would argue that your point is further supported by the fact that Bush came in second, also enjoying a disproportionate amount of time, considered within the context that there is no question that he is the establishment choice.

 

[rambone]

Trump praised the single-payer government health care system of Canada and Scotland on national TV... and Republicans are going wild for him. I wish I could say I am surprised.

No, Donald Trump, Single-Payer Health Care Doesn't 'Work Incredibly Well' In Canada & Scotland - Forbes

 

[rambone]

Get a load of this outrageous propaganda from Fox News. "Body language expert" tells us that Chris Christie was more "likeable" than Rand Paul because of his body language; Christie's lean to the left.

While "likeable" Christie was listing to the port side, he was actually trashing the constitution calling for mass-spying on Americans.

[video=youtube;h6i9oROxgkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6i9oROxgkU[/video]

 

[AA&E]

Get a load of this outrageous propaganda from Fox News. "Body language expert" tells us that Chris Christie was more "likeable" than Rand Paul because of his body language; Christie's lean to the left.

While "likeable" Christie was listing to the port side, he was actually trashing the constitution calling for mass-spying on Americans.

[video=youtube;h6i9oROxgkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6i9oROxgkU[/video]

I agree, I'd vote for nobody before I voted for that *******. And body language? Seriously? Pseudo-science analyzing presidential candidates FTW. Speaking of Bush and his non-dominant hand gestures? Question, without research who would know that was his non-dominant hand and therefore understand the implications of gesturing with that hand? Answer: Nobody.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Get a load of this outrageous propaganda from Fox News. "Body language expert" tells us that Chris Christie was more "likeable" than Rand Paul because of his body language; Christie's lean to the left.

While "likeable" Christie was listing to the port side, he was actually trashing the constitution calling for mass-spying on Americans.

[video=youtube;h6i9oROxgkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6i9oROxgkU[/video]

Likeable? HA! Maybe while she has the sound turned down and you can't hear what he's saying. My wife, whom doesn't pay that close to politics, heard him and saw his lean and whatever and made no bones about her dislike for that guy.

 

[jamil]

Get a load of this outrageous propaganda from Fox News. "Body language expert" tells us that Chris Christie was more "likeable" than Rand Paul because of his body language; Christie's lean to the left.

While "likeable" Christie was listing to the port side, he was actually trashing the constitution calling for mass-spying on Americans.

That story belongs in the tabloids right along with the story about some soothsayer reading the future in the folds on his fat ass.

 

[bwframe]

...I'd vote for nobody before I voted for that *******...

Voting for nobody is what got us Obama for this last term. How's that worked out for us?

 

[jamil]

Voting for nobody is what got us Obama for this last term. How's that worked out for us?

Yeah. But he's talking about Cris Christie for crying out loud. Fatass pussbag? *****ass Clinton? Flip a coin.

 

[bwframe]

Yeah. But he's talking about Cris Christie for crying out loud. Fatass pussbag? *****ass Clinton? Flip a coin.

I understand, Christie is totally undesirable. The mentality of "just won't vote" or "won't earn my vote" needs to be addressed though. Not voting or voting for someone who has no chance of winning ALWAYS equates to helping the other side, if not sealing the deal for them.

This kind of cancerous talk/mentality/action has brought us Glenda Ritz, Joe Donnelly and a second term for Obama.

 

[AA&E]

Voting for nobody is what got us Obama for this last term. How's that worked out for us?

Yeah. But he's talking about Cris Christie for crying out loud. Fatass pussbag? *****ass Clinton? Flip a coin.

Exactly Jamil...

 

[AA&E]

I understand, Christie is totally undesirable. The mentality of "just won't vote" or "won't earn my vote" needs to be addressed though. Not voting or voting for someone who has no chance of winning ALWAYS equates to helping the other side, if not sealing the deal for them.

This kind of cancerous talk/mentality/action has brought us Glenda Ritz, Joe Donnelly and a second term for Obama.

Someone earlier referred to Christie as Hillary in drag. I think that is a fair assessment

 

[IndyDave1776]

Trump praised the single-payer government health care system of Canada and Scotland on national TV... and Republicans are going wild for him. I wish I could say I am surprised.

All I can say here is that Trump never claimed to be a conservative. My guess is that he simply saw more opportunity on the right side of the aisle.

Get a load of this outrageous propaganda from Fox News. "Body language expert" tells us that Chris Christie was more "likeable" than Rand Paul because of his body language; Christie's lean to the left.

While "likeable" Christie was listing to the port side, he was actually trashing the constitution calling for mass-spying on Americans.

You highlighted the problem, which is that Christie does in fact lean to the left--and apparently has no use for the Constitution aside from wiping his fat ass.

Voting for nobody is what got us Obama for this last term. How's that worked out for us?

All things being equal, I would agree with where you are headed. Given that Christie is little more than Hillary Clinton in drag, I would consider voting irrelevant should he get the nomination.

I would further argue that the reason it has worked out for us the way it has is that when you take away the relatively superficial issues used to jab at us and stir people up, the teleprompter says the same thing regardless of who may be reading it. If you put Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama in a bag, hung it from a tree limb, spun it, and started swinging a bat, you would never hit the wrong one. In all of their cases, government has expanded, liberty has contracted, and no effort has been made toward the restoration of Constitutional government. I find it easy to dismiss even such fortuitous events as the Heller decision as nothing more than a bone thrown our way to persuade us to believe other than that the government is completely in the bag for a shift to an authoritarian socialist state by throwing us a ray of hope once in a great while. If there is any doubt, it says something when the two Obama justices have had moments of coming down on the right side while the supposed conservatives went dead wrong.

So far as I can tell, we have nothing but a little bad theater engineered to convince us that it is not yet time to start seeing the situation in terms of 1776 2.0 and getting, well, difficult to deal with.

 

[bwframe]

...I would further argue that the reason it has worked out for us the way it has is that when you take away the relatively superficial issues used to jab at us and stir people up, the teleprompter says the same thing regardless of who may be reading it. If you put Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama in a bag, hung it from a tree limb, spun it, and started swinging a bat, you would never hit the wrong one. In all of their cases, government has expanded, liberty has contracted, and no effort has been made toward the restoration of Constitutional government. I find it easy to dismiss even such fortuitous events as the Heller decision as nothing more than a bone thrown our way to persuade us to believe other than that the government is completely in the bag for a shift to an authoritarian socialist state by throwing us a ray of hope once in a great while. If there is any doubt, it says something when the two Obama justices have had moments of coming down on the right side while the supposed conservatives went dead wrong...

Gotcha, they are all the same and voting is just a waste of time.



Sorry, but I ain't buying that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gotcha, they are all the same and voting is just a waste of time.



Sorry, but I ain't buying that.

They are all the same when we allow the media to load our ballots for us. It works out most every time that any good candidates we have available who are actually any good get crowded out long before the Indiana primary and lose in the early primaries thanks to media manipulation. I have noticed that people are starting to catch on to the nature of establishment candidates and the absence of difference between them, but it also seems that Trump is the only one who is having much success capitalizing on this phenomenon.

If we have a Hillary v. Christie election, voting is definitely a waste of time. The only difference between the two is that of personal plumbing.

Back to the point, we have the following:

1. Bush Sr. banned import of certain guns by executive order. He also negotiated (and reneged on) a deal with Colt for a large military contract in exchange for Colt ending the sale of AR-15 rifles to non-government buyers. He wouldn't do much of anything in foreign policy without the consent of the UN and openly advocated the then-undefined New World Order which greatly impinged upon US sovereignty. He also negotiated NAFTA which was of no benefit whatsoever to the US or any but a very scant few citizens thereof.

2. Clinton brought us the 1994 AWB and made little secret of being no friend of US sovereignty. Finished the deal on NAFTA. Presided over government actions against citizens resulting in unnecessary deaths and little evidence of wrong-doing, especially any which would justify killing people, including and especially people who were not personally even suspected of wrong-doing (think Mrs. Weaver, her son, the dog, and the majority of the folks at Waco).

3. Bush Jr. along with a GOP controlled congress brought us the grossly misnamed Patriot Act. Also conspicuous in its absence was any effort whatsoever to reduce government and previous overreaches, especially regarding the Second Amendment, or better yet, a general trend toward actually following the Constitution. This combination of controlling both the White House and the Capitol Building clearly establishes that the GOP had and still has no intention whatsoever of actually doing what its voters expect of it but rather doing the same things as done by the Dems.

4. Obama, who was against the war before he was for it and for losing it to the worst of malefactors has done what he can to expand government, has fortunately failed in his efforts against the Second, has been a total screw-up, but has by executive fiat done much to expand the reach of government and infringe upon the citizens of the nation.

5. Christie has made it clear that he wholeheartedly supports the Patriot Act and most other violations of our rights including the Second and Fourth Amendments. He has all but crawled under Obama's desk in the past. He has yet to show any indication of offering a change from the recent administrations aside from accelerating the increase of government expansion at the expense of our rights.

In order for voting to be relevant, the most fundamental requirement is that there must be an actual difference between the candidates on the ballot, and since Reagan, that difference has not existed. How does it make a difference to vote if I have only the choice of voting between two candidates who are so much alike as to offer no actual choice in substance?

Heads, I win, tales, you lose! What a choice!

 

[olhorseman]

If you put Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama in a bag, hung it from a tree limb, spun it, and started swinging a bat, you would never hit the wrong one.

can I play, can I play!!

 

[IndyDave1776]

can I play, can I play!!

BYOBat!

 

[jamil]

I understand, Christie is totally undesirable. The mentality of "just won't vote" or "won't earn my vote" needs to be addressed though. Not voting or voting for someone who has no chance of winning ALWAYS equates to helping the other side, if not sealing the deal for them.

This kind of cancerous talk/mentality/action has brought us Glenda Ritz, Joe Donnelly and a second term for Obama.

I agree with the sentiment to a point. I held my nose pulling the lever for Mourdock. To me voting usually distills to a pragmatic decision between which is better even if only marginally so. However, notwithstanding rebuke I've levied towards people who *always* think in binary, I still have to acknowledge that there comes a point when something is so absurd that it becomes impossible not to think in binary terms.

Holding my nose can't relieve the stench of the fatass pussbag. In our two-party electoral system we are [STRIKE]normally[/STRIKE] nearly always faced with having to vote for the lesser of two evils, and I'll do that up to a point. In a contest between the fatass pussbag and the B**chass Clinton, which is less evil? That race itself is too close to call. I can't vote for either one.

I honestly don't harbor any animosity towards people who refuse to vote for any candidate after fair introspection has revealed all candidates suck too much to give any level of approval to any of them. Even if it's binary thinking that brings them to that point, "NONE OF THE ABOVE" is indeed a vote.

If there exists a point where *I* couldn't vote for any, I can't blame people for drawing that line in a different place than I would. I didn't like Mourdock. He was way too evangelical for me. But I was able to make a pragmatic argument, intellectually, that he was the lesser of the two evils. I cannot fault those whose political sensibilities could not support that argument. I am not the keeper of other people's political ethos.

Speaking of our ****ed up electoral system, I almost wish The Donald would win the presidency as an independent candidate. Because, if he did, it would be the ultimate proof of the absurdity of our electoral system, a POTUS elected by a minority where the vast majority opposes him. If that happened it might be possible to build enough momentum towards reforming our electoral system with a more representative system.

 

[HoughMade]

I saw, maybe, half of the debate. Though I don't base decisions on one performance, I saw several people that I could live with. Even more if we open it up to the "kid's table" debate. Sure, there are a couple of bad candidates, but I think the primaries will wash out the outliers...even if they currently are riding a wave. Who we have left- many good people.

Now, being a decent person and being correct on most of the issues (from my perspective) doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it a lot easier to fill in the bubble (which sounds less satisfying than "pulling the lever").