GOP debate

[gunslingerdick]

Carson - A nightmare early on. He got better but not much.

Kasich - He always appears unorganized and rambling. Not a serious player.

Fiorina - She's smart and classy, but not Presidential material.

Bush - Better than in previous debates, but still a nonfactor.

Paul - Best debate performance to date. Roasted Rubio at least once. Still, a nonfactor.

Christie - He's done well in all the debates. Surprising his numbers aren't higher. On the fringe.

Rubio - He's so rehearsed it seems phony. Gives the impression of dishonest. He did ok, but likely fell a bit after last night. Still a serious player.

Trump - continues to have no substance but the people are eating that sh*t up. He's in this for the long haul. Looked bad last night but it seemingly doesn't matter.

Cruz - Last night's big winner. I enjoyed the battle with Rubio as I see the two of them as the frontrunners. He's kind of unlikable, but he's smart and experienced on matters of the constitution.

Thoughts?

 

[BillyL]

I was hoping this was going to be the Bowl Prediction thread . .

#waiting

 

[gunslingerdick]

I was hoping this was going to be the Bowl Prediction thread . .

#waiting

 

[randman1]

Carson - A nightmare early on. He got better but not much.

Kasich - He always appears unorganized and rambling. Not a serious player.

Fiorina - She's smart and classy, but not Presidential material.

Bush - Better than in previous debates, but still a nonfactor.

Paul - Best debate performance to date. Roasted Rubio at least once. Still, a nonfactor.

Christie - He's done well in all the debates. Surprising his numbers aren't higher. On the fringe.

Rubio - He's so rehearsed it seems phony. Gives the impression of dishonest. He did ok, but likely fell a bit after last night. Still a serious player.

Trump - continues to have no substance but the people are eating that sh*t up. He's in this for the long haul. Looked bad last night but it seemingly doesn't matter.

Cruz - Last night's big winner. I enjoyed the battle with Rubio as I see the two of them as the frontrunners. He's kind of unlikable, but he's smart and experienced on matters of the constitution.

Thoughts?

Thought they all looked pretty good and felt very positive that whomever wins the nomination will be a good candidate and president. That being said, Kasich probably needs to drop out. His mannerisms hurt and his whole run as a moderate thing as well. He's actually not even so moderate. He got bad advice.

Bush? Never thought he had a chance due to amnesty and Common Core. He did fine but needs to drop out, imo. It was never going to be his year and his last name doesn't help.

Fiorina looks presidential to me but she's getting no traction in the polls despite very strong debate performances. Probably needs to call it quits but she could be a possible VP candidate.

Rand Paul: has done very well the past 2 debates. It's a shame he started out so poorly. Doubt he can catch up but maybe he should stick around just a little longer to see how it plays out. Probably should call it quits, however.

Carson: I thought he did well. Apparently others don't see it. He's up enough in the polls to stay in the race a little longer.

Christie: Did well but never thought he had a chance and still don't. He should probably have run as a democrat and perhaps would have beaten Hillary for the nomination,

Rubio: Great performance but he has a couple of things working against him, influence by neocon hawks and the Gang of Eight bill. Had he not gone along with the establishment on those, he might could have won. Still possible. He needs Jeb, Kasich, and Christie to drop out and see if he can get their supporters.

Comes down to Trump or Cruz is my guess. I agree on Cruz' personality not being the best, but if he gets the nod, his opponent in Hillary is even worse in that regard. Plus, she's a crook, liar, perhaps or rather is likely a traitor and frankly has no business in government whatsoever.

 

[theJRG1]

I fired television and didn't watch, but generally consider political debates just kabuki theatre on the deck of the Titanic, anyway. But, since this thread contains assessments of candidate Trump, and since I just watched this yesterday and wanted to throw it into this forum for discussion, I'd like to present a video for your consideration. There is awesomeness throughout.

The thing that resonated most was the death of the priesthood.

Conservatives will love it. Progressives will shriek and howl. Some folks have said regarding Trump, "He's not our candidate. He's our murder weapon." What's he murdering?

The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy with Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux:

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Thoughts? Have not decided yet. Probably won't until the Virginia primary is closer. Besides, what possible difference could it make after HRC is indicted next year

 

[strummingram]

Got through almost the first hour. Rand Paul's opening statement was, by far, the best I'd heard. He's the only rational voice on the stage. Everyone else is peddling fear and trying to get everyone to trade liberty for security. When you do that, you lose both. So, aside from him, there's not one of them I'd ever support, let alone cast a vote.

The GOP gets their donations and support selling the fear of Radical Islam. The Democrats gets it selling the fear of Global Warming and gun violence. A pair of political parties promising safety and rewards on things that they can't deliver, and they helped create the problems themselves. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Got through almost the first hour. Rand Paul's opening statement was, by far, the best I'd heard. He's the only rational voice on the stage. Everyone else is peddling fear and trying to get everyone to trade liberty for security. When you do that, you lose both. So, aside from him, there's not one of them I'd ever support, let alone cast a vote.

I thought Paul did well last night - the best he's done yet. But out of everything he said last night, his opening statement was not something I loved. I didn't like that he mentioned other candidates in his opening remarks. And I agree with Paul on a lot of things but where we disagree is with his idea that ISIS is like a traditional enemy or that general rules apply to them. Basically he told us that "if we show ISIS that we don't fear them, it will go away". That might work with some things. But that's not going to work with ISIS/extreme Islamists. They will not stop until western civilization is ruined. So we may have gotten to the point where we will fight this until the end of time. And if that's the case, I need to know that the guy in charge is capable of that. I know, I know...war mongering,...we need to recognize we're all one people,...stop invading other parts of the world,...I know, man.

 

[strummingram]

I thought Paul did well last night - the best he's done yet. But out of everything he said last night, his opening statement was not something I loved. I didn't like that he mentioned other candidates in his opening remarks. And I agree with Paul on a lot of things but where we disagree is with his idea that ISIS is like a traditional enemy or that general rules apply to them. Basically he told us that "if we show ISIS that we don't fear them, it will go away". That might work with some things. But that's not going to work with ISIS/extreme Islamists. They will not stop until western civilization is ruined. So we may have gotten to the point where we will fight this until the end of time. And if that's the case, I need to know that the guy in charge is capable of that. I know, I know...war mongering,...we need to recognize we're all one people,...stop invading other parts of the world,...I know, man.

Has the threat of Islamic terror gotten better or worse in the last 20 years?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Sorry, but Fiorina doesn't look presidential. She can't even make eye contact with the camera. I know it's a trivial thing, but the way she darts her eyes back and forth constantly while talking makes her look weak/timid.

I made it through about an hour last night. No one blew me away. I did like Rubio but only because he 'looks the part' and seems the most electable. I still love what Trump brings to the table. I love that he's serving as the pace car or 'magnet' of sorts that continually pulls the rest of the field further right than they possibly want to be. I love that.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I made it through about an hour last night. No one blew me away. I did like Rubio but only because he 'looks the part' and seems the most electable. I still love what Trump brings to the table. I love that he's serving as the pace car or 'magnet' of sorts that continually pulls the rest of the field further right than they possibly want to be. I love that.

I agree. I've said that I simply can't vote for Trump. But that doesn't mean I don't love that he's running. He's making discussion happen that wouldn't be happening otherwise. And he's the checks and balances to the extreme, looney left. I like how you put it too - the pace car or magnet.
Good post.

 

[strummingram]

I thought Paul did well last night - the best he's done yet. But out of everything he said last night, his opening statement was not something I loved. I didn't like that he mentioned other candidates in his opening remarks. And I agree with Paul on a lot of things but where we disagree is with his idea that ISIS is like a traditional enemy or that general rules apply to them. Basically he told us that "if we show ISIS that we don't fear them, it will go away". That might work with some things. But that's not going to work with ISIS/extreme Islamists. They will not stop until western civilization is ruined. So we may have gotten to the point where we will fight this until the end of time. And if that's the case, I need to know that the guy in charge is capable of that. I know, I know...war mongering,...we need to recognize we're all one people,...stop invading other parts of the world,...I know, man.

Islamic Terror only increases with the methods the US chooses to implement. We lose liberties, lives, and our way of life. The state grows stronger.

Is ISIS a "traditional enemy?" What is traditional? You've, first of all, got to understand that it is our foreign policy helped to create factions like Al Qaeda and ISIS. If you refuse to accept that culpability, then there's no hope. Do we sacrifice our morality, our liberties, our instinctive feelings for what is beneficial to us as a society so we can "be safe" from the very thing we helped bring into being? I don't. Neither does a guy like Rand Paul.

If you think that you can "out-fight" these people, you're sadly mistaken. You are dangerously mistaken. These people want NOTHING MORE than for us (our leaders and our general population) to fight with them. The reality of how well it serves them is evidenced every time a new attack occurs. Fighting with them, on their terms, is what gives them immeasurable strength and robs us of ours, and our core values and, most of all, liberty. This is truly a test of how much each American treasures their LIBERTY. The people who are running this show- those who have a vested interest in keeping the fear of an "enemy" alive and well- have no interest in your, or my, liberty. They have no interest in Liberty in general. The people who are committing acts of terror, in the name of Islam, are radicals who are motivated by fear and revenge. They want nothing more than for our leaders to fight with them. They get stronger and we get weaker. And, we lose everything we had in the process.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Islamic Terror only increases with the methods the US chooses to implement. We lose liberties, lives, and our way of life. The state grows stronger.

Is ISIS a "traditional enemy?" What is traditional? You've, first of all, got to understand that it is our foreign policy helped to create factions like Al Qaeda and ISIS. If you refuse to accept that culpability, then there's no hope. Do we sacrifice our morality, our liberties, our instinctive feelings for what is beneficial to us as a society so we can "be safe" from the very thing we helped bring into being? I don't. Neither does a guy like Rand Paul.

If you think that you can "out-fight" these people, you're sadly mistaken. You are dangerously mistaken. These people want NOTHING MORE than for us (our leaders and our general population) to fight with them. The reality of how well it serves them is evidenced every time a new attack occurs. Fighting with them, on their terms, is what gives them immeasurable strength and robs us of ours, and our core values and, most of all, liberty. This is truly a test of how much each American treasures their LIBERTY. The people who are running this show- those who have a vested interest in keeping the fear of an "enemy" alive and well- have no interest in your, or my, liberty. They have no interest in Liberty in general. The people who are committing acts of terror, in the name of Islam, are radicals who are motivated by fear and revenge. They want nothing more than for our leaders to fight with them. They get stronger and we get weaker. And, we lose everything we had in the process.

Granted, I don't know much about war. But I do know this - you can't win if you don't fight.

Please tell me you're not advocating for "just ignore it and it will all go away." This isn't an annoying little brother we're talking about here.

 

[strummingram]

Granted, I don't know much about war. But I do know this - you can't win if you don't fight.

Please tell me you're not advocating for "just ignore it and it will all go away." This isn't an annoying little brother we're talking about here.

No, I'm not advocating that it be ignored at all. I'm simply saying that fighting them in the conventional way is losing to them. Look at what we have lost and continue to lose by doing that. The threat of organizations like ISIS thrives and perpetuates itself (into newer ISIS'es) by fighting with them. War is the total abandonment of human civility. TOTAL abandonment! The more war you have, the less civility you have. It's really that simple. I like civility. I like it a lot. Liberty and freedom (not to get too corny) flourish in such conditions. People killing each other at will, based on some tribal notion, and having no ill feeling about it, is hardly the direction I wanna go in.

I'm not 100% sure how to prioritize and eventually end this problem. But, I am 100% sure that fighting with these people, and "aiding them", in the form that has been done for the last 25 years, off and on, in varying levels, is NOT the way to go. Since our country's aiding of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in the very early 1980's- against each other, the USSR, etc.-, then Desert Storm, and then all the way up to now, we have seen a constant, steady increase in the threat, and implementation, of attacks from radicals in the Middle East. It gets exponentially worse. And, now our own liberties here at home dwindle. Now, we're also losing financially and in human form with the deaths of military and 10/20 times that amount that are in PTSD treatment for life. We are losing this more and more. We are losing everything on every level. It's perfectly understandable to want it to end, but "fighting" them is a losing game.

Solving it doesn't have to include fighting them. In fact, it won't include that. This whole thing has grown into what it is BECAUSE of the "fighting" that has taken place. Trying to beat them by being more destructive than them is not the way to go.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Unfortunately I think the GOP debates are a moot point. Hillary will win the main election, regardless of who else is on the ticket. She's raised by far the most amount of money, and that seems to be what wins the elections these days. No one looks into the issues enough to realize what she actually stands for, and no one seems to care that she is a liar (and a bad one at that). Hillary at -150 moneyline in vegas is the best free money out there right now.

 

[strummingram]

Unfortunately I think the GOP debates are a moot point. Hillary will win the main election, regardless of who else is on the ticket. She's raised by far the most amount of money, and that seems to be what wins the elections these days. No one looks into the issues enough to realize what she actually stands for, and no one seems to care that she is a liar (and a bad one at that). Hillary at -150 moneyline in vegas is the best free money out there right now.

So... status quo. Nothing changes at all.

 

[UNC71-00]

Has the threat of Islamic terror gotten better or worse in the last 20 years?

It has stayed pretty consistent, I think.

 

[strummingram]

It has stayed pretty consistent, I think.

So, fighting with them is working. Stick with it.

 

[UNC71-00]

What we need to do with ISIS is let them have their own country and rule it the way they want. But they don't get any western technology, aid, materials, etc. None. Nothing.

And we build a wall (secure all borders) around the country and the only people who can leave are the elderly and children.

Let the able bodied people decide how they want to live. If they don't like ISIS, then they can get rid of them as they wish.

 

[UNC71-00]

So, fighting with them is working. Stick with it.

Well, we had not been fighting with them before 2001. Meddling in their affairs, perhaps, but not fighting.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

So, fighting with them is working. Stick with it.

We get you don't want to fight them. And I'm not really sure whether I agree with that or not to be honest. But what do you suggest we do instead? Or who do you think has the master plan to fix it without fighting? When they commit acts of terror do you just turn the other cheek? I'm just not sure how effective that is either.

 

[theJRG1]

Has the threat of Islamic terror gotten better or worse in the last 20 years?

That looks like a good topic for a poll. And I think you should start a thread just for that purpose. In part, because there are a number of errors you posit in post #12 that I'd like to gently correct without further drifting this thread.

I have a plan that works. All the way.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Solving it doesn't have to include fighting them. In fact, it won't include that. This whole thing has grown into what it is BECAUSE of the "fighting" that has taken place. Trying to beat them by being more destructive than them is not the way to go.

What do you propose? Asking them nicely to leave us alone? Ok, so let's try that. It's my opinion that asking them nicely isn't going to work. What then? Keep asking them nicely while they cut people's heads off?

 

[strummingram]

What do you propose? Asking them nicely to leave us alone?

Yeah... yeah, that's exactly what I was proposing.

 

[GACMAN]

I am actually OK with what Strum has posted here....which is really weird because that typically does not happen.......but I would like to discuss his thoughts further without hammering him! I think everyone hates the thought of war...just some of us think it is necessary to defend against Islam......Strum thinks we need to do something other than war....which should be good for all of us.....the BIG question...what can be done to deal with those muslim extremists that care nothing about you or I and simply want to convert us or kill us....I think that is a topic worthy of discussion!

 

[theJRG1]

I am actually OK with what Strum has posted here....which is really weird because that typically does not happen.......but I would like to discuss his thoughts further without hammering him!

I'm in the same boat. He says some things I'd agree with.

Strum thinks we need to do something other than war....which should be good for all of us

This is something I agree with.

what can be done to deal with those muslim extremists that care nothing about you or I and simply want to convert us or kill us....I think that is a topic worthy of discussion!

I agree wholeheartedly, and made the suggestion that the discussion get its own thread. His question of whether islamic terrorism has worsened in 20 years seems like a good poll question and jumping-off point for discussion. I've not started a poll, but I'll try...

 

[gteeitup]

trump is in at the right time....he has the uncanny ability to make stupid/uninformed people feel great about themselves...he's not reagan, yet it's creating a buzz similar...i can only imagine if he had a southern accent, wow.

fortunately or unfortunately for me, i like nobody on either side...so, once again i will be a free agent voter.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I thought they all performed well enough. Noone hurt themself. Thank god ron paul combed his hair. Seems to me security is the issue driving the voters. Thats prob why cruz is on the rise. He does come off as tough but reasonable to me at least. Rubio i cant figure out. Is he polished or just rehearsed? He looks so young would putin and nettinyahoo take him seriously? Smart move on trumps part to tone down the attacks. He was nearly likeable.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I have a plan that works. All the way.

Something tells me marcellus' plan for Zed In pulp fiction is your inspiration

 

[heelmanwilm]

As for ISIS I'm afraid the next pres is gonna be faced with the toughest decision since dropping the a bomb. ISIS will continue to attack and inspire attacks and sooner rather than later we're gonna reach the tipping point where we just wont care how many innocents die in or the long term ramifications of "bombing the shit outta them" and leveling most of syria. Which would be a huge mistake imho.

 

[randman1]

If we hadn't fought Japan and Hitler and done their bidding, they'd have left us alone to a certain degree as well.

The whole idea fighting with them is the problem is bat-@#$% crazy. The problem isn't that we've fought them which frankly isn't necessarily true for the past 20 years. The problem is how and whom we have fought.

We didn't fight Islamic terrorists when we took Saddam down. Nor during the first Gulf War. Nor when we backed the rebellion in Afghanistan in Russia. Nor have we really fight Islamic terrorists in Iran (whole regime), Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc,....

MOST OF THE TIME, we have been on the side of the radical Islamic terrorists. That's a fact whether one wants to admit it or not, an RIGHT NOW, the current administration who along with Hillary are ON THE OTHER FREAKING SIDE. They backed the Muslim Brotherhood. They fund Hamas. They took down Ghadafi and funded and armed what became ISIS as well as Al Qaeda affiliates. Hillary particularly enabled Boko Haram, perhaps a larger terror organization than ISIS.

The problem is not that we've been fighting them. The problem is all too often we have either directly armed and funded them or have fought and removed their enemies in the region like Saddam or Ghadafi, and have also aided and funded their allies like Pakistan's ISI who aided the Taliban.

IF we decided to just kill them all, speaking of the radical Islamists, we could.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I dont have a prob fighting them. I do have a prob carpet bombing raqqa which is evidently where they are.

 

[randman1]

I dont have a prob fighting them. I do have a prob carpet bombing raqqa which is evidently where they are.

I agree. We shouldn't do that. Fortunately I don't think Cruz is serious about actual carpet bombing though I do believe he would bomb them even if it meant civilian casualties. The term "carpet bomb" is thrown out a bit too casually.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I'm not a huge fan of carpet bombing, because it kills innocent people.

However, if it comes down to the US killing innocent Syrians/Iraqis/etc, or ISIS killing innocent Americans - I'll choose the former every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I'm not a huge fan of carpet bombing, because it kills innocent people.

However, if it comes down to the US killing innocent Syrians/Iraqis/etc, or ISIS killing innocent Americans - I'll choose the former every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And thats the decision i'm afraid the next pres will be facing. So the question is "who do you want making that call?"

 

[gunslingerdick]

However, if it comes down to the US killing innocent Syrians/Iraqis/etc, or ISIS killing innocent Americans - I'll choose the former every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Exactly. We have to choose. Strum and others can talk about settling differences by rock, paper scissors, arm wrestling or whatever else pie in the sky idea they might have. But the bottom line is that the enemy is not going to yield. Therefore, we have no other option but to destroy them.

In regards to the innocent lives that may become casualties, I guess I'll justify it like this - they'd probably rather die than to live the rest of their lives under radical Islamic rule. Certainly we try not to kill the innocent. But like Hark said, if some of them have to die for our people to live, then so be it. War is hell. But it beats the alternative.

 

[gunslingerdick]

So the question is "who do you want making that call?"

Whoever will make that call.

 

[strummingram]

Exactly. We have to choose. Strum and others can talk about settling differences by rock, paper scissors, arm wrestling or whatever else pie in the sky idea they might have. But the bottom line is that the enemy is not going to yield. Therefore, we have no other option but to destroy them.

In regards to the innocent lives that may become casualties, I guess I'll justify it like this - they'd probably rather die than to live the rest of their lives under radical Islamic rule. Certainly we try not to kill the innocent. But like Hark said, if some of them have to die for our people to live, then so be it. War is hell. But it beats the alternative.

Keep using the same methods that got us exactly where we are now. What could possibly go wrong?

"Therefore, we have no other option but to destroy them." Good luck. Nice to see your religion is working well, at least. Are you Muslim or Christian? Doesn't matter. They all use the same mantra.

 

[randman1]

Keep using the same methods that got us exactly where we are now. What could possibly go wrong?

"Therefore, we have no other option but to destroy them." Good luck. Nice to see your religion is working well, at least. Are you Muslim or Christian? Doesn't matter. They all use the same mantra.

What methods are you talking about? You keep saying we've been fighting radical Islam for 20 years or some such, and that's just not true. For much of that time and before, we've been helping them.

Obama and Hillary backed and continue to back the Muslim Brotherhood. They fund Hamas as did Bush actually. We took out the enemies of radical Islam when we toppled Saddam and Ghadafi. We fund Pakistan's ISI who enable the Taliban. Hillary helped Boko Haram. Obama and Hillary funded and armed ISIS.

What we need to do is quit siding with them, and for groups like ISIS, kill them.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Keep using the same methods that got us exactly where we are now. What could possibly go wrong?

Totally obliterate them? We've done that? Huh,...when was that?

"Therefore, we have no other option but to destroy them." Good luck. Nice to see your religion is working well, at least. Are you Muslim or Christian? Doesn't matter. They all use the same mantra.

I'm a self reporting Christian. Jesus hasn't weighed in on my faith yet. I'll have to wait to hear what he says when I'm gone from here. If he doesn't let me through the Pearly Gates because of my philosophy, then I guess I'm doomed to purgatory. That will suck but I'm going to roll the dice. I'm a gambler by nature.