GOP Debate #1

[hardhat]

Those are Bradley's goals, not Trump's. While I think most would be wonderful, I think Trump has only said he supports repealing Dodd/Frank. But I haven't paid too much attention to Trump, either.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ah thanks

Related maybe Trump will run independent

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/ted-cruz-redstate-gathering/index.html

 

[cwjerome]

No conspiracy theory is required to recognize that FNC and their financial supporters don't want Trump being nominated. The first freakin' question of the debate was meant to make him stand alone on the stage. Then they asked him about personal issues while letting people like Jeb claim he wasn't part of the DC establishment.

There are favorites, and FNC is all about making sure they get to the final table.

Most in FOX probably don't, just like most on the right probably don't want Trump being nominated. The guy is supposed to be running for the Republican ticket, so I say it's fair game to see where he stands... in fact, it's fairly essential.

You dwell on Bush saying he isn't part of the DC "establishment," which is a vague term used for rhetorical purposes. Bush may, I'm guessing, have a decent support within the wealthy donor class, but I fail to see any argument (from you or anyone else) that convinces me he's is some huge DC Establishment figure. In my view, the establishment has lukewarm support for him mostly due to his being somewhat electable (and not because they love his personality or policies). Regardless, you act as though his comments are some sort of crazy ass ultra important lie. If that's the most heinous statement Bush has uttered and he needs to be confronted with, then wow... using the "political outsider" rhetoric that most politicians dabble with rates pretty low in my book.

While not calling out anybody else on their stupid comments.
Why is that?

I actually thought they asked some pretty straight-up, tough questions to most all of them in that first hour, but Trump easily has a near monopoly on stupid comments... and that's saying something. What you're seeing is someone who is not even close presidential material get slammed, and rightly so. People like Walker and Cruz might have horrible policy ideas, but Trump is in another league when it comes to random stupid shit he needs to get called out on. I find it somewhat despicable that many on the left defend Trump, simply to promote their anti-FOX memes.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Most in FOX probably don't, just like most on the right probably don't want Trump being nominated. The guy is supposed to be running for the Republican ticket, so I say it's fair game to see where he stands... in fact, it's fairly essential.

You dwell on Bush saying he isn't part of the DC "establishment," which is a vague term used for rhetorical purposes. Bush may, I'm guessing, have a decent support within the wealthy donor class, but I fail to see any argument (from you or anyone else) that convinces me he's is some huge DC Establishment figure. In my view, the establishment has lukewarm support for him mostly due to his being somewhat electable (and not because they love his personality or policies). Regardless, you act as though his comments are some sort of crazy ass ultra important lie. If that's the most heinous statement Bush has uttered and he needs to be confronted with, then wow... using the "political outsider" rhetoric that most politicians dabble with rates pretty low in my book.



I actually thought they asked some pretty straight-up, tough questions to most all of them in that first hour, but Trump easily has a near monopoly on stupid comments... and that's saying something. What you're seeing is someone who is not even close presidential material get slammed, and rightly so. People like Walker and Cruz might have horrible policy ideas, but Trump is in another league when it comes to random stupid shit he needs to get called out on. I find it somewhat despicable that many on the left defend Trump, simply to promote their anti-FOX memes.

I REALLY need to look at the debate recording more closely. I say this because FOX's questions were tripping Trump over his gaffes and rude behaviors.

I was treated this evening to a TCM broadcast of a very old movie featuring Raymond Massey and the Lincoln-Douglas debate as the film's high-point. It is either abridged or complete, but it was considered a good dramatic presentation of the transcript of the actual debate.

I could wonder what "relevant issues" were missed then. I have some strong ideas about what relevant issues were missed the other night.

But because of the nature of the presentation and the rights to it, it is a discussion filtered through the FOX machine: their ideas of the primary issues and problems; their ideas about the candidates.

In comparing the two in contrast, today's debates -- or the one we're reviewing now -- don't nearly rise to that level of clarity or usefulness.

But FOX is advocacy journalism. If they don't say it outright, they're bald-faced and shameless in their practice. It is to be distinguished from a school of "objective journalism," which many like to call the "Lame-stream Media."

There are all sorts of media. So right away, I suspect FOX has their own agenda with the debate, even for a partisan primary.

And I'm afraid that any of you ought to look at the FOX debate through that sort of prism -- to see what prism they're using, or get a sense of it. It would of course detract from this debate's capacity for being informative, unless one attempts to analyze it that way. What you get out of it is "intelligence" as opposed to "information." And by that word, I don't mean "intrinsically smart." It offers more similarity to CIA's review of Pravda and Izvestia or a focus more current. Or recent hacks on government computer systems coming from highly-suspected sources. Or vice-versa and the contrary.

 

[Brainonska511]

01. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.

From what I understand, banks were already finding ways around the Glass-Steagall Act, making its protections pretty weak or nonexistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass–Steagall_Act

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am not sure why the GOP has issues with Trump.

He is an out of control buffoon who does whatever he wants, with no regards to what leadership has already into place,.. like how the GOP announced to Iran any deal made with the current admin (aka leadership) will get tossed out.

Trump does not oppose conservatives, he embodies them.

 

[flexy]

Trump is the only one speaking out against political correctness. Clear winner.

So I guess rumbling drunks who toss around insults and say whatever on their mind make good candidates as well?

I don't like political correctness either, but this doesn't mean that the exact opposite is good, let alone qualifies someone as a good politician.

If I call you the worst insults here on chat because I don't agree with you, call you a [xxxx] and a [xxxx] and whatever.....and then get all angry and rage about you elsewhere... did I then also win the argument?

 

[flexy]

Trump is also 1000x more narcissistic than Bush which I'm not so sure is a good thing.

It's not a good thing if his EGO has preference before anything.

A politician should care about the country, people he is intending to lead. A LITTLE narcissism can be tolerated, but his is so blown out-of-proportion I don't think he even realizes that the job he wants is NOT about him, it's not "a hobby for a businessman who needs another challenge". (Like some rich dude who rides a balloon around the world because it's a PERSONAL challenge/experience for them).

But this is not a personal challenge. It's about being the president of the US.
And the US is not "Donald Trump" - the US is 300 Million people.

 

[HomerJS]

The more I see of the idiot and biased members of the media and the pompous Washington establishment trying to keep Trump out of the race, the more I want him to stay in and fight. Would he make a great or even a decent President? All I know is, I haven't seen one President who is for me since Ronald Reagan. At this point, I have no confidence I'll ever again see a President who will call me a constituent.

Not picking a fight with you but I haven't seen a President who is more against me since Ronald Reagan.

I use his campaign rhetoric and that speech in Philadelphia Mississippi as my basis.

 

[First]

Trump has still done well. I'm generalizing but had he invested his money over that time today he'd have about 2 billion, he currently has around 4 Billion maybe a lot more maybe a little less. Regardless he has done well with his money.

Hardly. $100M plopped into an a passive index fund and left alone for 40 years, yielding 7%, would leave you with just under $1.5B now. He is estimated to be worth $3B-$4B by Bloomberg and Forbes. How is this impressive? Basically he has a pulse and went to the best schools cause of daddy, so because he had a pulse and decided to create some wealth for himself we're supposed to be impressed because he's a billionaire when we all know without his pops he'd clearly never reach that mountain?

Look, he's someone who was dumb enough to have put his personal assets on the line for various real estate deals by the early 90's, and the only reason he didn't file for personal bankruptcy at that point in his life was literally because a coterie of bankers decided to let it happen that way. This is a businessman with a successful temperament? He's pretty average when you look at the massive opportunity costs of his ego.

 

[LegendKiller]

Hardly. $100M plopped into an a passive index fund and left alone for 40 years, yielding 7%, would leave you with just under $1.5B now. He is estimated to be worth $3B-$4B by Bloomberg and Forbes. How is this impressive? Basically he has a pulse and went to the best schools cause of daddy, so because he had a pulse and decided to create some wealth for himself we're supposed to be impressed because he's a billionaire when we all know without his pops he'd clearly never reach that mountain?

Look, he's someone who was dumb enough to have put his personal assets on the line for various real estate deals by the early 90's, and the only reason he didn't file for personal bankruptcy at that point in his life was literally because a coterie of bankers decided to let it happen that way. This is a businessman with a successful temperament? He's pretty average when you look at the massive opportunity costs of his ego.

Compared to? Show me a field that is any better. Billery? The we're poor till after he started getting 500k a speech. Bernie? Jeb? Walker? Rubio?

Every one of them less than average.

So what about trumps 1990s issues. That was 25 years ago. He has built quite a brand, far more than you'll ever achieve.

Why don't you address the fact that he is right about illegal immigration, or china, or the socialists? Nope, just rip on his wealth while other wealthy people buy elections.

 

[Jhhnn]

Compared to? Show me a field that is any better. Billery? The we're poor till after he started getting 500k a speech. Bernie? Jeb? Walker? Rubio?

Every one of them less than average.

So what about trumps 1990s issues. That was 25 years ago. He has built quite a brand, far more than you'll ever achieve.

Why don't you address the fact that he is right about illegal immigration, or china, or the socialists? Nope, just rip on his wealth while other wealthy people buy elections.

Any cheap shot you can conjure up, huh?

Trump isn't right about any of it. His bullshit just brings your blood up & you love it. You howl at the moon in harmony.

Oh, and socialists, of course.

 

[UberNeuman]

 

[bradley]

Have any of you ever heard the term Arkancide?

http://www.arkancide.com/ lool?

Here's the treatise on the Bushes.

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064

No more US dynasties. M'kay? Enjoy the left-right thingy though.

 

[TheGardener]

Not picking a fight with you but I haven't seen a President who is more against me since Ronald Reagan.

I use his campaign rhetoric and that speech in Philadelphia Mississippi as my basis.

Nice to meet you.

 

[MongGrel]

It's not a good thing if his EGO has preference before anything.

A politician should care about the country, people he is intending to lead. A LITTLE narcissism can be tolerated, but his is so blown out-of-proportion I don't think he even realizes that the job he wants is NOT about him, it's not "a hobby for a businessman who needs another challenge". (Like some rich dude who rides a balloon around the world because it's a PERSONAL challenge/experience for them).

But this is not a personal challenge. It's about being the president of the US.
And the US is not "Donald Trump" - the US is 300 Million people.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

Are you saying we need someone that empathizes with us and not with himself?

 

[MongGrel]

Compared to? Show me a field that is any better. Billery? The we're poor till after he started getting 500k a speech. Bernie? Jeb? Walker? Rubio?

Every one of them less than average.

So what about trumps 1990s issues. That was 25 years ago. He has built quite a brand, far more than you'll ever achieve.

Why don't you address the fact that he is right about illegal immigration, or china, or the socialists? Nope, just rip on his wealth while other wealthy people buy elections.

I am Batman...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Are you saying we need someone that empathizes with us and not with himself?

I'd settle for a candidate who's capable of empathy outside of Sanders.

 

[First]

Compared to? Show me a field that is any better. Billery? The we're poor till after he started getting 500k a speech. Bernie? Jeb? Walker? Rubio?

Every one of them less than average.

Less than average at what? I'm not looking for someone who cut their teeth entirely as a businessperson, that's not my criteria (or most voter's, I think) it's just one of many (important) factors. Far more important, though, is whether they actually support public policies that have proven successful over time, and whether they learn from any prior mistakes. Tough to gauge things like that with any politician, but certainly the overwhelming policy inertia on HRC's side looks infinitely more credible than Trump. Trump, a man who has taken practically every position on every important issue in his lifetime (taxes, healthcare, etc.) and who in his 40's, 50's and 60's was so sure of himself politically that he was registered as a Dem, Repub, independent and practically everything else (Reform Party, etc.). Doesn't sound like a man who really thinks deeply about politics one way or the other.

So what about trumps 1990s issues. That was 25 years ago. He has built quite a brand, far more than you'll ever achieve.

25 years ago, when he was in his mid-40's? Come on. I'd cut him some slack if he were fresh out of college, but he was plenty old enough to understand. Crazy to put your personal fortune at risk, but that's exactly what he did. Why? Ego. Impulsiveness. Impatience. All well documented.

Why don't you address the fact that he is right about illegal immigration, or china, or the socialists? Nope, just rip on his wealth while other wealthy people buy elections.

Ha, because he's badly, badly wrong about all those things. Trump seems so unhinged and far gone from reality that he probably hasn't thought to himself that even *if* Mexico and China were "killing us" in trade, it can't possibly matter that much because trade with those two countries don't impact a significant slice of GDP/jobs! It's a false argument from the get go!

And immigration, even illegal immigration, is so clearly a net positive economically and morally that the argument isn't worth addressing. Just more unhinged diatribe from a sheltered, spoiled rich kid who still can't figure out if Barack Obama was born in Kenya or not. That lack of critical thinking skills doesn't exactly scream good judgment.

 

[LegendKiller]

Any cheap shot you can conjure up, huh?

Trump isn't right about any of it. His bullshit just brings your blood up & you love it. You howl at the moon in harmony.

Oh, and socialists, of course.

Yes, because we need more poorly educated low skilled laborers to put our poorly educated low skilled laborers out of work.

And black people think the left is for them. Lol.

 

[LegendKiller]

Less than average at what? I'm not looking for someone who cut their teeth entirely as a businessperson, that's not my criteria (or most voter's, I think) it's just one of many (important) factors. Far more important, though, is whether they actually support public policies that have proven successful over time, and whether they learn from any prior mistakes. Tough to gauge things like that with any politician, but certainly the overwhelming policy inertia on HRC's side looks infinitely more credible than Trump. Trump, a man who has taken practically every position on every important issue in his lifetime (taxes, healthcare, etc.) and who in his 40's, 50's and 60's was so sure of himself politically that he was registered as a Dem, Repub, independent and practically everything else (Reform Party, etc.). Doesn't sound like a man who really thinks deeply about politics one way or the other.

The fact that you think billery has credibility is laughable. That automatically disqualifies you for any modicum of respect. She has no credibility.

25 years ago, when he was in his mid-40's? Come on. I'd cut him some slack if he were fresh out of college, but he was plenty old enough to understand. Crazy to put your personal fortune at risk, but that's exactly what he did. Why? Ego. Impulsiveness. Impatience. All well documented.

Yes, because no good businessmen have failed in any business. Shit, might as well bypass warren buffet since Berkshire was a failed venture and a huge waste of money.

Ha, because he's badly, badly wrong about all those things. Trump seems so unhinged and far gone from reality that he probably hasn't thought to himself that even *if* Mexico and China were "killing us" in trade, it can't possibly matter that much because trade with those two countries don't impact a significant slice of GDP/jobs! It's a false argument from the get go.

And immigration, even illegal immigration, is so clearly a net positive economically and morally that the argument isn't worth addressing.

Yes, because China is suppressing their currency for no reason. They are competitive by pennies and those are the result of currency manipulation.

The fact that tou are arguing that is pathetic. Everybody who hasn't bought into the Koch brothers and globalist bullshit knows this.

Moral obligation? We only have a moral obligation to those who were born in this country. I look out for Americans, fuck everybody else.

 

[First]

Yes, because we need more poorly educated low skilled laborers to put our poorly educated low skilled laborers out of work.

And black people think the left is for them. Lol.

Yeah except you would also have to be for reduced levels of legal immigrants too, because if the problem with illegal immigration is that their labor is too cheap and competes with low-wage blacks, and if the argument is to reduce illegal immigrants to 0, then clearly doesn't that apply to the many low-skilled legal immigrants coming to the country every year?

 

[First]

The fact that you think billery has credibility is laughable. That automatically disqualifies you for any modicum of respect. She has no credibility.

She supports non-insane policies. Sorry, you don't deserve respect if you reflexively bash a person's positions without knowing them. There's infinitely more support for HRC by virtually every measure imaginable for a reason.

Yes, because no good businessmen have failed in any business. Shit, might as well bypass warren buffet since Berkshire was a failed venture and a huge waste of money.

Please. Buffett kept merely the Berkshire name, which had nothing to do with what Buffett eventually turned BH into, but nothing else about the dead business remained, so I fail to see your point. Buffett never did anything remotely as stupid as Trump ending up doing, risking personal assets. Buffett diversified, patiently found value in the common stock of companies by looking at their books, their long term value, i.e. investing, not speculating. Trump doesn't belong in the same sentence.

Yes, because China is suppressing their currency for no reason. They are competitive by pennies and those are the result of currency manipulation.

Currency manipulation by China is bad (but getting better). I fail to see a governing mandate based on currency manipulation by China. That's a thin policy platform to say the least.

Moral obligation? We only have a moral obligation to those who were born in this country. I look out for Americans, fuck everybody else.

lol. "Illegals!" are Americans, ya turd. Nearly half used to be legal immigrants, and most have been here for decades and already have children.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'd settle for a candidate who's capable of empathy outside of Sanders.

Like Kasich?