GOP Debate #1

[First]

Repubs can forget about 2016. What a trainwreck.

 

[Bitek]

Bloomberg -"Fox News Couldn't Kill Trump’s Momentum"
It appears they came across as rather obvious.

As for Trump, I'd rather hear him pretend to care about policy and for others to speak for or against policy. Not to hear about Trump as Fox made him much of the focus.

The policy of the Republican party needs much correcting and much focus.
Last night did nothing to achieve that.

Looked like an obvious hit job from the opening bell to me. I'll cheer for him just to watch him break the establishment.

It's a billionaire v billionaire (Murdoch) fight, and one of them is spilling all the secrets.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

"Successful politicians don't need to be factual, not even remotely."

I think I was trying to make this point from a different angle.

I'm not going to trust my own view on this beyond accepting it tentatively.

I had developed this patter about the two benefits of democratic participation -- an electorate with a franchise.

First, the process legitimizes temporary authority.

Second, it my offer that better decisions are made at a national (state etc.) level starting with 51% better -- but there's really no quantitative application of this number. If you were Omniscient and knew all, it might bet the weighted social costs (private, public, tangible and intangible) and similarly enumerated benefits.

If there are more decision-makers, one might think a better chance of getting it right. But the voters have keenest sense of immediate short-term self-interest, and a widely variable sense of a public interest. Since I mentioned short-term, there's the issue of a "future vision" -- where you want the country to go, and where you want civilization to go, and where you want the world to go.

Then there's different perceptions of risk, when people raise or lower their fears based on the possibility something bad will happen in the future, and the probability that the possibility will realize. This sense of risk is going to affect consent to the leader for spending more to mitigate risk in this way or that -- not solely in the matter of national defense.

All sorts of distortions and variations are again in a sieve of possibilities for choosing one or even several options that are "better." But individually, and considering intergenerational results, nobody has an accurate idea of what "better" exactly means.

Since everyone tends to be a short-run maximizer to some extent, everyone has a more pressing immediate sense of a short future in which various basic or extended needs are met, it would suggest that better or worse decision-makers can win an election, and there's no guarantee that they won't make a mistake, nor is there a guarantee that otherwise forward and sound policies won't be thwarted.

And you're pretty much left with incremental change and legitimized authority with a time-limit.

But I want to know who's more inclined to influence my government in a smoke-filled room in this chaos masqueraded as order. Who's got all the money? Who's writing the biggest checks? Who's featured as an equal celebrity at fundraisers? Who sits on the boards of some 9 corporations, owns their own oil-company, moonlights as a regional Federal Reserve director and chairman?

I have another theory that those closest to the money (a simplistic catch-all, but useful) have both a greater opportunity to misappropriate it and a greater temptation to do so. That's not much of a theory, since all the efforts in the accounting field attempt to discourage such behaviors through internal controls. But the legal boundaries of property and action may not coincide with the actual impacts and costs felt by real people much further removed from the counting house.

The corollary might be that some few people have wealth beyond their ability to spend it on consumption, durable goods, country estates, Lamborghinis or football teams. Of course people invest in new companies, new enterprises. But they may have a vision for the world that they think is sustainable and justifiable. This is the Master of the Universe phenomenon.

So going back to the second happenstance benefit of democracy, do you really want a few people you didn't elect to have these singular impacts on public policy and public decision-makers?

 

[werepossum]

Kudos to Trump for one thing - showing me that a candidate willing to actually point with his finger rather than his non-judgemental, politically correct thumb is not a sufficient condition to earn my vote. I still admire it though.

 

[MongGrel]

LMAO

I was really trying to think up something wittier to write on that one.

LMAO really does cover it better than anything I guess.

 

[Subyman]

Kudos to Trump for one thing - showing me that a candidate willing to actually point with his finger rather than his non-judgemental, politically correct thumb is not a sufficient condition to earn my vote. I still admire it though.

I actually saw a lot of finger pointing during the debate from multiple candidates. It was a noticeable change.

 

[cKGunslinger]

What's up with Huck's answer to the question,

"Your anti same-sex marriage and vehement pro-life stances seem to make you un-electable - how will you address this is a general election?"

"I'm going to double-down on all my stances, claim that DNA-science now proves life begins at conception, and give all fetuses constitutional rights!"

Weird..

 

[sportage]

I still believe it was crystal clear Trump was indeed being setup on Fox.
And on the dark side of politics, republican forces from the most high made that call to Fox to rig the debate and kill off this wild card outsider named Donald Trump.

Doesn't matter if you do or don't like Donald, that's not the point.
The point is, the dirty side of republican politics pulled Fox's string and Fox responded.
This clearly proves Fox is just an extension of the republican party and the GOP controls everything Fox says and does.
And that includes killing off the outsider, the threat, which they obviously felt Donald was.

What the GOP demands and Fox thus delivers is for any republican candidate to fit into a tight mold, each one parroting the GOP talking points, and having absolutely no individual personality trait what so ever.
If any republican fails to fit into that mold, the GOP and Fox News will eliminate that perceived threat without batting an eye.
Should the GOP successfully eliminate Donald Trump, just wait and see what happens next...
Next on hit their list will be John Kasich.
Politics is a dirty game, controlled by the wealthy few, and all about the money.
"Donald would never fit the mold. And he must be killed."
Reince Priebus.

 

[UberNeuman]

"When one gazes into the sewer, sometimes the sewer gazes back."

 

[dank69]

LMAO

I was really trying to think up something wittier to write on that one.

LMAO really does cover it better than anything I guess.

How about "pull my finger"?

 

[Muse]

This is really the first time I've seen any of these guys speak and I just have to say out of all of them, Walker oozes scumbag the most.

I could have made the exact same statements.

 

[Muse]

If you ever want to see what sheer contempt Republican elites hold their constituents in, this was a pretty great example.

I have not laughed this much at a political event in a long time.

What made me laugh were the positions on abortion. Every last one of them came out against choice. It must be understood at this point that no candidate who doesn't take that stance has a chance at the nomination. That may be expedient in getting on the final ballot but I believe that polls say it's a liability in terms of getting votes.

 

[fskimospy]

Can I just mention how funny it is that the guy leading Republican polls is someone who has endorsed single payer health care while the same people think a plan considerably to the right of that is fascist tyranny?

If you ever needed a bigger sign that this is culture war instead of policy war that's it.

The base just wants someone who will attack their enemies. Policy is secondary.

 

[Muse]

I missed it, is there a youtube clip of the entire thing?

I got distracted and didn't program my recording. I did watch the youtube of it this AM, they snipped out the commercials, which saved me the trouble of hitting some buttons.

 

[trenchfoot]

So the wifey just told me that E! News named moderator Megyn Kelly the winner of the debate.

Sounds about right.

 

[Muse]

I missed this debate but I have one question:
Is this worth watching a repeat of?

If it was worth watching it's worth watching the video. I did that this AM. It was better than I figured in terms of not just being a kick Obama and Hillary around affair.

That's why we got Hillary. Once she gets into office who do you think is going to be running the show? Bill!

Well, at the very least he will be a (or the) major advisor, can you say "in bed together?"

I saw a bunch of blind men swinging clubs to try and hit an imaginary piñata.

Dude, you really have to stop dropping acid at dinner time.

Donald Trump has the mentality of a petulant child. Do we really want a President who acts like that.

Just look at his twitter feed from after the debate. I question the IQ levels of anyone who supports him.

Other than that. All the candidates have zero clue on things like taxes/spending. They say that want to do xyz but xyz all conflict with each other. Its meaningless hotair. They all want to lower taxes/balance budget but yet all seemingly want to grow the military and start wars. Our deficit spending and a lot of the recent national debt(Bush and early Obama) is related to cutting taxes, increasing spending on the military and going to war.

Really good points, all.

I think this is one of the only times I've ever agreed with you.

Bill Clinton as the 1st First Husband would be interesting.

Cheney was basically running many things when Dubya was in office.

:sneaky:

I think that's because Dubya wasn't all that much into being the president. I heard that the first thing he looked at when he opened the morning papers was the sports section.

 

[trenchfoot]

Can I just mention how funny it is that the guy leading Republican polls is someone who has endorsed single payer health care while the same people think a plan considerably to the right of that is fascist tyranny?

If you ever needed a bigger sign that this is culture war instead of policy war that's it.

The base just wants someone who will attack their enemies. Policy is secondary.

I was pondering on why the Repub base behaves the way it does. That's about the best explanation I've heard yet.:thumbsup:

 

[Blackjack200]

Kudos to Trump for one thing - showing me that a candidate willing to actually point with his finger rather than his non-judgemental, politically correct thumb is not a sufficient condition to earn my vote. I still admire it though.

Did Clinton start that? I always hated the thumb point.

Looked like an obvious hit job from the opening bell to me. I'll cheer for him just to watch him break the establishment.

It's a billionaire v billionaire (Murdoch) fight, and one of them is spilling all the secrets.

This is not so much a response to you as a response generically to this sentiment I've seen all over the place.

It seems to me like Fox did confront Trump with pretty aggressive questions. But didn't they do the same with the rest of the field? Maybe Trump got the most, but he's also the leading candidate at this point. A little extra scrutiny would seem legitimate, no?

Having a collaborative mindset is hardly one of the "worst things you can do." No person has a panopticon of the world. They need to put people that align with their philosophy in the right positions and then listen to them. I never said we need someone that shrivels under the pressure of Washington, so I don't know where you are getting that angle from. In my mind the worst person you can have in the white house is a person that believes everything they think is absolutely true and right, which is why Trump is a terrible candidate. Your last line sounds a heck of a lot like a collaborative person...

Trump is a terrible candidate because he has no discernable record of achievement. He was heir to an empire, and between all the bankruptcies and the performance of the NY Real Estate market in general, I don't see how you can ever really say what kind of effectiveness he has as an executive.

You don't need a "panopticon" to understand the insidious danger of state surveillance, or perceive the race problem, or understand that ISIS does not represent an existential threat to this country.

The candidate needs to have a grounded and principled view of the world, and needs to resist inertial forces in Washington as much as possible. The idea that a good candidate is someone who 'puts the right people in the right places and then listens to them' scares the shit out of me. That's what W did, and it's how Obama caused a lot of problems for himself.

 

[Muse]

Fox (Murdoch and the RNC) may have set up a hatchet job on Trump, but that guy is no shrinking violet. He's tough and loves a fight and he's picked the toughest one of all, the presidency. He's not going to just bow out. The public likes him because he's stirring things up and he's fully capable of continuing to do that. If they don't nominate him, particularly if it looks like they torpedoed him, he'll run as an independent and as someone said last night, that alone will do in any chance the Republicans have for the White House.

 

[MongGrel]

So the wifey just told me that E! News named moderator Megyn Kelly the winner of the debate.

Sounds about right.

I would have almost given her the win just because she is hot, but it seems she is very intelligent on top of that from what I saw

Must be my sexist side showing a bit, my wife was chiding me about it over some of my HR comments earlier I guess.

 

[Sunburn74]

"When one gazes into the sewer, sometimes the sewer gazes back."

This is really hilarious

Anyway the whole thing was a farce. Repubs have no chance in this race. No chance at all. All their candidates are basically the same guy with the exception of trump who is basically a 6 year old.

 

[brycejones]

Fox (Murdoch and the RNC) may have set up a hatchet job on Trump, but that guy is no shrinking violet. He's tough and loves a fight and he's picked the toughest one of all, the presidency. He's not going to just bow out. The public likes him because he's stirring things up and he's fully capable of continuing to do that. If they don't nominate him, particularly if it looks like they torpedoed him, he'll run as an independent and as someone said last night, that alone will do in any chance the Republicans have for the White House.

He left a lot of wiggle room in his response to that question. He could bail at anytime and say it is because he really respects who is selected or is left.

 

[werepossum]

"When one gazes into the sewer, sometimes the sewer gazes back."

OMG That is hilarious!

Did Clinton start that? I always hated the thumb point.

This is not so much a response to you as a response generically to this sentiment I've seen all over the place.

It seems to me like Fox did confront Trump with pretty aggressive questions. But didn't they do the same with the rest of the field? Maybe Trump got the most, but he's also the leading candidate at this point. A little extra scrutiny would seem legitimate, no?

Trump is a terrible candidate because he has no discernable record of achievement. He was heir to an empire, and between all the bankruptcies and the performance of the NY Real Estate market in general, I don't see how you can ever really say what kind of effectiveness he has as an executive.

You don't need a "panopticon" to understand the insidious danger of state surveillance, or perceive the race problem, or understand that ISIS does not represent an existential threat to this country.

The candidate needs to have a grounded and principled view of the world, and needs to resist inertial forces in Washington as much as possible. The idea that a good candidate is someone who 'puts the right people in the right places and then listens to them' scares the shit out of me. That's what W did, and it's how Obama caused a lot of problems for himself.

I don't know if Clinton started it, but it's ubiquitous so I don't suppose it really matters.

I don't think it's fair to say Trump has no record of achievement. He has greatly increased his inherited fortune. I do think it's fair to examine the fortunes of those who have invested with him. I honestly don't know if on balance they have faired fair or foul, but it seems like with every bankruptcy Trump comes through shining whilst his investors take the hit. I don't know if that perception is truth or spin, but it's certainly something to consider before inviting him to take over anything, let alone the country.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't think it's fair to say Trump has no record of achievement. He has greatly increased his inherited fortune. I do think it's fair to examine the fortunes of those who have invested with him. I honestly don't know if on balance they have faired fair or foul, but it seems like with every bankruptcy Trump comes through shining whilst his investors take the hit. I don't know if that perception is truth or spin, but it's certainly something to consider before inviting him to take over anything, let alone the country.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't really tell how much of it is Trump's achievement and how much was his starting point and the New York real estate market. With a real business tycoon, it's usually pretty easy to point to the specific brilliant things that they did. Think Jobs and Gates, Jack Welsh... what brilliant thing did Trump do?

 

[Vic]

So if I recall Sun Tzu correctly, and I saw that my enemy was going to make a mistake, why would I tell him?