The Republican debate with moderator Donald Trump

[xBiffx]

Craig234 appears to have some serious maturity issues...he loves to call other people idiots but hates to be called one. The projection is strong with this one.

You have to hand it to him though. He does exercise what little power he is given in these forums by ignoring those that he deems idiots.

Craig,
Power to ya bro. You da man.

For Christmas, I asked Santa for an ignore. All I got was awesome silence.

 

[Blackjack200]

all the dim hacks want liberal MSM hosts as moderators of the GOP debates.

I guess it's only politically correct to have a Republican debate when it's hosted and approved by the opposition party and hostile media.

Yeah, that's why half the Republican field is refusing to go, right? Maybe if you weren't such spoon-fed idealogues you could consider that maybe it's possible to have a conservative moderator that's not an idiot like Trump. George Will has been mentioned, David Brooks would have been another fine choice. There are many others.

 

[MovingTarget]

all the dim hacks want liberal MSM hosts as moderators of the GOP debates.

Waah! Librul media, waah!

C'mon. There are plenty of conservatives that nobody would take issue with hosting a debate. We, as citizens, deserve better as we try to make our decision on who could potentially be our next president. Having Trump moderate a debate of any political party is just...a mockery of that process and an insult to citizens' intelligence.

 

[monovillage]

Yeah, that's why half the Republican field is refusing to go, right? Maybe if you weren't such spoon-fed idealogues you could consider that maybe it's possible to have a conservative moderator that's not an idiot like Trump. George Will has been mentioned, David Brooks would have been another fine choice. There are many others.

I'd be happy to see all of them, in fact i'd like to see weekly debates with all the politicians running for president. Just because Trump is a media slut and an idiot shouldn't keep the other candidates from attending. Why would they not attend? Is he going to try to score points on them like the regular media do in most of these debates? Whoopee-do, if they're afraid to get into debates about what their policies will be if they win office, they shouldn't be running.

 

[hal2kilo]

Romney was smart to pull out of the reality show.

Glad to see him get some stones and not participate in the Trump Birther Circus.

 

[thraashman]

Waah! Librul media, waah!

C'mon. There are plenty of conservatives that nobody would take issue with hosting a debate. We, as citizens, deserve better as we try to make our decision on who could potentially be our next president. Having Trump moderate a debate of any political party is just...a mockery of that process and an insult to citizens' intelligence.

It'd be like if they hired Stephen Colbert to moderate a debate. Sure, it'd probably be funny, but no one would take it seriously. It'd be a joke from the setup. And at least in Colbert's case he's intentionally being something to laugh at. Trump will make the debate a laughing stock but unintentionally. I think Sean Hannity is a giant asshole for example, but if he moderated a debate I don't think I'd consider it so laughably stupid.

 

[Thump553]

Glad to see him get some stones and not participate in the Trump Birther Circus.

Actually Romney showed his absence of backbone-yet again. He made up some BS scheduling conflict that unfortunately kept him from attending the debate and called up Trump to apologize in advance. This was after George Will, Karl Rove and many other notable GOP leaders raised bloody hell about this "debate."

 

[cybrsage]

Glad to see him get some stones and not participate in the Trump Birther Circus.

You do have to admit, until Trump made it his battle cry, Obama refused to show anything concrete.


Not that a birth certificate is needed to prove natural born citizenship.

 

[thraashman]

You do have to admit, until Trump made it his battle cry, Obama refused to show anything concrete.


Not that a birth certificate is needed to prove natural born citizenship.

Well, the President of the United State one Mr. Barack Hussein Obama had already shown a fully legal and official birth certificate as supplied to him by the state of Hawaii at his request. The full form birth certificate he eventually showed required him to make a special request for Hawaii to ignore their own state laws. He didn't show it because Trump was making any valid arguments or good discussion. What Trump was doing was distracting people from the problems caused by Republicans that they refuse to fix. Obama needed to shut him up and get the focus back on track, which is hard enough to do with the most obstructionist party in the history of this nation controlling the house and enough in the Senate to filibuster.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, the President of the United State one Mr. Barack Hussein Obama had already shown a fully legal and official birth certificate as supplied to him by the state of Hawaii at his request. The full form birth certificate he eventually showed required him to make a special request for Hawaii to ignore their own state laws. He didn't show it because Trump was making any valid arguments or good discussion. What Trump was doing was distracting people from the problems caused by Republicans that they refuse to fix. Obama needed to shut him up and get the focus back on track, ...rant portion removed....

This appears to be a lot of words to say "Yes, I agree it was Trump for forced Obama to finally show the long form certificate."

 

[nobodyknows]

Trump hosting a debate? More like a debacle IMO. You can't make this shit up, but I suppose it's all one can expect from the hypocrites that support Gingrich.

 

[nobodyknows]

This appears to be a lot of words to say "Yes, I agree it was Trump for forced Obama to finally show the long form certificate."

LOL, what a waste of time and effort, Obama was already President.

 

[cybrsage]

LOL, what a waste of time and effort, Obama was already President.

I agree...also, you do not have to actually be born on US Soil in order to be a natural born citizen. Obama could have been born in the pleasure palaces of Kim Jung Il and would still be a natural born citizen provided he met the requirements. Having a mother who was a citizen who also met the residency requirements is all he needs...and he had that.

Still, it showed volumes about what Obama meant when he said "transparency". The rest of us call that "opaque".

 

[xBiffx]

I agree...also, you do not have to actually be born on US Soil in order to be a natural born citizen. Obama could have been born in the pleasure palaces of Kim Jung Il and would still be a natural born citizen provided he met the requirements. Having a mother who was a citizen who also met the residency requirements is all he needs...and he had that.

Still, it showed volumes about what Obama meant when he said "transparency". The rest of us call that "opaque".

Wrong, if Obama was born outiside the U.S., both parents would have been required to be citizens for him to be an NBC given the age of his mother at the time. Sorry to burst that bubble.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I see this "debate" as a combination of things:

First, and most important to Mr. Trump, this is an opportunity for publicity for him personally. His actions for decades have made it clear that the most important person in the world of Donald Trump is Donald Trump, with everyone else jockeying for a distant second place.

Second, it is very likely he views this "debate" as a chance to incite Tea Party loyalists and others who (mistakenly, in my view) think he is suitable as a Presidential candidate to see him talk about issues of Presidential importance, and, potentially, ask him to throw his hat in the ring, likely as a third candidate. He would do so not because he wants to be President but because (circling back to #1), it would be a further, prolonged opportunity for publicity.

Third, in light of the considerations mentioned in #1 and #2, this is an opportunity to attempt to make the GOP candidates look foolish, the hopes that this will make him look better as a potential candidate himself. He will do this by asking slanted, emotionally-charged questions (e.g., "What are we going to do about those Chinese bastards manipulating their currency?") that will get the audience spooled up and make the candidates look milquetoast, since they can't use the same kind of outrageous tone that the Donald will employ.

Fourth, it gives him an opportunity to declare a winner, so that, if his pick wins the nomination, he can take credit for it (which brings us back to #1).

Donald Trump is, in my view, a distasteful man who will not provide a forum for intelligent debate. (This is the same man who was calling the Chinese "motherfuckers" during a political fundraiser during his brief tenure as a candidate for President.) He will very likely stage a "debate" which reflects poorly on everyone involved, including him. My own view is that participating in the debate is a mistake for anyone who is serious about running for President.

 

[cybrsage]

Wrong, if Obama was born outiside the U.S., both parents would have be required to be citizens for him to be an NBC given the age of his mother at the time. Sorry to burst that bubble.

No.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

Sec. 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9757.html

 

[soulcougher73]

I think all debates should be hosted by the opposition. That way actual meaningful questions and critisizems are directed at them. Instead of spoonfed questions to make themselves look better. Goes both ways obviously.

 

[xBiffx]

No.
/snip

Sorry, still wrong.

The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).

Plus, depending on what narrative you subscribe to Obama's mother was married so the Out-of-Wedlock scenario doesn't apply.

 

[Fern]

I think it perfectly acceptable, and potentially a good thing, to have debates other than the typical CNN type.

Different formats can also be a good idea. I recently saw bit of one where the candidates faced a panel of State Attorneys General by themselves. Each had about 15 minutes of Q&A with the panel.

Criticizing Trump's debate before it even happens just shows your bias. How about we wait to actually see it before we judge it?

Fern

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think it perfectly acceptable, and potentially a good thing, to have debates other than the typical CNN type.

Different formats can also be a good idea. I recently saw bit of one where the candidates faced a panel of State Attorneys General by themselves. Each had about 15 minutes of Q&A with the panel.

Criticizing Trump's debate before it even happens just shows your bias. How about we wait to actually see it before we judge it?

Fern

I certainly admit to an anti-Trump bias when it comes to serious political discussion. I would be similarly skeptical of a "debate" hosted by, say, Paris Hilton, Zach Galifianakis, or Soulja Boy, for essentially the same reasons.

 

[xBiffx]

I certainly admit to an anti-Trump bias when it comes to serious political discussion. I would be similarly skeptical of a "debate" hosted by, say, Paris Hilton, Zach Galifianakis, or Soulja Boy, for essentially the same reasons.

Agreed, but would you criticize the participants of said debate before it even happened? There is reason to criticize Trump and perhaps the debate itself but to start mocking Republicans goes a bit too far with the bias.

If Alec Baldwin put on a democratic debate I highly doubt people would start finger pointing at democrats. Baldwin would sure get shit for it and rightfully so but how does this reflect at all on the would be participants?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Agreed, but would you criticize the participants of said debate before it even happened? There is reason to criticize Trump and perhaps the debate itself but to start mocking Republicans goes a bit too far with the bias.

If Alec Baldwin put on a democratic debate I highly doubt people would start finger pointing at democrats. Baldwin would sure get shit for it and rightfully so but how does this reflect at all on the would be participants?

I don't think it reflects negatively on people choosing to participate in this debate (though I do think the way Romney weaseled out of it without saying he didn't want to participate makes him look bad). I do, however, think it's a bad decision for candidates to appear at the Trump debate, simply because Trump is essentially a carnival barker and it's likely that the participants will look worse, not better, as a result of what ensues.

 

[Fern]

I certainly admit to an anti-Trump bias when it comes to serious political discussion. I would be similarly skeptical of a "debate" hosted by, say, Paris Hilton, Zach Galifianakis, or Soulja Boy, for essentially the same reasons.

Then I suggest you re-visit your bias, or more specifically how it may cloud your judgement. Trump has raised some very valid and serious issues, namely our foreign trade agreements. Even Democrats have voiced concern about how they are unfair to the USA.

Likewise with China's actions. Even this current administration has officially voiced opposition to China's policies.

For a guy with such hideous hair he has raised some very valid issues others have avoided.

You don't have to like or approve of a person to listen to the issues raised by them. And those issues should be judged on their merits, not those of the individual raising them. There's a lot to criticize Trump about, but he does bring something to the table.

Whether his debate is another self promo event or something with 'meat' remains to be seen. But I'm not going to pre-judge it, and can't respect those who do.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

Donald Trump? Really?
Wish they would have had George Will host it.

I had to look him up - which is probably why did went with The Donald (more people will tune in to watch). After looking him up, I agree with you.

Seriously? You had to look up George Will?
Words fail me...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Then I suggest you re-visit your bias, or more specifically how it may cloud your judgement. Trump has raised some very valid and serious issues, namely our foreign trade agreements. Even Democrats have voiced concern about how they are unfair to the USA.

Likewise with China's actions. Even this current administration has officially voiced opposition to China's policies.

For a guy with such hideous hair he has raised some very valid issues others have avoided.

You don't have to like or approve of a person to listen to the issues raised by them. And those issues should be judged on their merits, not those of the individual raising them. There's a lot to criticize Trump about, but he does bring something to the table.

Whether his debate is another self promo event or something with 'meat' remains to be seen. But I'm not going to pre-judge it, and can't respect those who do.

Fern

I'll put it to you this way: Paris Hilton, Zach Galifianakis and/or Soulja Boy (or, for that matter, Charles Manson or any of the people on Jersey Shore) might well have some some valid and serious political views. They might, as individuals, be reasonably bright and sincere about conducting a fair and high-minded debate. If I were running for President, I would not, despite them having nothing but the best intentions, participate in a debate which they moderated, because I would, based on solid evidence, deem it highly likely that the debate would have a circus atmosphere, be designed to make me look bad, and make my campaign look at least a bit less serious than it would if I declined to participate.

I would argue that Trump is, in fact, demonstrably even more problematic than the people I mentioned as potential moderators, in that he has actually spoken out about politics in a way that sounds more like a professional wrestler than a sincere pundit, including saying "fuck" five times in a single campaign speech, and calling the Chinese "motherfuckers." In addition, he has joked about the Mormon religion (a faith common to two of the remaining GOP candidates), and continued to express disbelief about the President's country of origin even after his "long-form" birth certificate was released.

I have no problem with him offering to host a debate, but I think any candidate who voluntarily participates in it is taking a real and probably unjustified risk.