Waiting for your talking points to be given?
I've seen 1 person offer comments and they were waaaaaay off the wall.
I've seen 1 person offer comments and they were waaaaaay off the wall.
Surprised by the lack of commentary from our DNC posters on the debate
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
Clown show on display. The only electable people on the stage were Bush and Kasich. The rest of them are either lightweights or attention whores. It was amateur hour. And the Fox production was awful. That wasn't a debate. It was a show. Really cheesy.
So basically, you are basing your opinion on the first 10 mins prior to the debate which you watched and posted about.
Can you provide examples of the "clown show" or specific points given by any of the candidates that you felt were good/bad? Anything said you take issue with? What were your thoughts on the questions asked? What was not asked that you would have liked to have seen asked?
What you just posted lacked any substance and it doesn't allow for any discussion. It's broad, vague, and devoid of any actual position.
Aside from Trumps dumbassedness, there really weren't any real distinguishing highlights that I could think of. Everyone said what I thought they would.
They have got to get the size down so there can be a meaningful discussion of ideas...not sure how they do that. I think Fiorina needs added to the group though. I'd probably get rid of Paul, Huckabee, and Carson.
I'm glad devil got it right and does not consider me part of the DNC as I am not. I did share many opinions on the show last night. I will add one more opinion that was formed this morning. Watching Morning Joe this morning during the segment with Lindsay Graham, they were discussing how the questions last night were mostly "interview" questions instead of "debate" questions and that was a problem. I agree with that conversation.
They didn't debate. They answered every question with a pre-canned answer. It was 10 stump speeches. Trump was a jackass. Huckabee is married to the abortion issue. That apparently is the most pressing issue of the day. Paul wanted to be the guy who took Trump down and tried too hard. Christie pulled a Guiliani and answered every question with 9-11. Rubio, Carson, and Cruz are so far out in left field that nobody in their right mind would consider voting for them. The only reasonable people who conducted themselves with class were Kasich and Bush. I disagree with Kasich's position on abortion but the sun doesn't rise and set on that issue to me. It's pretty sad for our country that these are the people who are running. It's like reality tv meets governance. Cheesy. Classless. Amateurs.
I thought the same last night with the way the questions were posed. More of an interview style vs debate.
Maybe they were like me and didn't get to see the entire production. The damned power went off(thanks Time Warner) shortly after the Paul/NJ Gov exchange. Thru that point, I thought it was a terrible "Debate?). Fox News was an absolute disgusting failure. The first round of questions seemed like prompts to attack each other individually. The initial set up was asked for a show of hands. Hell it only pertained to Donald Trump. Now lets have all nine go after Trump. Only two bought into that **** and the rest disappointed Fox by agreeing with Trump.
I didn't get to see it all, but hope they eventually got around to asking pertinent question of the candidates like what they would do as President to stimulate the economy, pay down debt, Obamacare, SS, etc. If not, I am glad that I went to sleep.
I thought 5:00 was very good and cannot see how Carly can be denied acceptance for future debates. Others attempted to sell themselves, but not sure they succeeded.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I saw it. Let's face it, debates don't really get interesting until late in the game and this was a typical first debate.
One of my favorites, and this is the softball question that everyone should have anticipated so you should knock it out of the park, was when they asked for the closing remark by each dumbass, er I mean candidate: Cruz' response was "on my first day in office I will repeal every unconstitutional executive order by Obama blah blah blah". Really? We need you in office to do that? If there were really unconstitutional executive orders, we already have enough watch dogs to cry foul. We could have already appealed them to the SCOTUS and had them overturned.
That guy is one of the biggest dumbasses I have ever seen. And there were posters on this board bragging how intelligent he is. LMAO.
That guy is one of the biggest dumbasses I have ever seen. And there were posters on this board bragging how intelligent he is. LMAO.
Yeah forgot about Cruz - I agree he should be removed. I think Trump is going to fizzle out - as the other candidates drop out, I think their support will go to anyone but Trump.
I thought Kasich's candor concerning Gay Marriage was refreshing and distinguished him from the pack.
Cruz has a face I want to punch, but I fear he's going to be around for a while.
I would like to like Walker, but his stance on Abortion goes to far for me. Same with Rubio. Fiorina needs to be moved up.
I'm a diehard Bernie Sanders fan and watched the debate last night mostly for entertainment value. And there was some (Trump, Cruz, Huckabee). But I also wanted to hear some well reasoned arguments and debate among them. I wanted substance and debate on the issues and was disappointed there wasn't much.
Overall I think Kaisch did well and was well reasoned. I appreciated his response on the marriage / daughters question. Contrast that with Huckabee who said the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being and just lost me to laughter right there. But Kaisch was really good throughout and would be a good candidate for the R's.
Rubio is a good speaker, knows how to make his points without it feeling canned or overly practiced. He has a charm that will probably take him pretty far in the process. I've heard that he's a good debater so we'll see when it actually becomes a debate.
I liked the back and forth between Christie and Paul about the collection of US citizen phone records and terrorism. That's the kind of stuff I was looking for. A real debating point about a topic that's important, and how these candidates would tackle those topics and offer up some real meaningful positions.
Jeb seemed 1/2 asleep and trying to play it safe, I felt sorry for Carson - he's just not a polished speaker on a stage like that, and thought Christie held his own without being too "Christie crazy" - he got a little hot but not hot & bothered.
But really, like a few of you said above, it wasn't really a debate but more of an interview and one that focused on the perceived weaknesses of the candidate and where they tend to stray from the typical ideological viewpoint of the rest of the party. Interesting introduction to the 10+7 for sure.
Overall I think Kaisch did well and was well reasoned. I appreciated his response on the marriage / daughters question. Contrast that with Huckabee who said the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being and just lost me to laughter right there. But Kaisch was really good throughout and would be a good candidate for the R's.
Rubio is a good speaker, knows how to make his points without it feeling canned or overly practiced. He has a charm that will probably take him pretty far in the process. I've heard that he's a good debater so we'll see when it actually becomes a debate.
I liked the back and forth between Christie and Paul about the collection of US citizen phone records and terrorism. That's the kind of stuff I was looking for. A real debating point about a topic that's important, and how these candidates would tackle those topics and offer up some real meaningful positions.
Jeb seemed 1/2 asleep and trying to play it safe, I felt sorry for Carson - he's just not a polished speaker on a stage like that, and thought Christie held his own without being too "Christie crazy" - he got a little hot but not hot & bothered.
But really, like a few of you said above, it wasn't really a debate but more of an interview and one that focused on the perceived weaknesses of the candidate and where they tend to stray from the typical ideological viewpoint of the rest of the party. Interesting introduction to the 10+7 for sure.
What did you find so funny about "Supreme Court is not Supreme Being"? Was there something incorrect about the statement, or do you think it issuperior to Congress?
I do. They are pretty much the referee and the president, lower courts, congress, etc. are the players. Some can make laws some can enforce them but the Supreme Court rules whether they are constitutional or not and has the final say. But that said, they are appointed and vetted by the President and Congress so they are not immaculately superior. .
I thought the statement was Huckabee referencing God. He seemed to suggest with that statement that if he doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling he'll ignore it because they aren't God. The Supreme Court has made a lot of decisions the past decade that have left people on both sides of the spectrum upset. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore those decisions as law. I hate Citizens United and Hobby Lobby - but I still have to live with them and follow the law. Huckabee seemed to suggest (at least to my ears) that he would ignore or circumvent laws interpreted by the Supreme Court. That's what I just found personally funny about the comment.
Wingnuts don't have a clue what the function of the SC is. I've heard numerous wingnuts-even elected politicians whine about "unelected judges" making law. And stating that if something wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the SC has no authority to rule on it. Really? Have these people never had a civics class? Huckabee is one of those nuts.
I had seen him use the same statement earlier in the day. At that time, he continued to say that if Supremes make law, they are exceeding their capacity and congress can actually make law that reverses that of the supremes.
Looks like some are forgetting that in our form of government, there are three equal branches. It may be a bit unusual to believe that since there are few, if any, Supreme decisions reversed by the other two branches. But that is actually Constitutional to have three co-equal branches.
A little bit of fact checking from last night's circus.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/ar-BBltMVI
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/ar-BBltMVI
I thought the main debate was handled fairly well. I do agree that "debate" is probably the wrong word for it, but, given there were 10 candidates on stage, the format was pretty good. Several folks did well for themselves. I would definitely include Christie, Kasich, Rubio, and Bush in that group. I don't think Walker really managed to help himself too much - not that he hurt himself, only that he didn't seem to pull himself up much. I want to like Paul, but I don't see how he helped himself at all. I think trying to be combative at times did more harm than good. Was Cruz even on the stage? It may be no fault of his, but he didn't seem to get a lot of action.
I'll give kudos to Carson. I liked the injection of humor into the closing remarks. I don't think he did a terrible job, but I can't see how he helped himself a lot.
I'll give kudos to Carson. I liked the injection of humor into the closing remarks. I don't think he did a terrible job, but I can't see how he helped himself a lot.