GOP Debate v2

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2015, 12:48 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: What could they have said to please you? "Free college for everyone"?

What "free stuff" are you looking for?
You'll have to wait for the democrat debates.

There will be no Democratic debates with the current field. The best they can offer is Hillary versus a 72 year old Socialist. 

[Belsnickel]

So the number of minutes allowed for speaking is going to be skewed to the left if graphed out. Trump leading the way with his value and Walker coming in at the low end. Rubio comes in at the middle of the pack, still below the mean of them all which is 12:10.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/17/fact-check-second-republican-debate/32517889/

Quote:The Republican presidential candidates met for their second debate on Sept. 16, this one hosted by CNN at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in California. We found they strayed from the facts on numerous issues, including:

• Donald Trump told a story linking vaccination to autism, but there's no evidence that recommended vaccines cause autism. And Sen. Rand Paul suggested that it would be safer to spread out recommended vaccines, but there's no evidence of that, either.

• Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said Trump donated to his gubernatorial campaign to get him to change his mind on casino gambling in Florida. But Trump denied he ever wanted to bring casino gambling to the state. A former lobbyist says he did.

• Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said that Hillary Clinton was "under investigation by the FBI" because she "destroyed government records." Not true. She had the authority to delete personal emails.

• Trump said that "illegal immigration" cost "more than $200 billion a year." We couldn't find any support for that. Actually, it could cost taxpayers $137 billion or more to deport the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, as Trump proposes.

• Trump again wrongly said that Mexico doesn't have a birthright citizenship policy like the United States. It does.

• Carly Fiorina said that the Planned Parenthood videos released by an anti-abortion group showed "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." But that scene isn't in any of the videos.

• Fiorina repeated familiar boasts about her time at Hewlett-Packard, saying the size of the company "doubled," without mentioning that was due to a merger with Compaq, and she cherry-picked other statistics.

• Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that U.S. policies to combat climate change would "do absolutely nothing." The U.S. acting alone would have a small effect on rising temperatures and sea levels, and experts say U.S. leadership on the issue would prompt other nations to act.

• In the "happy hour" debate, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham glossed over the accompanying tax increases when he said only that Ronald Reagan and then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill "found a way to save Social Security from bankruptcy by adjusting the age of retirement from 65 to 67."

I didn't watch, but I'm sure they all tried to lay out their plans for fixing all our problems in between making stuff up and stretching the truth so thin you can see through it.

I hate political debates. Mostly because they are not debates but question and answer without the answer.

[*michaelsean*]

Darn I forgot to watch.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Darn I forgot to watch.

What?!?!

Well then how will you know who you want to vote for?!?!

[*michaelsean*]

(09-17-2015, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: What?!?!

Well then how will you know who you want to vote for?!?!

THEY will tell me.

[Blutarsky]

(09-17-2015, 12:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There will be no Democratic debates with the current field. The best they can offer is Hillary versus a 72 year old Socialist. 

The next debate involving a Democrat will probably be the presidential debate. I would love to see Fiorina get the nomination just to hear her rip the Hilldabeest to shreds.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 09:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: THEY will tell me.

Good answer.

[Rotobeast]

(09-17-2015, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Good answer.

And the answer that Rodney Dangerfield gave Sam Kinison was that Harry Truman (D) was a "*****".

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-17-2015, 10:50 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: And the answer that Rodney Dangerfield gave Sam Kinison was that Harry Truman (D) was a "*****".

You are what you eat?

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2015, 09:59 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: The next debate involving a Democrat will probably be the presidential debate. I would love to see Fiorina get the nomination just to hear her rip the Hilldabeest to shreds.

That's might be the worst match-up for Hillary, because it takes away the "war on women" card.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-17-2015, 11:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's might be the worst match-up for Hillary, because it takes away the "war on women" card.

Actually that card should be in play seeing how they treated women when Bill was in the White House.  The crap Hillary is saying now, it's like those eight years never existed.  A woman claiming sexual assault should be believed unless proven otherwise?  Really? Was that how things went in the 90s?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-17-2015, 12:48 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: What could they have said to please you? "Free college for everyone"?

What "free stuff" in particular are you looking for?
You'll have to wait for the democrat debates.

Saying something mildly intelligent instead of juvenile grade school insults and fear-mongering would have been enough for me to not make the statement I did.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-17-2015, 11:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's might be the worst match-up for Hillary, because it takes away the "war on women" card.

Actually, not really. One of these days you Republicans will get it through your heads that it's positions that matter, not personalities.

Women don't view Republicans negatively because there aren't enough female Republican politicians. They view them negatively because their positions on the issues are personally detrimental to them.

In simple words: even if Mitt had a vagina, Obama would have won the women's vote.

[GodHatesBengals]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/second-debate-republicans-out-crazy-trump.html

Pretty good article about the sad level of stupidity we had the misfortune to witness last night.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2015, 12:52 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Actually, not really. One of these days you Republicans will get it through your heads that it's positions that matter, not personalities.

LOL, one of these day Dems will realize how little their politicians think of them.  If it was policy and positions that mattered, Obama and Hillary and their lapdog Wasserman-Shulz wouldn't be leading the divide-and-conquer strategy.  They COUNT on their voters being simple enough to get whipped into a frenzy with a few buzzwords about a single issue.

Romney's problem wasn't that he was a man, it was that he actually tried to be about content and policy while Obama just kept running around saying "you can keep you doctor".

[*Nately120*]

(09-17-2015, 03:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, one of these day Dems will realize how little their politicians think of them.  If it was policy and positions that mattered, Obama and Hillary and their lapdog Wasserman-Shulz wouldn't be leading the divide-and-conquer strategy.  They COUNT on their voters being simple enough to get whipped into a frenzy with a few buzzwords about a single issue.

Romney's problem wasn't that he was a man, it was that he actually tried to be about content and policy while Obama just kept running around saying "you can keep you doctor".

Stupid republicans, always making the mistake of talking to the American public as if we are comprised of geniuses who really strive to have a doctoral-level understanding of foreign policy and economics!

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2015, 04:02 PM),Nately120 Wrote: Stupid republicans, always making the mistake of talking to the American public as if we are comprised of geniuses who really strive to have a doctoral-level understanding of foreign policy and economics!

That's really why BS issues like guns, gay marriage, abortion etc are so popular.  With economics, taxes and to a lesser extent foreign policy you really can't do it justice in a 30 second sound bit or even a few minutes in a debate....so you're always at the mercy of the media for being "too esoteric" or "not detailed enough".  There really isn't a winning way (with the media) to talk about that stuff - they either like and agree or don't.  And nevermind after all that there's STILL plenty of room for honest disagreement and debate.

I really think this is a bigger problem than lobbyists, term limits, establishment or whatever you want to say is wrong with American politics....Problem #1 is the 4th Estate has become partisan kingmakers.  And at least early on, primary campaigns are really marketing efforts to get a favorable view and coverage from the media.  It's all about providing soundbites and photo ops that the media will want to cover favorably - that's what moves you in the polls, not the 5 or 10 people you impressed at a coffee shop or even few thousand at a stadium event.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2015, 03:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's really why BS issues like guns, gay marriage, abortion etc are so popular.  With economics, taxes and to a lesser extent foreign policy you really can't do it justice in a 30 second sound bit or even a few minutes in a debate....so you're always at the mercy of the media for being "too esoteric" or "not detailed enough".  There really isn't a winning way (with the media) to talk about that stuff - they either like and agree or don't.  And nevermind after all that there's STILL plenty of room for honest disagreement and debate.

I really think this is a bigger problem than lobbyists, term limits, establishment or whatever you want to say is wrong with American politics....Problem #1 is the 4th Estate has become partisan kingmakers.  And at least early on, primary campaigns are really marketing efforts to get a favorable view and coverage from the media.  It's all about providing soundbites and photo ops that the media will want to cover favorably - that's what moves you in the polls, not the 5 or 10 people you impressed at a coffee shop or even few thousand at a stadium event.

Absolute truth. The unsettling thing about this phenomenon, and it's global, not just here, is that it allows these politicians to focus on these fluff issues that really don't matter much in the grad scheme of things and really screw us over on things that can really make a huge impact on our daily lives. With the vast majority of media focusing on the soundbites, the big name legislation that everyone is arguing about, things get passed (most often attached to other things) that are just atrocious. Not a word is printed about them, or if it is it exists a small article on a news website that is only about the legislative process and doesn't have much universal appeal. The information is out there, but people don't want to look beyond the surface, and so the media covers the surface with the superficial bollocks.

[fredtoast]

Primary debates are usually a circus because most of the people on the stage are on the same side on most of the issues. So they try to attack based on personality or other areas that have very little to do with policy.

General election debates are still full of soundbites and appeals to emotion, but at least the candidates are arguing two different sides on issues.

But it is getting worse. Now some candidates are actually saying that knowledge of an issue does not even matter. They claim that a president should be elected based on his personality then he can just surround himself with "smart people" to handle the details. That is flat out scary.