No debate discussion?

[Belsnickel]

So have the folks around here become tired of the dog and pony show? Did anyone watch it (and pay attention) or maybe follow the tweets?

I read a recap of it all, but I wanted to see what the opinions were of anyone around here that may have watched it.

[*michaelsean*]

Funny, I turn on the radio this morning and they promo the news by saying, "Rough night in SC." I'm thinking did some big storm hit or was there a shooting? I had no idea there was even a debate.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2016, 09:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So have the folks around here become tired of the dog and pony show? Did anyone watch it (and pay attention) or maybe follow the tweets?

I read a recap of it all, but I wanted to see what the opinions were of anyone around here that may have watched it.

I didn't even go past in on the dial. ("Dial"...I'm old.   )

I haven't even read the post mortem on it yet.

[BmorePat87]

Wake me up after Iowa.

[BengalHawk62]

Is this Heaven?

No, its Iowa. 

[fredtoast]

They should not even call them "debates". When I think of a debate I think of asking the same people the same question and having each of them argue their side. What i have seen so far is just candidates slinging sound bites and bitching at each other.

[*Nately120*]

I vow to cut taxes harder than these other guys. Also, I'll kill more ISIS, keep you safer, and I hate Obama more. I love families and Jesus more than the rest of these guys. Values, guns, church, white male God bless us all.

*END SCENE*

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2016, 05:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Values, guns, church, white male God bless us all.

*END SCENE*

I recall Carson, Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina getting in a huge debate over the white male value..

[*Nately120*]

(01-15-2016, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I recall Carson, Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina getting in a huge debate over the white male value..

Sounds riveting.  Maybe next time they can all debate on the pattern of Bigfoot's fur.  I think it's a bit of a mottled brown on a sandy-looking grey, personally.

[StLucieBengal]

I watched it and Cruz was solid as usual.   The others were trying too hard at times.  

I also watched rand on all the social media outlets and he really put together a nice presentation.   I wish debates were done this way over the networks.     What's great about it also is we can go back and rewatch on certain topics.     I really hope more candidates do this...

[CKwi88]

(01-15-2016, 08:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I watched it and Cruz was solid as usual.   The others were trying too hard at times.  

I also watched rand on all the social media outlets and he really put together a nice presentation.   I wish debates were done this way over the networks.     What's great about it also is we can go back and rewatch on certain topics.     I really hope more candidates do this...

Was Rand relegated to the kid's debate?

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2016, 08:28 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Was Rand relegated to the kid's debate?

He threw a tantrum and refused to go. He went on the Daily Show instead. Probably smarter. 

[SunsetBengal]

In between the snide remarks and mud slinging, Ted Cruz made the most of his camera time.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-15-2016, 09:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He threw a tantrum and refused to go. He went on the Daily Show instead. Probably smarter. 

Him doing his social media stuff is basically what the blaze introduced this same idea for a debate. Basically taking away the power from the networks.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2016, 12:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Him doing his social media stuff is basically what the blaze introduced this same idea for a debate.    Basically taking away the power from the networks.

How's that working out for him?  His chance of winning with the networks: slim to none.  His chance of winning without the networks:  none.  He hasn't taken away any power from anyone.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-16-2016, 04:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How's that working out for him?  His chance of winning with the networks: slim to none.  His chance of winning without the networks:  none.  He hasn't taken away any power from anyone.

His chances are irrelevant. It's the process of going to the people and away from the network gate keepers.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2016, 04:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: His chances are irrelevant.   It's the process of going to the people and away from the network gate keepers.

chance of winning with networks > chance of winning without networks

The power of the networks to communicate his message directly affects his chance of winning therefore common sense dictates it is absolutely relevant.  

Kinda like how he didn't take away any power from the ophthamology board by creating his own ophthamalogy board which no hospital recognizes as a legitimate credential.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2016, 04:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: His chances are irrelevant. It's the process of going to the people and away from the network gate keepers.

In truth, the people, through the pollsters, are the gate keepers. He isn't polling high enough, so the networks aren't going to bother with him.

[BmorePat87]

(01-16-2016, 08:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In truth, the people, through the pollsters, are the gate keepers. He isn't polling high enough, so the networks aren't going to bother with him.

Yea, the networks aren't deciding who to place higher in polls. They're focusing on the candidates that are polling highest when they interview the people. 

If there are 10 candidates, why focus on those polling less than 3%?

[*bfine32*]

I've said it from gitty up.

The only chance Paul have of winning is moving slightly more to the right and changing parties.

But I doubt the DNC would allow anyone else to challenge Hillary.