The Official GOP Debate Thread

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 09:08 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Ok, I finally got around to watching clips of the debate and, honestly, I can see why Trump has so many supporters. Dude is NOT a politician and he seems to have no filter on his mouth. Don't forget that the majority of people in this country are sick of political correctness and Trump is riding that hard right now. I don't think it's enough to get him to the White House, but these other candidates need to do SOMETHING or else we're gonna see Trump as the Republican candidate.

I didn't watch the full debate, but after the various clips I did see, I'm starting to like Kasich.

Trump is going to hurt the republican party. Once he loses he's gonna run as an independent and take away republican voters. The democrats have this in the bag.

btw Kasich is a dick. He privatized my old state job (part of the prison system) to make it look like he was saving money, but in the long run they're doing a worse job, and costing more money due to fees.

[GMDino]

(08-08-2015, 09:08 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Ok, I finally got around to watching clips of the debate and, honestly, I can see why Trump has so many supporters. Dude is NOT a politician and he seems to have no filter on his mouth. Don't forget that the majority of people in this country are sick of political correctness and Trump is riding that hard right now. I don't think it's enough to get him to the White House, but these other candidates need to do SOMETHING or else we're gonna see Trump as the Republican candidate.

I didn't watch the full debate, but after the various clips I did see, I'm starting to like Kasich.

There is a difference between no being PC and being an offensive jerk.

He has no plan other than to call people names if he dislikes them.  Yay?

The fact that that gets a majority of Republican voters to support him (compared to the others running) says more than I can ever say about the state of the party.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2015, 09:12 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Once he loses he's gonna run as an independent and take away republican voters.

Did he say that or is this just wishful thinking from his detractors? Trump may not be a good president/presidential candidate, but he's far from being an idiot. If he doesn't get the Republican ticket, I can't see him running as an independent KNOWING that independents don't win presidential campaigns.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 09:26 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Did he say that or is this just wishful thinking from his detractors? Trump may not be a good president/presidential candidate, but he's far from being an idiot. If he doesn't get the Republican ticket, I can't see him running as an independent KNOWING that independents don't win presidential campaigns.

He pretty much said he was at the start of the debate. Trump doesn't know what he's talking about half the time, and in that debate I think he talked about building a wall on our boarder and the rest of it he was just bad mouthing people. Just because the guy can throw a few zingers at people doesn't me that he's not an idiot.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2015, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1)There is a difference between no being PC and being an offensive jerk.

2)He has no plan other than to call people names if he dislikes them.  Yay?

3)The fact that that gets a majority of Republican voters to support him (compared to the others running) says more than I can ever say about the state of the party.

1) While true, the line differs from person to person. 

2) Has ANYONE espoused a plan, though? I haven't been paying much attention to campaign stuff though because it's still a year and a half away from the election, but have any of the candidates stated their plan (other than things like "I'll create more jobs", etc) yet? 

3) I think it says more about the state of politics.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2015, 09:33 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: He pretty much said he was at the start of the debate. Trump doesn't know what he's talking about half the time, and in that debate I think he talked about building a wall on our boarder and the rest of it he was just bad mouthing people. Just because the guy can throw a few zingers at people doesn't me that he's not an idiot.

Face it, dude is NOT an idiot. None of these guys are. Not even Hillary is and Lord knows I don't like her AT ALL. It's getting tiring hearing people claim that a person or a candidate that's on the other side of the political spectrum is an idiot. Trump may be politically illiterate, he may be a horrible person to put in charge of this country, he may be a mysoginistic racist, but that still doesn't mean he's an idiot.

I'm not trying to disparage you, Brownshoe, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

[*bfine32*]

I remember about 8 years ago thinking that America is not stupid enough to vote for someone that is under-qualified for the job simply because he is different and America wants a change.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 12:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well the sample size is never 50/50.   And what good is any poll with a margin of error over 4%?

A poll from drudge or breitbart would be perfect for a GOP primary.    

I'm not saying online polls are the best.   Just saying you can find bias in any of these polls.

The population isn't 50-50. It's more like 25-30-40. 

You're asking 'what good is any poll with a margin of error over 4%". What do you think the margin of error is for an online poll that allows anyone to vote multiple times?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2015, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: There is a difference between no being PC and being an offensive jerk.

He has no plan other than to call people names if he dislikes them.  Yay?

The fact that that gets a majority of Republican voters to support him (compared to the others running) says more than I can ever say about the state of the party.

The word you are looking for is plurality. I'd do one of those shooting star rainbow the more you know things, but I'm on my phone and nobody has ever done a shooting star rainbow the more you know things for how to do that on your phone so I don't know how.

Anyway, people just like hearing an unfiltered in your face guy. It's new. Then it won't be new and people will move on. I mean I enjoy the hell out of it. Never going to vote for him, but it's fun.

[BmorePat87]

I was looking up previous Presidential experience.

Of the 43, 4 only had military experience (general), 1 only had cabinet level experience (sec of commerce), and 1 had various presidential level appointed offices (territorial governor, solicitor general, federal judge, sec of war). The rest served some sort of public office prior to being President.

Just so we can get an idea at how unprecedented it would be to have a President with absolutely zero government experience.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 11:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The word you are looking for is plurality.  I'd do one of those shooting star rainbow the more you know things, but I'm on my phone and nobody has ever done a shooting star rainbow the more you know things for how to do that on your phone so I don't know how.

Anyway, people just like hearing an unfiltered in your face guy.  It's new.  Then it won't be new and people will move on.  I mean I enjoy the hell out of it.  Never going to vote for him, but it's fun.

Yea, a majority of Republicans polled would never vote for him. He currently has a plurality, but that's a very different beast early in the primaries.

With that many saying they'd never vote for him, he will struggle once the field is narrowed down to 6 or less. He might maintain 20-25%, but someone else (Jeb, Rubio, Walker) will start getting taking voters from other candidates who drop out.

[RoyleRedlegs]

I'm starting to feel bad for Trump supporters.
They look worse and worse as they continually defend this clown.

[StLucieBengal]

Personally I could less about any candidate being "pc".   None of that stuff matters to me, I want substance and I wanna know how your gonna get it done.  

Trump isn't a conservative but they all hit him because he is not in anyone's pocket.    This is what worries about candidates like Bush and Clinton ...   They are beholden to a lot of other people.    

During the debate Kasich makes a comment asking trump for a check.   This is right after trump basically said he buys policiticans and they always pay up when he needs something.    Either he was serious or making a joke because he is so used to selling himself to rich people.

As far as the context of these remarks about women trump made.    Levin had the context of those comments,   Rosie O'Donnell attacked his kids and his wife and ex wives. ...    And it was not pleasant at all as I am sure everyone expects from her.     And the "on your knees" was from an apprentice episode where a group leader was telling him a girl in he group was on her knees begging to take the lead in a project.     Totally not sexual in any way.    

I don't like trump as a candidate i think he has a progressive history    But this line of questioning from Fox at a debate was just ridiculous.    And used for ratings boost to get 24 million.   Also the mods shouldnt be talking 1/3rd of the debate.  

We have some diverse candidates.   They need to be talking more.   And showing the contrast.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 11:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The population isn't 50-50. It's more like 25-30-40. 

You're asking 'what good is any poll with a margin of error over 4%". What do you think the margin of error is for an online poll that allows anyone to vote multiple times?

I don't like the way they question in some polls. The next time I look deep into a poll i will make a thread and post examples.

And let me repeat: I am not saying online polling is better or perfect. It's not.... But I question all polling .

[mallorian69]

(08-08-2015, 11:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was looking up previous Presidential experience.

Of the 43, 4 only had military experience (general), 1 only had cabinet level experience (sec of commerce), and 1 had various presidential level appointed offices (territorial governor, solicitor general, federal judge, sec of war). The rest served some sort of public office prior to being President.

Just so we can get an idea at how unprecedented it would be to have a President with absolutely zero government experience.

Actually more than half (26 not counting dubya since he rarely showed up) have had prior military experience.

I still feel some sort of military experience should be a requirement when the #1 job a POTUS has is commander in chief of our armed forces.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 06:13 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: Actually more than half (26 not counting dubya since he rarely showed up) have had prior military experience.

I still feel some sort of military experience should be a requirement when the #1 job a POTUS has is commander in chief of our armed forces.

4 ONLY had military experience. Washington, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 06:13 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: Actually more than half (26 not counting dubya since he rarely showed up) have had prior military experience.

I still feel some sort of military experience should be a requirement when the #1 job a POTUS has is commander in chief of our armed forces.

I think you guys are talking 2 different things. Pretty sure Pat was showing that 4 had Military Experience only (no other political experience).

I feel Military experience is important in a POTUS; however, IF he is wise enough to defer to his Joint Chiefs of Staff it is not a requirement. How could someone like Obama or Trump feel they have the knowledge to over-rule someone like Martin Dempsey on any Military matter?

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 06:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 3 ONLY had military experience. Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.

Let me just fix that for you...

7 years in the House of Burgesses representing Frederick County and representative for Virginia with the First and Second Continental Congresses. The spirits he used to sway voters were mentioned as being exceptionally good and free flowing.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 07:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let me just fix that for you...

7 years in the House of Burgesses representing Frederick County and representative for Virginia with the First and Second Continental Congresses. The spirits he used to sway voters were mentioned as being exceptionally good and free flowing.

I wasn't convinced enough to consider being a delegate to the continental congresses an elected government position. However, I did not know about his involvement in the Virginia legislature during British rule. 

That's one less President who did not have elected government experience. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I feel Military experience is important in a POTUS; however, IF he is wise enough to defer to his Joint Chiefs of Staff it is not a requirement. How could someone like Obama or Trump feel they have the knowledge to over-rule someone like Martin Dempsey on any Military matter?

I think this is generally true and extends to deferring to the knowledge of any cabinet member when making decisions or creating policy in an area the President does not have much experience/expertise with. A good leader nominates good advisors.