Before this thread gets out of hand. This is a thread about the Republican debate. As such, keep your opinions about the Democrats etc out of it. Discuss the topic at hand ONLY. The thread will be monitored and posts deleted and users banned if they can not stick to the topic.

I love the fact that Trump is tearing apart US politicians, pointing out that he was against the Iraq war and wont vow to run only as republican. He says what he means and means what he says. Thats rare. He has my vote at this point among the GOP.

My thoughts? This debate and Donald Trump prove that at least 25% of the electorate never ditched their sandbox mentality and playground politics. I've been nice to you Megan, though I might not be anymore the way you treated me.

Ted Cruz being quiet?? That's a first. Still playing his waiting game of feasting on Trump's scraps. Political sloppy seconds.

Ben Carson does indeed sound scripted. He usually does. And fails to often answer questions directly, kinda like Sarah Palin used to do he searches his catalog of memorized sound bytes. He also falls into the trap of banging on about values (maybe not as much tonight) yet doesn't 1) offer any solution for instilling then or 2) realize that government isn't the values police. If it were he never would've been a doctor.

Rand Paul as usual comes across as a crab, with a spur under his saddle.

[Edited 2015-08-06 19:35:14]

When did the US become a Christian nation?

The naiveté (to call it nicely) and the bubble in which many of these candidates seem to live in has surprised me.

Christie: He does seem to know how things work and has deep knowledge of issues across the board. Too bad he behaves like a mafia don.

Rubio: I had a totally different opinion of him. Seems much less conservative and a lot more intelligent than I thought. Very charismatic too. Refreshing.

Bush: No personality at all, unfortunately, but lots of intelligence there. Most pragmatic. Seems to me the best, if it weren´t for the fact he has the charisma of a broccoli stalk.

Cruz: Makes me feel sorry. Way, way dumber than I thought previously. It´s like watching a train wreck every time he opens his mouth. He does give material for good laughs. No real substance on anything. Agenda based on a fetishist hate for Obama.

Walker: Just someone who seems to have arrived here from the 9th century.

Kasich: Another nice surprise. Seems very honest. Does seem to be living in the 1980s though.

Rand Paul: Good ideas. But too dogmatic, and not in a Republican way. Hard to think any Republican would vote for him. Gives the impression of a yapping poodle.

Carson: "It´s my way, and the only way, can´t you see you are all wrong?" Too much naiveté and an irritating holier than thou attitude. No ideas. Nothing of substance.

Huckabee: Good guy, some good ideas, too conservative for my taste

Trump: Aside from the obvious, and the negative feelings he generates in me, if he thinks you can govern the way he apparently thinks, he will never get anything accomplished. Typical fear mongerer and "vote for me or the US is done for" attitude

Winners in order of who I think is the best so far with this debate: Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich

Losers: Huckabee, Paul

Scary and dumb as rocks: Carson, Trump, Cruz

A sad joke: Walker

[Edited 2015-08-06 20:18:33]

The early debate was sooooo boring. The second debate (the one most saw) was pretty lol inducing. Started right off with Trump causing a ruckus talking about not necessarily supporting the GOP nominee (unless it's him then of course he will) and not ruling out a third party run.

Rand took some shots at Trump but looked pretty silly IMO, and he didn't do as well against Christie as I would thought.

Cruz sounded as smug as ever and a wannabe version of Trump. I get instantly mad every time he talks

Bush was on defensive all night it seemed.

Kasich doesn't seem like that bad of a guy.

Carson... I mean I can disagree with someone but see their appeal but Carson... I don't see how anyone likes him. Stick to neurosurgery. I don't see why he gets the support he does.

Walker seemed pretty forgettable for a forerunner.

Huckabee... the usual.

Rubio also seemed pretty forgettable.

Christie just seems like no one likes him.

My thoughts in a nutshell. Thank you Trump for the lolz. Ironically enough, there are parts of him that I absolutely love and think would really make America great... unfortunate, most of him is pretty abysmal

Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): Winners in order of who I think is the best so far with this debate: Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich Losers: Huckabee, Paul Scary and dumb as rocks: Carson, Trump, Cruz A sad joke: Walker

I generally agree with this ranking. To me Kasich was the most reasonable in the room. I especially like how he answered the gay marriage issue noting how he recently attended a same sex marriage of a friend and would give unconditional love to a family member who was gay/lesbian.
I did like some of the questions, they seemed to targeting strengths and weaknesses of each of them. Trump just went down a few notches in this event, perhaps coming off like a fool.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8): I especially like how he answered the gay marriage issue noting how he recently attended a same sex marriage of a friend and would give unconditional love to a family member who was gay/lesbian.

....and a Republican crowd CHEERED!
That shocked the hell outta me. Good for them.

If the party as a whole could get past the militant homophobia brought on by the Evangelicals, it might have a whole new base of people willing to consider voting Republican. Won't happen any time soon, but still, something to look forward to for them. I wonder if the Loggies and GOProud will take credit for that.

I disagree with almost everything Paul said, but he seemed to be the most honest of the bunch.

Cruz looked like some kind SNL plant, I would suspect soem kind of comedic hoax if he hadn't been in the news for so long.

Jeb! looked and acted like he'd already gotten the nomination.

Scott should probably have switched places with Carlie.

Huckabee managed to be both charismatic and make my skin crawl.

Carson seemed way out of his league

Kasich seemed... electable. Then again he hasn't gotten much attention yet. We'll see.

I'm upset though, because I didn't get the one thing I was most hoping to see: Trump vs. Christie, head-on.

Saw a bit of it with Christie vs. Paul, but it just ain't the same.  

First, I thought the way Fox handled this was horrendous. I don't watch the network so I don't know if that's always how Megyn Kelly acts, but it was terribly unprofessional. Moreover, as much as I WANT a bulldog media, and a government watchdog media (its natural role) there is quite a difference between giving decent interrogatories and pushing to get answers to questions and being a bully and rude. Fox was the latter more often than not. And their clear bias in terms of air time among the candidates was problematic.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2): I think Rand Paul just took a beating from Christie. Christie was correct to call out Paul's Terrorist vs citizen comment.

Funny, I thought just the opposite. Christie was busy rushing into the World Trade Center buildings to hear him talk and the emotion of that (he went Jersey, pretty much) notwithstanding, Paul was absolutely correct in his assertions about DUE PROCESS. And as a lawyer, Christie should have known better than to go that route since he himself was compelled to get warrants and follow the law. Paul made the distinction but he got cut off.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): Rubio: I had a totally different opinion of him. Seems much less conservative and a lot more intelligent than I thought.

I liked Rubio early on--like when he originally ran for the Senate. He's got an everyman draw and wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But he was part of the Gang of 8, a fact he conveniently omitted last night, even whilst talking about illegal immigration.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): Rand Paul: Good ideas. But too dogmatic, and not in a Republican way. Hard to think any Republican would vote for him.

If by "too dogmatic" you mean "adheres to the Constitution" you're right. And I'll take it. Paul is the ONLY guy in the field who has gone beyond the traditional GOP base to try to expand what basic liberty means--for EVERYONE. He's been extraordinarily consistent in his protections of basic constitutional rights, most notably the 4th Amendment with his prior filibusters (aided by Cruz in the first one, brilliantly, I might add). He also has a simple but clear economic plan and takes more of a libertarian (small L) approach to things. His foreign policy is pragmatic, not xenophobic and he's done well to distance his positions from his father. When people hear him speak, they gravitate to him.

Too bad he got the least speaking time of all the candidates last night.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): Kasich doesn't seem like that bad of a guy.

I like him, think he's a decent fellow. But he's a policy wonk. He showed favorably because of a home Ohio crowd as well. He benefitted by just having jumped into the race, but he's got enough big government skeletons in his closet too that he's going to have to elucidate upon if people will trust him. He's a helluva good communicator though, I'll give him that.

***

Fiorina seemed to have stomped the first debate bigtime. I think she's going to be a larger presence and that may change the race a bit.

We'll start to see in the next 3 months who drops out because the funding will dry up for many of these candidates. And then there's Trump, sucking the air out of the room, admitting he buys politicians, his bombast hardly statesmanlike. I can't tell if I like it or despise it. But he's no conservative and barely a Republican, really. The dude will probably switch it up and run vs HIllary.

I don't think you're contradicting AR385, all the qualities you mention in Rand Paul hardly make him a Republican. Republicans talk a lot about adhering to the US constitution, they don't want to actually do it. They talk about liberty, they want nothing to do with it. They talk about no more wars, while preparing a couple. Etc.

From reading Politico today - trump seems to have won the debate by a mile and is now setting the agenda for the rest.

As much as I hate to admit it, I would have to say that Trump won big last night: upfront and honest, even if he was crass at times. The fact that he waited to take on Rand Paul after Rand jumped on him at the very beginning...the guy was masterful when he said "You’re having a hard time tonight". True, there were times he didn't answer the question, choosing instead to deflect and criticize what we have now and telling "I'll do better", but many of the candidates also did the same thing. I think the fact that Trump even bragged about buying politicians really hit home: the others ARE bought by millionaires so they get to play the agenda; Trump sets it. Not that I agree with it, but I prefer a guy that sets the agenda and is not bought rather than the one who is bought and only carries one from those who bought him.

In the epic Christie vs Paul debate, I do understand Rand's motive about protecting civil liberties, but in a case where you NEED to distinguish who is aiding the enemy, I side with Christie. Christie delivered the best rebuttal to Rand Paul's comment on collecting records: "How can you know who is innocent and who is engaged with terrorism?" I agree. In the utopian society, we would immediately know who is engaged and who isn't, but in this current society there isn't a way. It's like wanting to bake a cake but not get any of the utensils dirty.

In the debate, the faces I was eager to see: Trump, Kasich, and Christie. I think all three stood out.

Faces I was OK with but didn't really care for that much:
Rubio (good orator and way more polished than when he took a sip of water)
Walker (didn't have a gaffe...but found him a bit too bland)
Bush (leaning more towards the next category...very bland)

Faces of people I simply thought weren't in the debate:
Carson (wasn't really given air time)
Cruz (who?)
Huckabee (good debater, I'll give him that)
Paul (the overall loser here. His tirade against his opponents seemed like a desperate move to spark life into his campaign).

Quoting slider (Reply 12): Paul was absolutely correct in his assertions about DUE PROCESS.

Just how do you define due process? When dealing with existential threat, how do you deal with it? Do you accuse someone and THEN conduct the search? That pretty much turns the country into a police state. What if evidence is fabricated against you once you're accused?

Here's another example: do you hire a detective once you've confirmed that a person is associated with an illegal activity or do you hire it to confirm said suspicion?

Trump is going to last a lot longer in this race than people think. His approach to this debate and the race is genius--rather than try to cover up the skeletons in his closet, he opens the door, admits to them, and explains why because of these skeletons, he's a great candidate.

His answer on the donor/lobbyist question was great--yeah, of course I expect favors when I donate to candidates--that's how the system works. He's an insider who knows how the system works, so he's a perfect candidate to reform said system.

Quoting doug_or (Reply 10): Kasich seemed... electable

Kasich is running for vice president, which is a shame, because he seemed the most reasonable of the bunch.

Carson is on another planet.

Walker sounded like a pull-toy spouting off Republican clichés.

Cruz is a sideshow.

Rubio, Trump, and Bush appear to be the front-runners, with Kasich as the top VP pick.

Well at least God showed up. He's a busy guy but his priorities are straight!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2): Christie was correct to call out Paul's Terrorist vs citizen comment.

I disagree. Yeah it was easy for Paul to say what he said, but they all whinge and moan about out of control government spending, government inefficiency, and trampling of rights. The insane "security" infrastructure we've developed since 9/11 *IS* the poster child of out of control spending, government stupidity, and trampling of rights. I think most of the GOP candidates want more rights for zygotes than they would push for actual citizens today  

Donald Trump is solely the source of the immigration debate? Right, got it. He is just rehashing the absurdities spouted by the Republican Party for the past 10 years.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 5):

I would say that started when Reagan was elected, it's been a downhill slide since.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17): I think most of the GOP candidates want more rights for zygotes than they would push for actual citizens today

If you noticed, Rubio inadvertently included illegal immigrants into who should enjoy rights in the US. The topic of abortion came up and he said:

Quote: ...What I have advocated is that we pass law in this country that says all human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection. In fact, I think that law already exists. It is called the Constitution of the United States. I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not. Whether they can speak or not. Whether they can hire a lawyer or not. Whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live.

I don't know about you but this bit may come back to haunt him later on. Is an anchor baby worthy of protection too?

i thought Trump 's comb over held up very nicely.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): Moreover, as much as I WANT a bulldog media, and a government watchdog media (its natural role) there is quite a difference between giving decent interrogatories and pushing to get answers to questions and being a bully and rude.

Could not agree more. Nevermind how annoying Chris Wallace sounds, the wink-winking after zinger answers and barely-concealed scowls and smirks after poor ones was appalling. Nobody calling themselves a serious journalist would show that much emotion on camera. Yuck.

Overall I was surprised by Rubio, shocked by how poor Cruz and Carson are at public speaking, and impressed by Christie's ability to debate the likes of firebrands Huckabee and Paul. Huckabee, for his part, further distanced himself from any potential independent support with his 'Supreme Being is above the Supreme Court' nonsense. Walker is a buffoon making statements like 'ISIS and Iran are linked' and Kasich was wonky enough initially but seemed to be pushing his 22:00 bedtime limits.

I am not sure what to say about Trump still - he made me chuckle a few times with his candor, as expected, but he's going to have to start delivering way more substance if he wants to capture independents.

[Edited 2015-08-07 07:52:57]

I was disappointed. The Fox team stumbled from the beginning. The debate quickly went down hill. There was not as much interplay between the candidates as I had hoped. Christie and Rand and Trump provided the few sparks. I think Rand was the clear loser in the end. Jeb seemed unsure of himself.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): there is quite a difference between giving decent interrogatories and pushing to get answers to questions and being a bully and rude.

Well, this is Fox Entertainment we're talking about..

Trump - I don't see huffpo moving him off of the entertainment pages any time soon.
Rubio - actually made a modicum of sense every now and again. It would be interesting to hear him in a context where he didn't have to play to the polls.
Christie - yeah, the guy comes off like a Jersey don, but at least he understands that you can't fix problems by addressing a few percent of 25% of the problem -- and he's willing to say it too.
Huckabee -- if he grew a beard and said Allah instead of Jesus, he would fit right in with your average Taliban or Iranian mullah. Rather ironic methinks.
Cruz - words fail me. And him as well, it seems.
Carson - his reality doesn't seem to match mine very well. Or at all.
Bush - I expected to like him better. Either he had an off night or he's just tedious.
Walker - I suppose ISIS and Iran both start with the letter "i", but seriously? did not come off well.
Kasich - would like to hear more from him, was kind of drowned out by the loudmouths.
Paul - I think he's sincere, but unfortunately sincerity is overrated. I don't think the world works the way he wants it to.

Rubio and Kasich impressed me the most, and I'd be willing to grant Christie and just possibly Bush another hearing. The rest of them struck me as either clowns, fools, or relics from a thankfully bygone age.

Didn't watch the debates last night out of principle, but based on what I'm reading about it, as expected, nothing surprising was said. I'm glad I didn't miss much. I'll be starting another thread a little later on a more notable political event that occurred last night, the end of Jon Stewart's run.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20): And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live.

Is that good English ? I think future generations will wonder why we had to breed that much and screw up the planet in the process, while they will be enjoying reverse birth control : take a pill if you want a baby.

Quoting Rubio (Reply 20): and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26): Is that good English ?

No.

  There's an extraneous "them" in there. I can understand the thought process that led to the goof, though.

I really think Trump came out the winner last night. He says things that a lot of us think, but dare not speak and the GOP sees that as a threat. That, in my opinion is why they're not touting him as the front-runner.

Unless he does something bad enough to alienate all the voters he has in his corner, I think he has the GOP Primary Elections in his hands.

Personally, I'm an independent Democrat...for now. I will likely be changing my party affiliation so that I can vote for Trump.

Marc

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter): Carson made some good points about politicians, but sounded highly scripted.

Most of the night was highly scripted oratory from most of the candidates. Very few times did any of them offer direct answers to the questions posed. Most of the responses were simply campaign speeches - very little substance in most responses.
Trump's a clown, Carson is in another sphere of reality, Huckabee is....what's the word I am looking for? Puritanical maybe?
Cruz is exactly the imbecile I thought he was. Walker and Bush were dull as butter knives. I'll give points to Christie, I never liked him much but in my opinion he seems knowledgeable on the issues and seemed to have some solutions. Kasich could be an interesting candidate given time to develop and get more attention. Rubio....I think maybe he'll be more ready in 2020 or if the GOP wins next year, then in 2024.

Most Watched Debate... in History.... (according to Fox...)

After watching the debate, for a second time (I listened the first time, on the radio...):

I feel best about Rubio and Christie.

I feel less good about Trump and Paul.

I don't feel any better or worse about Bush, or Huckabee, Cruz, or Walker.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): First, I thought the way Fox handled this was horrendous.

  

Quoting slider (Reply 12): If by "too dogmatic" you mean "adheres to the Constitution" you're right

You've gotta be joking. Other than weed, there's almost nothing that separates Paul from most of the other in-step GOPer, in terms of constitutional freedoms and individual liberties.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): Paul is the ONLY guy in the field who has gone beyond the traditional GOP base to try to expand what basic liberty means--for EVERYONE.

Hogwash. Paul's still fighting lost battles on that front.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15): Carson (wasn't really given air time)

FALSE.

Despite his pathetic and childish whining, Carson was actually middle-of-the-pack in terms of air time.
Rubio, Christie, Walker, and Paul all received less talking time than him.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15): Huckabee (good debater, I'll give him that)

How's he a "good debater" when he made apparent his utter lack of comprehension for basic Civil Procedure???

Quoting us330 (Reply 16): Walker sounded like a pull-toy spouting off Republican clichés.

But don't you know that standing up to the AFL-CIO is directly equivalent to fighting ISIL?  
....after all, they're both acronyms.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22): and impressed by Christie's ability to debate the likes of firebrands Huckabee and Paul.

And remain calm at the same time, which many consider to be his greatest weakness. I think Christie did himself some post-BridgeGate favors here.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23): Jeb seemed unsure of himself.

Agreed. It's like he's bored with this whole process, just wants to be handed the nomination, and then finally get serious. That's a very Bush-expectant attitude, and sorta Ironic considering that that's what they accuse Hillary of.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): Cruz: Makes me feel sorry. Way, way dumber than I thought previously. It´s like watching a train wreck every time he opens his mouth. He does give material for good laughs. No real substance on anything. Agenda based on a fetishist hate for Obama.

I am not sure Ted Cruz is really that dumb. I think he seems to play dumb to attract those who vote for him.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): Walker: Just someone who seems to have arrived here from the 9th century.

He scares me if he tries to do what he is doing in Wisconsin nation wide adding that the the social conservatism it just makes it worse.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2): I think Rand Paul just took a beating from Christie. Christie was correct to call out Paul's Terrorist vs citizen comment.

I completely disagree.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): If by "too dogmatic" you mean "adheres to the Constitution" you're right. And I'll take it. Paul is the ONLY guy in the field who has gone beyond the traditional GOP base to try to expand what basic liberty means--for EVERYONE. He's been extraordinarily consistent in his protections of basic constitutional rights, most notably the 4th Amendment with his prior filibusters (aided by Cruz in the first one, brilliantly, I might add). He also has a simple but clear economic plan and takes more of a libertarian (small L) approach to things. His foreign policy is pragmatic, not xenophobic and he's done well to distance his positions from his father. When people hear him speak, they gravitate to him.

  

If you start unlawful search and seizure against citizens (including unauthorized wiretapping) because of a tragic event 14 years ago then the terrorist won and one of the biggest essences of American freedom has already gone.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): First, I thought the way Fox handled this was horrendous. I don't watch the network so I don't know if that's always how Megyn Kelly acts, but it was terribly unprofessional. Moreover, as much as I WANT a bulldog media, and a government watchdog media (its natural role) there is quite a difference between giving decent interrogatories and pushing to get answers to questions and being a bully and rude. Fox was the latter more often than not. And their clear bias in terms of air time among the candidates was problematic.

They gave their favorites softballs and the ones that don't tow the fox line got more heat.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15): In the epic Christie vs Paul debate, I do understand Rand's motive about protecting civil liberties, but in a case where you NEED to distinguish who is aiding the enemy, I side with Christie.

Then you side against the US constitution the United States was founded on these principles because they had it with the monarchy where you could be jailed for swearing at the wrong person.

You are innocent until proven guilty under US law and if you illegally wiretap me and I find out and I am up to something criminal I can get off from that crime that I committed on a technicality because no warrant was obtained. This is how justice works, and if you break this principle for alleged terrorists what is going to stop a future government for doing the same to other organizations to dig up dirt.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15): Just how do you define due process? When dealing with existential threat, how do you deal with it? Do you accuse someone and THEN conduct the search? That pretty much turns the country into a police state. What if evidence is fabricated against you once you're accused? Here's another example: do you hire a detective once you've confirmed that a person is associated with an illegal activity or do you hire it to confirm said suspicion?

You get probable cause against an individual or organization, you then go to a judge with the cause and they grant a warrant for that act to obtain more information to obtain an appropriate charge.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32): I am not sure Ted Cruz is really that dumb. I think he seems to play dumb to attract those who vote for him.

Agree, which to me makes him even worse. It'd be one thing if he was just ignorant, but he's not-- he's just devious and an abject faker.

But it matters not: he ain't running to *be* President.

Quoting us330 (Reply 16): Trump is going to last a lot longer in this race than people think.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15): As much as I hate to admit it, I would have to say that Trump won big last night:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 14): From reading Politico today

I do not understand why people keep saying that. Sure, Trump did win big in terms of showmanship. But winning? There was no substance in anything he said. And the boorish way he referred to that female moderator, was just plain wrong. He managed to alienate mainstream Republicans with his little theatrics at the beginning and there is no way, a woman that does not live in a hut in Appalachia, is going to vote for him. And women represent at least 50% of the electorate and, this is key, they VOTE in MORE numbers.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 28): I really think Trump came out the winner last night. He says things that a lot of us think, but dare not speak and the GOP sees that as a threat.

I have to disagree with you.

Quoting slider (Reply 12): If by "too dogmatic" you mean "adheres to the Constitution" you're right. And I'll take it. Paul is the ONLY guy in the field who has gone beyond the traditional GOP base to try to expand what basic liberty means--for EVERYONE. He's been extraordinarily consistent in his protections of basic constitutional rights, most notably the 4th Amendment with his prior filibusters (aided by Cruz in the first one, brilliantly, I might add).

Maybe I should have explained myself better. What I meant by dogmatic, is that when you are making a good point, but it is being attacked strongly and solidly, albeit with a lot of smoke and mirrors, like Christie did, using subtle but ad hominem attacks, you need to change the way you are presenting the counter idea. Not the substance, but the way you are arguing. I found him dogmatic in that his only argument is that you really can´t be against the 4th amendment. Not dogmatic in his view, just in the lack of finding or tryng another approach to respond to Christie´s accusations.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32): I am not sure Ted Cruz is really that dumb. I think he seems to play dumb to attract those who vote for him.

I find that interesting. Could you expand?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32): He scares me if he tries to do what he is doing in Wisconsin nation wide adding that the the social conservatism it just makes it worse.

I am not absolutely pro-choice. But I am damn sure for abortions in the cases where there is a rape, or the life of the mother is in danger. Walker wants to do away with abortions EVEN in these two cases. That mentality is backwards, and sexist. Dangerous even because one wonders what other things and liberties he is wanting to do away with? I also find it pretty shocking that he has these beliefs with no argument to back them up except for his religious principles. And God says so. In a secular state, that is just archaic and fundamentalist.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34): Sure, Trump did win big in terms of showmanship. But winning? There was no substance in anything he said.

You just described Trump's campaigning style since he first toyed with the idea of running for President... and yet, look where his polling is now.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34): I find that interesting. Could you expand?

Graduated in the top of his classes at both Princeton and at Harvard Law,

Was considered by both his professors and peers to be a master debater (settle down Beavis) on constitutional theory,

Clerked for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, as well as for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Was a hugely successful private practitioner (a lot of people don't know/remember, but he was John Boehner's personal counsel and go-to guy for legal issues), then

Had a successful record as a Solicitor General, and

(perhaps most noticeably of all) figured out how to propel himself to center stage in the national field, just a few months into his Congressional tenure.

It's unrealistic to think someone would achieve all of the above, without both being vastly intelligent and knowing how government works inside-out; yet he pretends to be a bumbling buffoon who can't figure out things like why SCOTUS justices aren't directly related....

....he KNOWS why, but also knows that there's a million+ Texas idiots who don't, and who'd thus vote for someone who routinely expresses their contempt for that concept. Just one example.

[Edited 2015-08-07 18:31:38]

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 35): and yet, look where his polling is now.

I may be wrong. But I still have doubts about the sampling in those polls. I´d also like to know in those polls the % of undecided, the age groups, plus income levels of those polled. Tall order, maybe. I am of the opinion though that the polls are grouping together certain profile of Republican that is skewed towards a candidate like Trump.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 35): It's unrealistic to think someone would achieve all of the above, without knowing how government works, inside-out; yet he pretends to be a bumbling buffoon who can't figure out things like why SCOTUS justices aren't directly related....

I agree with you. So then what you are saying, if I am understanding you is that he dumbs himself down to appeal to a certain electorate segment?

Quoting AR385 (Reply 36): So then what you are saying, if I am understanding you is that he dumbs himself down to appeal to a certain electorate segment?

  

Latest poll results from Politico. Can't post the link as from app.

... Trump an overwhelming victory in the debate, with 45 percent of respondents -- more than 250,000 people as of Friday afternoon -- saying he won, compared to 14 percent for the second-place Ted Cruz...

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 38): Trump an overwhelming victory in the debate, with 45 percent of respondents -- more than 250,000 people as of Friday afternoon -- saying he won, compared to 14 percent for the second-place Ted Cruz...

Well. In my opinion, and my opinion only, there is something wrong with that poll. I mean in the methodology. Not in what it is saying. I may buy Trump "won", but Cruz 2nd.? I wonder even how they are phrasing the questions.

i think Fox had a agenda and went after Trump plain and simple. Trump to his credit open his closet of skeletons and let them all fall out. He answered everything truthfully and upfront. Was he presidential HELL NO. he was crass. but so was Fox Network, who continued to knife Trump on their network after the debate.

Trump is going to be here, until the GOP stops living in the 50's and starts living in a world that has a serious population control issues and finally address global warming issues , and stops trying to start wars, and stops trying to control woman's health issues.

[Edited 2015-08-07 20:14:44]

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34):

Here's the thing: he had nothing to lose. He's the front runner. If he was upfront with everything, then he did himself a favor. He disarmed his opponents. They had nothing to attack him with. Today, MSNBC played clips of Republicans candidates asked about Trump and all were afraid to criticize him, choosing to deflect or ignore the questions. I don't know about you, but when your opponents are afraid to mention your name and have nothing to call you out on, you've won. You may have not said anything of substance, but the fact is none of them has a coherent plan in place.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 39): Well. In my opinion, and my opinion only, there is something wrong with that poll. I mean in the methodology. Not in what it is saying. I may buy Trump "won", but Cruz 2nd.? I wonder even how they are phrasing the questions.

Some polls still rely on telephone surveys. When I say telephone, I mean phones that are hard wired into homes and not cell phones or smart phones. So, those who watched the "debate" and only have a cell phone don't count.

I did hear clips of King Donnie talking down to all women. I think he may be just filming all of this for a "reality" show to be released January 2017 when Hillary/Bernie or Bernie/Hillary are sworn in. He will air the first episode the same time as they are taking the oath of office and claim higher ratings and blame the American people for not electing him.

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 30): Most Watched Debate... in History.... (according to Fox...)

I wonder if the candidates realize that this primary is being followed worldwide. Not as much as the actual election, but still much more than any previous primary.

I've been to youtube and watched a video of Carson playing operation, Ted Cruz cooking bacon on an AR-15, Lindsey Graham destroying cell phones, on top of Trump opening his mouth, making misogynist jokes and grimacing. That was also shown on evening national news here in France.

Are they trying to find the dumbest mofo ?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 43): Are they trying to find the dumbest mofo ?

pretty much

here's the latest. lol Trump, Night at the Roxbury

https://video.flas1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xat1/v/t43.1792-2/11809793_10153263797871130_828506891_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MTAyNH0%3D&oh=6e6fdaed410b7f906554cc67581fc961&oe=55C625D8

Quoting Aesma (Reply 43): I wonder if the candidates realize that this primary is being followed worldwide.

Yes, that is why all the butt kissing toward Israel and saber rattling toward Iran and ISIS. They also have to say the most outrageous things now so they can stay relevant and in the spotlight.

The One Hair Wonder has made comments about how stupid political correctness is. I heard a wonderful response to that: it is not being correct, it is showing people respect.

I feel like Christie sounded alright, but like someone mentioned earlier, he acts like a mob boss. Look at the GW bridge closure. Which "he knew nothing about" aside from ordering it.

Not the guy you want running a country. I don't like Trump at all but at least he's honest. Sad when the best thing the GOP can seem to field is Trump and Jeb. Hopefully Jeb doesn't get the nomination or we may be in for a repeat of 2000...but with how shortsighted people are, they'll probably think another Bush is the best thing that can happen.

LOVED the fact that Trump brought up buying politicians. (See Christie's bridge closure again)

Trump was dis-invited form the 'Red State' conservative gathering this weekend by the leader and primary funder of this gathering due to Trump's is offensive & sexist comments to the Fox News' Megan Kelly during the 'debate' and afterwards ('blood coming out of everywhere", suggesting including from her vagina from menstruation). He also invited Ms. Kelly to be there. The leader of this group has a very anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, racist, has said racist and other nasty things about President and Ms. Obama, and pro-corporate viewpoint. "Kiddie table" Fox Debate winner Carly Fiorina also Tweeted her disgust with Trump as to his comments on Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly asked some really good questions of Trump and others to try to throw them off their rehearsed lines and to shake some issues of that that are not 'true conservatives'. The roll call of others condemning Trump for his sexist 'un-PC' views is quickly growing and will hurt him (hopefully) soon.

If using the same grounds as with Trump, the leader of this gathering should have also dis-invited Christ Christie as he has suggested violence not only to men, but to teachers who are mostly women ('push their face in') and to a top female Democratic Legislator critic ('take a baseball bat to her'). Christie also made a huge boo-boo in the debate - he was NOT the US Attorney for NJ on Tuesday 9/11/01 - he was called on Monday 9/10/01 that his name was put into nomination by President Bush (for his fundraising for him - despite never been a prosecutor or involved with criminal law). Christie was not US Attorney until he was reviewed by the Senate and took office in Jan. 2002 - although under his term, he did bring a number of prosecutions against terrorists.

Looks like more fallout to come from these debates.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 47): The leader of this group has a very anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, racist, has said racist and other nasty things about President and Ms. Obama, and pro-corporate viewpoint.

The leader of the group is about one of the biggest hypocrites in the party, uninviting Donald Trump for making sexist remarks, which he himself has made throughout the years.

Source

The Red State Gathering Conference

The individual speeches and discussions are archived on the You Tube Site:

http://www.youtube.com/user/redstatemedia/videos

Or, the entire 1st Day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqDaLCicbic