The Repub Debate

[zoogs]

A true conservative doesn't believe the Constitution is a document that defines the rights the federal government deigns to grant its subjects.

[TGHusker]

As a conservative, my greatest disappointment use to be - ACA being approved without bipartisan support - support that would have occurred if the repubs had stepped up to insist on modifications that they now ( & for a long time) are calling for. Granted, the dems wt their super majority didn't need any republican support and therefore none of their modifications - thus my big gripe of the dems pushing this huge nation changing act all by themselves without consideration of modifications presented by the 'loyal opposition'. An act this huge should have bipartisan support.

 

However, it has become painfully obvious over the past # of years, that the repubs never were serious about modification, repeal and replace, cooperation or any other sort of real action on this plan. I suspect they thought the supreme court was going to do their heavy lifting and rule it unconstitutional. Well, maybe Obama has the 'goods' on Justice Roberts (as some suspect) or not, but the good ole judge did not follow the repub playbook and the ACA stands. I think the repubs want to keep it as a campaign issue (like abortion, plan parenthood, etc) and never do anything about it - just keep telling the gullible to believe. This is my greatest disappointment now with this whole issue - the deceitful, do nothing congressional repub leadership - I expected that of Reid and San Fran Nan, but I expected more of the repubs. Net Net - they are all politicians and nothing more - only concerned about their next election and keeping their bread buttered not by the citizens but by the lobbyists.

I remain a registered Repub only because that is the only place my vote will have influence in the Oklahoma primaries. Right now, I think both parties suck. I would love to see a courageous independent ticket of a more independent repub and an independent dem - like a

Rand Paul/Elizabeth Warren ticket. It of course will never happen but only something that drastic could solve the mess that is DC.

[HuskerNation1]

You're right, my comment that republicans are screwed is my opinion. I could agree with you that they aren't but then we would both be wrong.

 

They are screwed because they have not offered one viable alternative other than one back in the 90s that is amazingly similar to the one that republicans now are claiming is unconstitutional and installed by a tyrannical anti American Muslim.

 

Now, THAT is fact. You can deny it all you want but....then once again you would be wrong.

 

Now....please explain what option the republicans have offered.

 

Or, are you saying the previous status quo is what we should go back to?

 

 

You can claim I'm liberal all you want....everyone on here is just going to laugh at your comment and not take you serious.

 

A conservative doesn't have to fall for every line of BS the republicans feed them.

 

I have chosen to leave the Republican Party not because I'm a liberal but because I could no longer support that disaster of a party.

 

Political party affiliation is different than individual political views. The sooner people realize that the better.

 

Again, pointing to a 90s plan that was not supported by the Conservative voters/base and was put forward by a small number of Senators over a short time span is NOT representative of Conservative ideology. That's like saying that LBJ sent the country into Vietnam and therefore Democrats stand for going to war. If you honestly think that conservatives in 2009/2010 were really wanting Obamacare or something like it, and just pretending they didn't, you are lying to yourself and everyone on here.

 

Also, I do agree that both parties are a disaster. The left is becoming a bunch of socialists, and the Republicans in Congress are a bunch of wimps and can't seem to get anything done with their majority. There are things I don't agree with the GOP on, including Medicare Part D that Bush 43 passed. That was an entitlement expansion that was not paid for. I also don't like Boehner or McConnell so I would approve of them getting the boot.

 

So to put you on the spot, since you are no longer a Conservative, who are you supporting in 2016?

[Hedley Lamarr]

There is actually people that support PP? Let that sink in...people support the killing of babies and in some cases the harvesting of their parts for profit....a major issue with our country does revolve around our morals. Lack of a go getter attitude. The idea that the government will pay for everything for you. Our country is full of a bunch of people that expect handouts. That isn't what ever Ade our country great.

[BigRedBuster]

 

You're right, my comment that republicans are screwed is my opinion. I could agree with you that they aren't but then we would both be wrong.

 

They are screwed because they have not offered one viable alternative other than one back in the 90s that is amazingly similar to the one that republicans now are claiming is unconstitutional and installed by a tyrannical anti American Muslim.

 

Now, THAT is fact. You can deny it all you want but....then once again you would be wrong.

 

Now....please explain what option the republicans have offered.

 

Or, are you saying the previous status quo is what we should go back to?

 

 

You can claim I'm liberal all you want....everyone on here is just going to laugh at your comment and not take you serious.

 

A conservative doesn't have to fall for every line of BS the republicans feed them.

 

I have chosen to leave the Republican Party not because I'm a liberal but because I could no longer support that disaster of a party.

 

Political party affiliation is different than individual political views. The sooner people realize that the better.

 

Again, pointing to a 90s plan that was not supported by the Conservative voters/base and was put forward by a small number of Senators over a short time span is NOT representative of Conservative ideology. That's like saying that LBJ sent the country into Vietnam and therefore Democrats stand for going to war. If you honestly think that conservatives in 2009/2010 were really wanting Obamacare or something like it, and just pretending they didn't, you are lying to yourself and everyone on here.

 

Also, I do agree that both parties are a disaster. The left is becoming a bunch of socialists, and the Republicans in Congress are a bunch of wimps and can't seem to get anything done with their majority. There are things I don't agree with the GOP on, including Medicare Part D that Bush 43 passed. That was an entitlement expansion that was not paid for. I also don't like Boehner or McConnell so I would approve of them getting the boot.

 

So to put you on the spot, since you are no longer a Conservative, who are you supporting in 2016?

 

Where did I say I wasn't a conservative?

[QMany]

I watched about half of the debate last night. It was entertaining, if nothing else.

 

• Discussing immigration reform, including "building a wall" and anchor babies, at the Reagan Library was rich.
• I thought Fiorina won, if you are looking for winners and losers at this sort of thing.
• Jeb Bush was bold in asserting his brother "kept us safe," 5 days after the anniversary of 9/11.
• The military-industrial complex runs deep.
• Those touting wholesale tax reform are in la-la-land. I think that will hurt Carson in particular.
• Trump's proposed tax policies are likely to resonate with middle-class, but not so much with the wealthy.

[QMany]

 

Carly Fiorina won the GOP debate, but fact checkers will have a field day.

 

[TGHusker]

<sub>So who were your winners and losers last night?
Mine:
I have more Losers and am ready for these to exit right (even though 2 of them led in the polls going in - Trump and Carson I don't believe are presidential material - Trump by temperament and Carson by experience):
1. Walker - he needed to step up after the lackluster 1st debate. He didn't turn any heads and looks to be the weakest of the governors in the race. He seems to be falling badly and isn't inspiring or evokes passion. He is running on beating the unions in Wisc. He may be the 1st of these top 11 to drop out based on his meter like fall from the top. Money will soon dry up for him like it did for Perry.
2. Trump - while several unscientific after debate polls still show him winning, he came across as un-presidential again. Calling name, acting childish, etc. Still no specific. And what was all of these high 5s? Also, there was a period of the debate where it seemed he lost interest and didn't engage.
3. Kasich - he was stronger in debate 1 and to me he seemed fidgety and showed his 'establishment' colors by not favoring any kind of gov't shut down ( which won't play well wt many conservatives - who will see it as being unprincipled - while it may play better in the general election). He looked tired, and sounded a bit more like a democrat at times.
4. Rand Paul - time for him to get off the stage - added nothing really important - I don't think he has the temperament for the job.
5. Ben Carson - a very likable guy but showed he doesn't have a full grasp of what it takes to be president. Too understated and no real fire. Said he was for the Flat tax but when challenged said he might be open to the Fair tax. He is still formulating his opinions - too late for this at this stage in the game.

Flat Liners:
1. Bush - while doing better than last debate by being more engaged, he hasn't said anything to really turn heads or evoke passion. I still think he would have been a better president than his brother. Trump is getting under his skin and it showed last night.
2. Huckabee - he has his followers but will gain no more. He's passionate, can be funny and engaging but only plays to a small segment of the voters
3. Cruz - says all of the right red meat things but comes across as 'programmed'. He looks at the camera and keeps speaking his scripted statements. He would be polarizing as Obama is today- even more so.

Gainers:
Chris Christy - improved over last debate. While not my guy, I think he was the most effective of the governors last night in communicating his message.

Winner:
1. Rubio Marco shows passion, shows knowledge of the big issues, has an excellent delivery without being Cruz like(programmed). He said enough to show that he is both a social conservative and enough to show that traditional repubs don't need to fear him like they would a Cruz, Huckabee or Trump. He comes across as knowing who he is and what he believes. He comes across as the most professional of the Senators and with the best temperament of the 3. As someone said, if he could just look different than someone's teenage son he'd be on top.
2. Fiorina - she gave detailed answers, clear, wt substance (whether you agree wt those answers is a different issue). She showed that she not only belonged on the stage but she may have positioned herself as a strong VP choice if she doesn't win the nomination. She will move into the top tier very soon wt this performance. She 'won' the debate if I had to choose one winner.</sub>

 

_{I could go with a Rubio/Fiorina ticket Youth and an outsider and being a female would benefit the ticket - esp if Hillary is the Dem nominee or Warren becomes a VP pick.}

[BigRedBuster]

Winner

 

Me = I had a great Cubs game to watch so I didn't have to sit through all the childish crap.

 

Loser = Trump.....hopefully.

[funhusker]

_{3. Kasich - he was stronger in debate 1 and to me he seemed fidgety and showed his 'establishment' colors by not favoring any kind of gov't shut down ( which won't play well wt many conservatives - who will see it as being unprincipled - while it may play better in the general election). He looked tired, and sounded a bit more like a democrat at times.}

 

Funny, you put him as a "debate loser" because of this. But out of all the GOP candidates ,he is the only one I could see myself voting for because of this. (and his views on the Iran deal).

 

To each his own, I guess.

[teachercd]

1. I get the feeling that Rand Paul doesn't even want to be president

2. That lady didn't win...she basically just made stuff up...which is not really a big issue right now but it will bite her later.

3. If Trump was running 100 years ago he would win with ease but we are so afraid to hurt peoples feelings now

4. Bush is probably going to be one of the last men standing

[Creighton Duke]

1. I get the feeling that Rand Paul doesn't even want to be president

2. That lady didn't win...she basically just made stuff up...which is not really a big issue right now but it will bite her later.

3. If Trump was running 100 years ago he would win with ease but we are so afraid to hurt peoples feelings now

4. Bush is probably going to be one of the last men standing

[BigRedBuster]

Carly Fiorina won the GOP debate, but fact checkers will have a field day.

OK....here is what drives me nuts about articles like this and Vox does this quite often.

 

In this article, the only parts where she actually has a fact incorrect is maybe on the Planned Parenthood video. I haven't watched the video so I don't know. I'm beginning to not believe Vox in articles like this that are more opinion than actually reporting the news.

 

Here's an example:

 

The answer about Russia and Putin.

 

She lists:

 

a) Rebuilding the 6th fleet

b) would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States

c) Would send a few thousand troops to Germany

d) Would rebuild missile defenses in Poland

 

OK. The article then responds that she doesn't know her facts because:

 

a) The 6th fleet is already very large

b) Obama is already conducting military exercises in the Baltic States

c) There are already 40,000 troops in Germany

d) And, pushing a missile defense system on Poland is a long term solution to a short term problem.

 

Now, here's the problem. Their "fact checking" isn't really fact checking. It's disagreeing with her. Now, that's fine if they disagree with her but don't sit here and act like she lied or doesn't have her facts straight. She didn't say there aren't any troops in Germany or that Obama wasn't conducting military exercises in the Baltic States...etc. She said that's what she would do. In essence, she in large part is saying she would do what Obama already is doing. That isn't lying or not having her facts right. It's just that the Vox writer obviously doesn't agree with her opinion on what to do.

 

Horrible reporting if that is what this is supposed to be.

[TGHusker]

 

_{3. Kasich - he was stronger in debate 1 and to me he seemed fidgety and showed his 'establishment' colors by not favoring any kind of gov't shut down ( which won't play well wt many conservatives - who will see it as being unprincipled - while it may play better in the general election). He looked tired, and sounded a bit more like a democrat at times.}

 

Funny, you put him as a "debate loser" because of this. But out of all the GOP candidates ,he is the only one I could see myself voting for because of this. (and his views on the Iran deal).

 

To each his own, I guess.

 

You mis-understand - I say that because many primary voters will perceive him that way (not having core principles to stand up for) but you validate my point - the general election voters will look more favorable on him because of his stance.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Carly Fiorina won the GOP debate, but fact checkers will have a field day.

OK....here is what drives me nuts about articles like this and Vox does this quite often.

 

In this article, the only parts where she actually has a fact incorrect is maybe on the Planned Parenthood video. I haven't watched the video so I don't know. I'm beginning to not believe Vox in articles like this that are more opinion than actually reporting the news.

 

Here's an example:

 

The answer about Russia and Putin.

 

She lists:

 

a) Rebuilding the 6th fleet

b) would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States

c) Would send a few thousand troops to Germany

d) Would rebuild missile defenses in Poland

 

OK. The article then responds that she doesn't know her facts because:

 

a) The 6th fleet is already very large

b) Obama is already conducting military exercises in the Baltic States

c) There are already 40,000 troops in Germany

d) And, pushing a missile defense system on Poland is a long term solution to a short term problem.

 

Now, here's the problem. Their "fact checking" isn't really fact checking. It's disagreeing with her. Now, that's fine if they disagree with her but don't sit here and act like she lied or doesn't have her facts straight. She didn't say there aren't any troops in Germany or that Obama wasn't conducting military exercises in the Baltic States...etc. She said that's what she would do. In essence, she in large part is saying she would do what Obama already is doing. That isn't lying or not having her facts right. It's just that the Vox writer obviously doesn't agree with her opinion on what to do.

 

Horrible reporting if that is what this is supposed to be.

 

 

BRB-You are exactly right about this. Vox is a known left-wing outlet, and right now the left is very fearful of Fiorina as they know she would eat Hillary alive (or whoever the Dem nominee is) in a debate. Fiorina is the most gifted Republican communicator since Reagan. Now Rubio is also gifted, and my dream ticket since April has been having those two on it, and its now great to see that the rest of America is able to see their talents.

 

Sure, the left will continue to paint Carly out to be a CEO that doesn't care, but unlike Romney, Carly has the "it" factor to defend and counter-attack. Her rise has just begun, and I really think she will be standing in the end.