South Carolina Debate 2016

[ML]

Really frustrating watching and listening to tonight's (Feb 13, 2016) debate.

Of course they all lie, distort their record and distort the other guys' records.

But still we have to try to determine who can beat the democrat and who can implement his plan.

Kasich:  He sound reasonable on many issues, and (according to him) has done a good job previously in DC and running Ohio.

But then, probably he wouldn't be much different than a democratic president.  And, according to Jeb, Kasich actually is rated the worst of all governors by some respected organization; didn't catch  the name.

Jeb:  Again, probably not much different than  a democratic president.  Says everything good happened in Florida under his governorship; but The Donald said that everything fell apart in Florida later because of what Jeb did.

Cruz:  Has all the right conservative credentials.  His flat tax idea is the greatest thing ever.  But his ideas on a lot of social issues are so far away from the majority of ordinary folks that he probably can't get elected and couldn't get his plans through congress even if he were elected.  And it might be right as The Donald says, that he is the biggest liar of all of them.  And his Gold Standard idea (not mentioned this night) is the stupidest thing ever.

Trump:  I think he could do a lot of the things that he says he will do to make America great again.  His plan to lower corporate taxes should bring trillions back into USA to help create growth here.  He knows how to deal with business leaders to come up with plans to get our country growing again.  He may not be very likable; but I could go for a guy that I didn't like personally, if he could  do great things for our country.

Rubio.  Despite his NH debacle, he shows that he does know a lot about many things including foreign affairs.
He also has mostly good conservative credentials, but apparently not on taxes.  And he is so far out of whack with the trend of the country with regard to abortion and gay marriage that he can never be elected.

Carson.  He seems like he has a lot  of good ideas.  But he has several quirks that will keep him from being elected.
He talks slow . . . which people equate with dumbness, even as we know he is not.
He closes his eyes often when talking  which gives the impression he is drifting off.
He is soft spoken, when we know a leader must project a strong image.
I doubt if white voters will go for consecutive black presidents.

[Slumba]

Do you remember Proposition 8 that passed in California, which is one of the most liberal states in the USA?  It  banned gay marriage and passed. 

Gay marriage is not actually supported by more than about 40%, if that, of the electorate.  The 2015 AP poll listed here, is most likely the one that is most accurate in terms of 2015 polls:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Now that gay marriage advocates are being more honest, such as Dan Savage (a true deviant that is looked up to in the movement) admitting that such marriages are "monogamish" (i.e., not in any way monogamous):

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-26-2015-1.3010107/monogamy-can-be-damaging-dan-savage-prefers-being-monogamish-1.3010140

I don't expect the numbers to increase in the future.

[calmissile]

ML, agree with your assessment but still have some homework to do on a couple candidates.
I am impressed with how much Rubio knows about foreign affairs.  I don't know the details of his tax plan yet.

The argument that is being made about some  of the candidates not being 'true conservatives' or not conservative enough is a failed argument.  The general population is not going to elect a far right president.  Our culture is just not ready for such a radical move.  It's my belief that the far right candidates have dug their heels in concerning the abortion issue and are not going to do well in the general election and may well give the presidency to the democrats if one is nominated.

Trumps performance began to annoy me tonight.  He needs to learn some manners.  Constantly overtalking and interrupting his opponents does not look presidential.  He also throws irrelevant comments and attacks at his opponents which add nothing to the points being discussed.  While it was not apparent during the debate, Trump did have a plausible explanation when interviewed after the debate.  He indicated that Bush spent millions $$ on attack ads that are untrue and he is simply responding in kind.  His organization needs to learn that during debates, the public does not get to see the references and ads so it appears he is simply attacking for the sake of publicity.   I  would also think he would be better off to cool his heels on attacking his opponents for the time being.  South Carolina is apparently Bush country and attacking the Bush family at this time and place might be unproductive.

I am beginning to dislike Ted Cruz.  He is a lawyer.  He thinks like a lawyer, acts like a lawyer and apparently lies and deceives like a lawyer.  Also, his ultraconservative agenda will not defeat the present democratic nominees.  His presidency would continue or even amplify the divisiveness our country is experiencing.

I wish a decision on the indictment of Hillary would get done soon.  If uncle Joe Biden (or some other electable democrat) enters the race, it may well be that the Republicans need to rethink who they nominate.

[2tallbill]

ML, agree with your assessment but still have some homework to do on a couple candidates.
I am impressed with how much Rubio knows about foreign affairs.  I don't know the details of his tax plan yet.

The argument that is being made about some  of the candidates not being 'true conservatives' or not conservative enough is a failed argument.  The general population is not going to elect a far right president.  Our culture is just not ready for such a radical move.  It's my belief that the far right candidates have dug their heels in concerning the abortion issue and are not going to do well in the general election and may well give the presidency to the democrats if one is nominated.

Trumps performance began to annoy me tonight.  He needs to learn some manners.  Constantly overtalking and interrupting his opponents does not look presidential.  He also throws irrelevant comments and attacks at his opponents which add nothing to the points being discussed.  While it was not apparent during the debate, Trump did have a plausible explanation when interviewed after the debate.  He indicated that Bush spent millions $$ on attack ads that are untrue and he is simply responding in kind.  His organization needs to learn that during debates, the public does not get to see the references and ads so it appears he is simply attacking for the sake of publicity.   I  would also think he would be better off to cool his heels on attacking his opponents for the time being.  South Carolina is apparently Bush country and attacking the Bush family at this time and place might be unproductive.

I am beginning to dislike Ted Cruz.  He is a lawyer.  He thinks like a lawyer, acts like a lawyer and apparently lies and deceives like a lawyer.  Also, his ultraconservative agenda will not defeat the present democratic nominees.  His presidency would continue or even amplify the divisiveness our country is experiencing.

I wish a decision on the indictment of Hillary would get done soon.  If uncle Joe Biden (or some other electable democrat) enters the race, it may well be that the Republicans need to rethink who they nominate.

I disagree with you on Cruz, but I've already said that elsewhere
so there is no need to say it again here.

Uncle Joe Biden, has ran and lost two different presidential bids
and he is a human gaffe machine. The Dems don't have much
of a bench to draw from and have lost a thousand elections since
Obama was first elected.

In my opinion it will end up between Trump and Cruz, but possibly
Rubio as well. Any of them will beat the democrat nominee. As
far right as you think Cruz is, both Hillary and Sanders seem
just as far out wacko left. An articulate conservative will win,
Trump, Cruz and Rubio are definitely articulate.

That's just my two kopecks

Bill

[2tallbill]

Cruz:  Has all the right conservative credentials.  His flat tax idea is the greatest thing ever.  But his ideas on a lot of social issues are so far away from the majority of ordinary folks that he probably can't get elected and couldn't get his plans through congress even if he were elected.  And it might be right as The Donald says, that he is the biggest liar of all of them.  And his Gold Standard idea (not mentioned this night) is the stupidest thing ever.

Rubio.  Despite his NH debacle, he shows that he does know a lot about many things including foreign affairs.
He also has mostly good conservative credentials, but apparently not on taxes.  And he is so far out of whack with the trend of the country with regard to abortion and gay marriage that he can never be elected.

Rubio had one bad debate and many good ones. You can't just
dismiss them if they have a bad outing. The Dems certainly don't
when their candidates lay an egg or lie or commit felonies.

Ted Cruz's gold standard thing was mentioned once and dropped.
100% of the candidates have come out against abortion and half
the country (or more) agrees with them. All the candidates in the
GOP sound pretty far right when running in Iowa and South
Carolina. If they don't they won't get any votes.

The Dems are running so far to the left that it's difficult to believe
that anyone apart from the far left will support them.

John Kasich won't get more than 5% of the vote in either SC or
NV and is probably the next to drop out. Bush has lots of money
but he doesn't have much support. I doubt that he can win a
single state in the primaries.

I like Cruz the most, then Rubio. Either one could easily defeat
Clinton or Sanders. If Obama had a 60% approval rating then
I would say they had a good chance, but he doesn't and they
are offering a tax and spend Santa Claus campaigns that nobody
believes they can deliver.

 

[calmissile]

Rubio had one bad debate and many good ones. You can't just
dismiss them if they have a bad outing. The Dems certainly don't
when their candidates lay an egg or lie or commit felonies.

I have no issue with Rubio's problem during that debate.

Ted Cruz's gold standard thing was mentioned once and dropped.
100% of the candidates have come out against abortion and half
the country (or more) agrees with them. All the candidates in the
GOP sound pretty far right when running in Iowa and South
Carolina. If they don't they won't get any votes.

Exaggerating or lying will catch up to them later.


The Dems are running so far to the left that it's difficult to believe
that anyone apart from the far left will support them.

John Kasich won't get more than 5% of the vote in either SC or
NV and is probably the next to drop out. Bush has lots of money
but he doesn't have much support. I doubt that he can win a
single state in the primaries.

Agree

I like Cruz the most, then Rubio. Either one could easily defeat
Clinton or Sanders.

Disagree!  Cruz cannot win the general election.  He may well have all of the religious right votes, but will not have mainstream America.  It will take much more than the right wing votes to win the general election.

If Obama had a 60% approval rating then
I would say they had a good chance, but he doesn't and they
are offering a tax and spend Santa Claus campaigns that nobody
believes they can deliver.

You are assuming that the progressive left and welfare state is intelligent enough to realize that the Democratic party platform is bad for both them and America.  They will vote for the Santa Claus candidates.   It is a given so write them off to the competition.

The general election is going to be a tug of war between the givers and takers.  It is somewhat encouraging that middle America is slowly waking up to the fact that the takers are even biting into the pocketbooks of union members, small business, and the working public in general.

The only hope we have is that middle America has wised up enough to vote for a moderate Republican candidate.  If the Republican nominee is a right wing religious radical, it will not have the support of moderates in the center that want reforms but without the religious rights agenda forced down their throats!

Like it or not, if we are to get back to traditional family values and reverse the trend toward socialism it is going to have to be in steps....not a radical overnight transition.  The new president will have to spend a lot of time to educate Americans with history and examples to illustrate why it is best for the country to reverse the trend we have been in for 40-50 years.  We did not get where we are overnight and we cannot bring about the changes the conservatives want overnight either.  It will take at least a generation to reverse course.  Purging our leftist education system will take a great deal of time in itself.

Thinking that we can elect a right wing conservative will be the solution is wishfull thinking.  First, the public needs to be educated and accept the arguments as to why we need to change our direction.  Then the elected officials in Congress need to be replaced with moderates that have some critical thinking skills.  This is a tall order that will take time.  Then there is the question as to who can  pull off the re-education process.  The current right-wing Republicans are not the right choice.  It will fall on deaf ears!  In my lifetime, I think only JFK and Ronald Reagan had the charisma to pull off such a monumental task.

[fathertime]

  Also, his ultraconservative agenda will not defeat the present democratic nominees.  His presidency would continue or even amplify the divisiveness our country is experiencing.

I can't imagine Cruz winning the presidency with his hardened ultraconservative positions.  He doesn't have the charisma to pull it off.  I agree that he would make things more divisive.  He isn't the right guy to be president, congressman is just fine, because it takes all kinds in congress!


Fathertime! 

[ML]

I have been giving this some more thought, and discussed with Ochka.

I am starting to think strongly that of the 6 remaining Republicans . . . only Kasich, Bush and Trump have the actual executive ability and skills to be chief executive of our country.

We can't afford to have another trainee in the White House, regardless of their political leaning.

And, I think that with Kasich and Bush, it will be little different than having a democrat as president.

[ML]

What about Cruz's idea (maybe seconded by others) that Trump is actually a liberal.

What are the specific issues that allow this to be charged against Trump?

I am not the expert on detailed issues and stances that some others here are.

[ML]

Kasich said that USA should send weapons to help Ukraine.

Kasich also said that the USA should not stand by if Russia takes action against Sweden and Finland to 'protect Russian speakers.'

Where did this latter idea come from?  Has there been any mention of this (Sweden and Finland) by Russian leaders?

Or was Kasich just sort of speaking off in left field (or right field) when he threw this out to sound tough?

[BC]

Kasich said that USA should send weapons to help Ukraine.

Kasich also said that the USA should not stand by if Russia takes action against Sweden and Finland to 'protect Russian speakers.'

Where did this latter idea come from?  Has there been any mention of this (Sweden and Finland) by Russian leaders?

Or was Kasich just sort of speaking off in left field (or right field) when he threw this out to sound tough?

Incomprehensible  had a few too many?

[calmissile]

Not certain, but I think the Kasich comments were in response to the concerns Sweden and Finland have about Russian agression.

Neither country is a member of NATO.  Seems like they are starting to worry about their defense should Putin pull off another "little green men' trick.

Here is a quote from one of the recenet news stories.... "Russian forces rehearsed the invasion of Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark during a military exercise involving 33,000 troops"

[BillyB]

Kasich said that USA should send weapons to help Ukraine.

Kasich also said that the USA should not stand by if Russia takes action against Sweden and Finland to 'protect Russian speakers.'

Where did this latter idea come from?  Has there been any mention of this (Sweden and Finland) by Russian leaders?

Or was Kasich just sort of speaking off in left field (or right field) when he threw this out to sound tough?

Over the last couple of years, Russia has increased military exercises near Sweden and Finland. Russian submarines have been spotted in their waters depending on what nation you ask. Russia wants to get a feel if anybody cares about Sweden and Finland by breathing down on them.


America is not obligated to come to the defense of Sweden and Finland. They are not NATO members. It's highly unlikely Russia will attack those nations but Kasich is showing he can be tough, he will draw lines that other nations shouldn't cross, and he will enforce international law not just for NATO members.

[BC]

America is not obligated to come to the defense of Sweden and Finland. They are not NATO members. It's highly unlikely Russia will attack those nations but Kasich is showing he can be tough, he will draw lines that other nations shouldn't cross, and he will enforce international law not just for NATO members.

bullsheit.  Since whendoes Kaisch have anything to say..

[calmissile]

bullsheit.  Since whendoes Kaisch have anything to say..

Why don't you stay on topic and address the question rather than making personal comments?

[LiveFromUkraine]

What about Cruz's idea (maybe seconded by others) that Trump is actually a liberal.

What are the specific issues that allow this to be charged against Trump?

I am not the expert on detailed issues and stances that some others here are.

I think a lot of has to do with doing business in a Democratic state or what could be considered pandering to the Democrats in order to get his business interests done.


As for last night, Cruz went after him for Planned Parenthood where Donald said they were doing good things for women outside of abortion which he disagreed with.  Of course Cruz left that part out. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

I can't imagine Cruz winning the presidency with his hardened ultraconservative positions.  He doesn't have the charisma to pull it off.  I agree that he would make things more divisive.  He isn't the right guy to be president, congressman is just fine, because it takes all kinds in congress!


Fathertime!

Cruz can't even work well with fellow Republicans.  I don't think he will be able to unite the country to get stuff done.

[LiveFromUkraine]

I am impressed with how much Rubio knows about foreign affairs.  I don't know the details of his tax plan yet.

Brief synopsis:  Rubio wants three tax brackets with 35% being the top.  25% corporate tax with no tax on capital gains and dividends.


I noticed Rubio and Trump want to tax pass through entities (Limited Liability Companies) like Corporations  instead of being taxed at ordinary income rates.  I don't understand the rationale behind it. 

[Shadow]

Do you remember Proposition 8 that passed in California, which is one of the most liberal states in the USA?  It  banned gay marriage and passed. 

Gay marriage is not actually supported by more than about 40%, if that, of the electorate.  The 2015 AP poll listed here, is most likely the one that is most accurate in terms of 2015 polls:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Now that gay marriage advocates are being more honest, such as Dan Savage (a true deviant that is looked up to in the movement) admitting that such marriages are "monogamish" (i.e., not in any way monogamous):

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-26-2015-1.3010107/monogamy-can-be-damaging-dan-savage-prefers-being-monogamish-1.3010140

I don't expect the numbers to increase in the future.

If you consider the vast amount of people and money involved in heterosexual cheating, I wonder why people always point at gay marriage not being monogamous.

[mhr7]

Do you remember Proposition 8 that passed in California, which is one of the most liberal states in the USA?  It  banned gay marriage and passed. 

Gay marriage is not actually supported by more than about 40%, if that, of the electorate.  The 2015 AP poll listed here, is most likely the one that is most accurate in terms of 2015 polls:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Now that gay marriage advocates are being more honest, such as Dan Savage (a true deviant that is looked up to in the movement) admitting that such marriages are "monogamish" (i.e., not in any way monogamous):

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-26-2015-1.3010107/monogamy-can-be-damaging-dan-savage-prefers-being-monogamish-1.3010140

I don't expect the numbers to increase in the future.

Based on polling in 2015, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,

Did you not see this in the Wikipedia article?

[Darth_Budda]

Gay people are just normal people who happen to like the same sex..

Because religion has no place in government.
It is only natural that legally being married should have no influence from religion.

People who can't accept people who are gay, have serious problems with them self..

I have noticed the biggest bigots in america tend to be closet homosexuals..

Kinda the way ben carson is the token black guy on the republican side..
He says things just to keep his so called friends. That go against his own interests.

[BC]

Gay people are just normal people who happen to like the same sex..

There is a lot of grey with gender identity and sexual preference, enough so that it's evident each individual is somewhere on a scale and not defined points.

[Faux Pas]

Kinda the way ben carson is the token black guy on the republican side..
He says things just to keep his so called friends. That go against his own interests.

Wow dude you are just a walking contradiction, aren't you? Could you please explain just how you arrive at this conclusion?

[fathertime]

Kinda the way ben carson is the token black guy on the republican side..
He says things just to keep his so called friends. That go against his own interests.

I wouldn't go after Ben Carson that way...it implies that he isn't being genuine....I think that he presents himself the way he actually is...In that respect, he is a hell of a lot better than most of the other politicians that can't stop lying and attacking each other in deceptive ways.  The fact that he is black shouldn't be relevant...I think it would be better if more politicians behaved like him or Rand Paul....but obviously in our elections people like that don't go very far...


Fathertime! 

[BC]

Why don't you stay on topic and address the question rather than making personal comments?

Yeah, you're right, apologies.