US GOP Debate series

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:43 pm

So, bad enough they turned the thing into a series. There will be another dozen between now and the election, it seems.

The first two were not without their moments. Ben Carson scored an easy one in the first with his comment about being the only one in the room to have ever actually removed half a brain.

Carly broke out in the second with a ding on the Donald, only to get nailed for her over-exuberant attack on Planned Parenthood, late in the show.

Now, they bring the road show to Boulder. We had planned a night if dining and a movie in Boulder, but now have decided to stay away from town, and avoid the excitement.

Who will be the "winner" tonight?

Will Carly score another ding on The Donald? Will Carson be able to take advantage of his lead?

Will the Clown Car self destruct before it reaches the finish line.

Tune in tonight. (Or not. CNBC plans to only stream the thing to verifiable Cable subscribers. )

The local republicans could not even get tickets to the thing. Well the Chairwoman of the Boulder County Republicans did get one ticket. She gets to sit in the back.

GOP presidential debate in Boulder: What you need to know - The Denver Post

(Wow. this voice to text thing is starting to get better. Only three corrections, this time)

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:56 pm

I will watch this.

I make no predictions and only hope for the best. Hope for a Trump fail. Carson is exposed as just being a nice guy.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:00 pm

Jeb is just drafting the leaders, saving fuel, and waiting for them to have to pit. He will make his move in the later laps.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:08 pm

LarsMac;1488345 wrote: Jeb is just drafting the leaders, saving fuel, and waiting for them to have to pit. He will make his move in the later laps.

Never thought of it that way. Always wondered why he seems to be holding back, or maybe really didn't want the job.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:35 pm

Kansas City Royals and the Mets are going for game two this evening. Somehow, that won out over the GOP thing. Will check the highlights tomorrow.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:27 am

LarsMac;1488356 wrote: Kansas City Royals and the Mets are going for game two this evening. Somehow, that won out over the GOP thing. Will check the highlights tomorrow.

Highlights of which game?

The one with unbiased umpires or the reality show of a fake debate conducted by activists?

GOP Candidates Are Not Happy With CNBC

Candidates sparred with each other, but were united in their disdain for media and CNBC debate.

The candidates repeatedly expressed frustration the mainstream media in general and the CNBC moderators asking the questions during the third GOP debate.

you tube video not from the article

Others complained the moderators' questions were hostile and based on inaccurate premises.

"That's not true," retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson objected to one moderator's depiction of his tax plans. "When we put all the facts down, you'll be able to see that it's not true, it works out very well."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took issue with one moderator's interruption. "Do you want me to answer or do you want to answer?" he said. "Because, I've got to tell you the truth, even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude."

(good one Christie)

US News & World Report

Oh as far as the ball game never really cared watching ball games on TV.

That said, being from Los Angeles I must confess to bleeding Dodger Blue. Watching the Dodgers trounce the Mets was something to enjoy especially at the Dodger stadium.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:07 pm

These guy whined all night about "The media" and unfair questions. Seriously? If they wanna be pres, they are going to have to expect tough questions from the media.

I think that the questions have been too easy, myself. It falls on the media to weed out these bozos and find the one guy who can actually deal with it when the **** starts flying.

As for the ball game, it was pretty good. I have no big loyalty to either team, really, but can root for either one. I met and had worked with the Royals owner a couple of times, and a few years back, I lived in Port Saint Lucie, wear the Mets had Spring Training.

My loyalties in Baseball are more to the Braves and Dodgers. We moved to LA the same year the Dodgers did, and I still have a bunch of old Dodgers' memorabilia from back then. And, when we moved to Florida, The Milwaukee Braves held Spring Training at Connie Mack Field in West Palm Beach. We spent many an afternoon watching them play. I Was also in Atlanta when the Braves moved there. Braves are my default Baseball team.

Back to the debate, I can only think that the country will be worse for the wear if one of these loons ends up in the White House.

I plan to vote "None of the Above"

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:52 pm

LarsMac;1488372 wrote: These guy whined all night about "The media" and unfair questions. Seriously? If they wanna be pres, they are going to have to expect tough questions from the media.

I think that the questions have been too easy, myself. It falls on the media to weed out these bozos and find the one guy who can actually deal with it when the **** starts flying.

It would be nice to have questions dealing with the economy which I was led to be the theme.

I was under the impression that the debate was to be about the economy, "The Republican Presidential Debate: Your Money, Your Vote.

First question out of the box for everybody starting with Trump:

What’s your greatest weakness?

Maybe questions with substance.

I don't know who it was but it was suggested moderators be registered in the party they are moderating.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:41 pm

tude dog;1488375 wrote: It would be nice to have questions dealing with the economy which I was led to be the theme.

I was under the impression that the debate was to be about the economy, "The Republican Presidential Debate: Your Money, Your Vote.

First question out of the box for everybody starting with Trump:

Maybe questions with substance.

I don't know who it was but it was suggested moderators be registered in the party they are moderating.

That would lead to something more like the Home run derby during the Baseball All-Star break.

True, some of the questions were a tad weak, but even the "what's your greatest weakness?" thing showed where these guys are coming from. Their answers were fairly pathetic, for the most part.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:06 am

I think it's matter that these sort of debates are treated by the media as Entertainment, rather than as Current Affairs. When I'm watching a Political Debate, yes, I like to see the candidates squirm when they are presented with questions they can't answer, or can't come up with an answer the viewer is going to like, which is more to the point, but if it's not relevant to the situation I find that sort of thing really annoying & an insult to the viewer's intelligence. Question Time, on BBC, is a good example of Political Debate. Of course the panelists usually have a pretty good idea of what the questions are likely to be, depending on the week's latest events, but when they try to use the platform to try to promote their own policies, regardless of what the actual question may be about I find I instantly build up a loathing & distrust of them. The ones that tend to get the best reaction from the audience are the ones that say least & listen most, and those that give a straight answer, whether or not it's the answer you want to hear.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:56 am

Finally got a chance to view the "debate" (the live feed was less than adequate. Only got bits and pieces. )

Was pretty bizarre. The CNBC moderators were amazing. I mean, where did they find these idiots?

I really do not watch CNBC these days. They used to have some interesting folks. Why didn't they send the guys from Squawk Box, or maybe Jim Cramer?

That could have been a lot of fun.

However, I hold to my original statement. If you can't handle the questions, no matter how stupid, what are ya gonna do when you're the Prez? Sic the Secret Service guys on them?

I still think that we need to move to a different format for these things.

Something like the "Survivor" of the "Great Race" (Biggest Loser?)with a solid process of elimination at play. Maybe as simple as the talent show (Don't remember which one) where people text in their favorite after each debate, and the one with the lowest vote count afterwards gets eliminated.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:56 am

Only 12 more of these debates? I wonder when some of those polling down near (or below) the margin of error will begin to get the message. Or perhaps, as one article suggested, the bottom tier is just there as an audition for future Fox News jobs.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:19 pm

Wandrin;1488448 wrote: Only 12 more of these debates? I wonder when some of those polling down near (or below) the margin of error will begin to get the message. Or perhaps, as one article suggested, the bottom tier is just there as an audition for future Fox News jobs.

Well, the early caucuses and primaries in February and March should shake a few of them out of the tree, and narrow the field.

When you look at the poll numbers, and the leaders are getting 20-22% each, you'd think that would tell them something. that means 70+% of the people DON"T want you. But I guess you have to remain optimistic to even be in this game at all.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:49 pm

LarsMac;1488437 wrote:

However, I hold to my original statement. If you can't handle the questions, no matter how stupid, what are ya gonna do when you're the Prez?

That's not the issue.

Obviously I think Ted Cruz told them off well, and that was not the only talk back that night.

I remember seeing so much talk back to the "moderators" or whatever ya call them in similar debates, be it Dem or Rep.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:57 pm

tude dog;1488465 wrote: That's not the issue.

Obviously I think Ted Cruz told them off well, and that was not the only talk back that night.

I remember seeing so much talk back to the "moderators" or whatever ya call them in similar debates, be it Dem or Rep.

I don't think these moderators really hit them with anything too hard. And all this "Mainstream Media" whining the candidates do seems ridiculous. I mean the liberals and the conservatives all complain. That probably means they are doing a good job.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:51 pm

Did the MSM (& that includes Fox) do a good job in the Afghan, then Iraq wars or was the truth traded for imbedding privileges?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:10 pm

AnneBoleyn;1488477 wrote: Did the MSM (& that includes Fox) do a good job in the Afghan, then Iraq wars or was the truth traded for imbedding privileges?

Good question. I can't say I pay a lot of attention to the media, Mainstream, or otherwise.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:58 pm

tude dog;1488465 wrote: That's not the issue.

Obviously I think Ted Cruz told them off well, and that was not the only talk back that night.

I remember seeing so much talk back to the "moderators" or whatever ya call them in similar debates, be it Dem or Rep.

Cruz just used an old debate club tactic he learned at Harvard where he didn't respond to the topic but attacked the validity of the debate.

Since only a small number of selected university students were allowed to attend, who was in the audience there? Were tickets just sold or were certain people or groups invited?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:06 pm

Wandrin;1488496 wrote: Cruz just used an old debate club tactic he learned at Harvard where he didn't respond to the topic but attacked the validity of the debate.

Since only a small number of selected university students were allowed to attend, who was in the audience there? Were tickets just sold or were certain people or groups invited?

Gee whizz.

I dunno about Harvard, nor do I care.

I think after Bush's adequate answer Christie knocked the ball out of the park.

Need I go to get more examples?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:53 am

I like him. I like his style. He states things as they really are, rather than playing to a Media led Entertainment Circus.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:41 am

He actually did an amazing job of dodging the question.

It was not about Fantasy Football, at all, but about the huge, multi-million dollar gambling business that has cropped up under the guise of fantasy football.

And he has taken a lesson from The Donald on "Telling it like it is"

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:36 am

tude dog;1488465 wrote: That's not the issue.Okay, now tell us what the issue is, though I seriously doubt you can because you appear incapable of completing a thought - you simply say stuff as a reflex of what you've heard elsewhere. Prove me wrong if you can.

tude dog;1488465 wrote: Obviously I think Ted Cruz told them off well, and that was not the only talk back that night."Obviously"? Really? How are we supposed to know what you're feeling at any given moment while you're watching television?

tude dog;1488465 wrote: I remember seeing so much talk back to the "moderators" or whatever ya call them in similar debates, be it Dem or Rep.You've said it - now cite something. Or are you just talking out your anal orifice again?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:19 pm

Ahso!;1488791 wrote: Okay, now tell us what the issue is, though I seriously doubt you can because you appear incapable of completing a thought - you simply say stuff as a reflex of what you've heard elsewhere. Prove me wrong if you can.

"Obviously"? Really? How are we supposed to know what you're feeling at any given moment while you're watching television?

You've said it - now cite something. Or are you just talking out your anal orifice again?

well,

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:00 pm

That might be true, Doctor, but he's OUR a$$hole.

I'm learning to tolerate your passive/aggressive posting.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:31 pm

Ahso!;1489009 wrote: That might be true, Doctor, but he's OUR a$$hole.

I'm learning to tolerate your passive/aggressive posting.

How nice for you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:34 pm

LarsMac;1489013 wrote: How nice for you.It comes from my inner peace. Do you often take on the role of protector/hero? Whom, may I ask, is it you imagine is watching? Mom, Dad, God, escaped lover?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:58 pm

Ahso!;1489016 wrote: It comes from my inner peace. Do you often take on the role of protector/hero? Whom, may I ask, is it you imagine is watching? Mom, Dad, God, escaped lover?

Why, Big Brother, of course.

Or, maybe it's my cat.

I can never tell.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:00 pm

LarsMac;1489022 wrote: Why, Big Brother, of course.

Or, maybe it's my cat.

I can never tell.You're a moderator, are you not? You consider it proper moderation policy to refer to members as a$$holes?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:14 pm

Ahso!;1489023 wrote: You're a moderator, are you not? You consider it proper moderation policy to refer to members as a$$holes?

My mod duties are limited to keeping the Vandals from the gates. Once they're past the gates, it's someone else's bailiwick. You apparently have the right to be an ass. Something about freedom of speech.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:25 pm

LarsMac;1489026 wrote: My mod duties are limited to keeping the Vandals from the gates. Once they're past the gates, it's someone else's bailiwick. You apparently have the right to be an ass. Something about freedom of speech.Perhaps we should qualify what an "ass" is. You appear to think it's a person who is bold enough to call people out for their lack of civil discussion and constant smart remarks. I, OTOH, think an ass is both that person who does not participate in a civil manner and also anyone who protects and defends such behavior in a forum. If a person decides to act as a smart-ass, they should be prepared for the consequences of the behavior.

If you'd like to defend the person by arguing that he's not an ass, but instead lacks the skills or ability to communicate effectively and courteously, then by all means make that argument. Otherwise you should allow the member in question to defend himself as a poster since you believe he's capable of doing just that.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:42 pm

Ahso!;1489029 wrote: Perhaps we should qualify what an "ass" is. You appear to think it's a person who is bold enough to call people out for their lack of civil discussion and constant smart remarks. I, OTOH, think an ass is both that person who does not participate in a civil manner and also anyone who protects and defends such behavior in a forum. If a person decides to act as a smart-ass, they sould be prepared for the consequences of the behavior.

If you'd like to defend the person by arguing that he's not an ass, but instead lacks the skills or ability to communicate effectively and courteously, then by all means make that argument. Otherwise you should allow the member in question to defend himself as a poster since you believe he's capable of doing just that.

I am sure that you language skills are such that you can "call people out" without being an ass about it. You obviously chose to prove otherwise, and therefore you are equally open to being "called out"

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:47 pm

LarsMac;1489033 wrote: I am sure that you language skills are such that you can "call people out" without being an ass about it. You obviously chose to prove otherwise, and therefore you are equally open to being "called out"I have no problem being called out for anything I do or say. I and others on this forum have attempted various methods of trying to get this individual to participate properly. Now it's no-holes-barred. Those are the consequences he has earned by his lack of civility. He wants to act like a smart-ass, I'll treat him in kind. It's his choice and he knows it. He refuses to comply with being civil and instead hides behind your skirt, metaphorically speaking.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:09 pm

So, who made you activities director of this little school house?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:05 pm

ma ma monkey

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:57 pm

Poster or Poster-ior?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:07 am

I wonder how the dog feels about the fact that he's the recipient of welfare from you TD apologists who enable him to behave as he does. You've probably corrected your children for behavior less egregious than his.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:51 am

So, debate #4 was last night.

The Murdoch News (Fox, along with Wall Street Journal) sponsored the debate.

The high point of the night, I think, came early, when Rubio was answering the question about whether he would support the 15$/hour minimum wage.

His answer was, of course, 'No' but his reasoning was amazing.

The problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:30 pm

LarsMac;1489325 wrote: So, debate #4 was last night.

The Murdoch News (Fox, along with Wall Street Journal) sponsored the debate

It was nice to see adult moderators.

LarsMac;1489325 wrote: The high point of the night, I think, came early, when Rubio was answering the question about whether he would support the 15$/hour minimum wage.

His answer was, of course, 'No' but his reasoning was amazing.

Rubio: The problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough...

Here it is in full context.

RUBIO: We call that the American dream, but in fact, it’s a universal dream of a better life that people have all over the world. It is a reminder that every country in the world has rich people.

What makes America special is that we have millions and millions of people that are not rich, that through hard work and perseverance are able to be successful.

The problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough. If I thought that raising the minimum wage was the best way to help people increase their pay, I would be all for it, but it isn’t. In the 20th century, it’s a disaster.

If you raise the minimum wage, you’re going to make people more expensive than a machine. And that means all this automation that’s replacing jobs and people right now is only going to be accelerated.

Here’s the best way to raise wages. Make America the best place in the world to start a business or expand an existing business, tax reform and regulatory reform, bring our debt under control, fully utilize our energy resources so we can reinvigorate manufacturing, repeal and replace Obamacare, and make higher education faster and easier to access, especially vocational training. For the life of me, I don’t know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.

(APPLAUSE)

If we do that — and if we do this — if we do this, we will be able to increase wages for millions of Americans and we will be able to leave everyone better off without making anyone worse off.

CAVUTO: Thank you, Senator Rubio.

NY Times

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:36 pm

Most of that stuff was fluff. I just loved that sentence.

The logic is wonderful.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:58 pm

He completely contradicted himself. Nobody noticed?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:20 pm

Ahso!;1489367 wrote: He completely contradicted himself. Nobody noticed?

I would love you to point it out.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:31 pm

tude dog;1489370 wrote: I would love you to point it out.Nope. Read it until you see it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:46 pm

Truth is that there is a somewhat legitimate argument against raising pay, but Rubio's isn't it. Not only though does he contradict himself but his arguments within that quote are very weak.