The Debate

[Tom]

You know who looked extremely foolish, stupid, and out of touch with reality tonight?


Faux News.

What a light weight bunch of questions asked by a nincompoop.

They reported.
I decided.

Any random third grade in the country could have come with better questions.

I would vote for any candidate who walked off the stage and said he was insulted by the JV quality of the evening.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLvKstfUsAAZR9B.jpg

[horses4courses]

http://www.motherjones.com/files/debate.gif

[lamboguy]

Fox is acting anything but fair and balanced this evening. they started out swinging at Trump.

Fox is no different than any other news outlet, slanted and having their own agenda.

i am in shock that Trump didn't walk off the stage.

[Tom]

Looks you and Slushy are having a good time tonight......

[Tom]

Fox is acting anything but fair and balanced this evening. they started out swinging at Trump.

Fox is no different than any other news outlet, slanted and having their own agenda.

i am in shock that Trump didn't walk off the stage.
Tomorrow, he buys FOX and guess who is out of a job? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, FOX really dropped the ball.
No excuse for this amatuer night BS.

[horses4courses]

Is it on Fox?

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLxZKi0UYAIWpSE.jpg

[Tom]

No, no...they just read the Iran Deal.

[MutuelClerk]

I keep hearing Trump has no evidence of what he says. Ok, that's fine I agree. It's not like in the past years and debates those who had " evidence " followed through on what they said.

One thing seemed clear tonight. FOX doesn't want the Donald to win the nomination. Tread carefully FOX and cue the Pink Floyd. You're skating on thin ice....

[OntheRail]

A few moments with to much noise.

[ReplayRandall]

A few moments with to much noise.

I believe too much noise came out of Rand Paul, as he damaged himself tonight, coming off as an over zealous wise-ass, and will be relegated to the second tier. In his place in the next debate should be the candidate with the best performance in the "happy hour" debate. I believe the candidate that delivered better than the rest, believe it or not with no notes, was Carly Fiorina....

[_______]

What the hell happened between 850-900 EDT? Was that an episode of Wayne's World?

"Let's have the candidates come out now. (Pause). C'mon out guys! (Longer pause). I guess they don't want to come out...(super awkward small talk amongst anchors)"

Then they start asking questions of the candidates who aren't miked like, "what do you think of this audience?" (Puzzled looks from most candidates)

The rest of the debate seemed to go pretty well but that was just amateur hour to start.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What a weird debate. FOX was awful; I thought I was watching an SNL skit for the first ten minutes. It seemed like nobody had any idea what the hell they were supposed to be doing so it got off to a weird start before the debate even began.

Then they went into shill mode immediately to out Trump with the independent 'question', which to his credit, he took right on the chin and stayed his own weird course. They had to have Megyn Kelly box him into a corner shortly thereafter with the war on woman line, where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, and again, to his credit but certainly not his benefit, he stayed his own weird course and blasted back at her as though she was the problem.

So clearly the other candidates didn't need to go after Trump since the network was doing that dirty work. Then, the guy who, in my opinion, had the worst debate of anyone - Jeb Bush - keeps getting these positive reviews for his performance from these people. He was awful. He looked rattled, defensive, and weak kneed from start to finish and this is the guy that they keep trying to pass off as the one that 'should be' the leader of the pack.

The winners that I saw were Kasich and Walker. Kasich is probably the most electable of the bunch and just suffers from no recognition whatsoever and due in part to his own folksy tone and the support of a home crowd had to have moved his stock up with those that have no idea who is by a mile. Particularly with independents that don't want to vote for a Bush, a Clinton, a socialist, or a guy who thinks the supreme law of the land is found in a holy book.

Walker did nothing special at all. That was a win for him. He looked like he should be repairing the refrigater holding all of Marco Polo's water bottles and was able to defy the caricature of himself as some crazed right-win loon with those seem independents and loose democrats that tuned into watch Trump.

Ben Carson still refuses to project and appears to be asleep most of the time, which is too bad since he's a long ways from the worst of the worst. And Rand Paul has totally lost his way trying to be some kind of Republican Libertarian that spent most of his time backtracking on his entire career, but decides to pipe up and stand up for his true beliefs with the one guy on the stage he probably shouldn't have - a total go-nowhere 0% polling stalking horse that would have best been ignored. He has gotten horrible advice since going primetime and just gets worse.

Huckabee was Huckabee, cutesy calculated lines that play to his audience that buy books and watch him on TV, a good performance that gets him nowhere but accomplishes his goals. Likewise Ted Cruz book tour continued and he proved an excellent debater as always, but in a poor forum to really shine, coming off as almost too polished with all the chaos. Marco Polo settled in eventually, but still just seems like a lightweight on the big stage.

All in all, it was just a strange event. The size of the field was partly to blame but as much as I find Trump just comic spoiler - he is playing by FOX rules, was the friggin runaway front runner under those rules - and the way the went to the well with poison from the gitgo was just pathetic. Every bit as bad as the Candy Crowley nonsense. Hopefully they don't butcher the rest of the process once Trump does fall apart and turn on some of these other low percentage threats to their chosen few.

[Greyfox]

Trump scored big with me on his stance against political correctness.
Bush and Paul lost ground tonight.

[TJDave]

I believe the candidate that delivered better than the rest, believe it or not with no notes, was Carly Fiorina....

I have always liked Carly. I have no clue as to her politics but I love the way she forms words. I find it strangely erotic.

As far as the main debate I thought Ben Carson was the most sincere. I don't agree with his politics nor think he would make a good president...mirror image of Jimmy Carter comes to mind... but I think he is a good hearted person.

I think Kasich would be a formidable opponent and would probably get my vote.

[NorCalGreg]

Trump scored big with me on his stance against political correctness.
Bush and Paul lost ground tonight.

I didn't see the debate--was busy watching lightning in Minnie. I'm glad to hear somebody say something positive about Trump. Who helped them self the most tonight, if anyone?

[ArlJim78]

I was distracted by Megyn Kelly's false eyelashes.

[Hank]

You know who looked extremely foolish, stupid, and out of touch with reality tonight?


Faux News.

What a light weight bunch of questions asked by a nincompoop.

They reported.
I decided.

Any random third grade in the country could have come with better questions.

I would vote for any candidate who walked off the stage and said he was insulted by the JV quality of the evening.


They understand the limitations of their audience.

[dkithore]

I was distracted by Megyn Kelly's false eyelashes.

Now I find that funny..

[Tom]

They understand the limitations of their audience.

Oh, were you watching?

[reckless]

Carly Fiorina -- easily the winner of the Second Seven debate -- once again has shown to be Hillary!'s worst nightmare.

After this interview, Mathews had a new tingle down his pants -- wetting his pants after being b-slapped by Carly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyxLGc0RDZc

[Overlay]

They had to have Megyn Kelly box him into a corner shortly thereafter with the war on woman line, where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, and again, to his credit but certainly not his benefit, he stayed his own weird course and blasted back at her as though she was the problem.
Trump is equally disparaging of both men and women with whom he disagrees. If women want to compete on the same terms as men, they can't play the gender card to shield themselves from verbal abuse or criticism, or apply different standards to a man's criticism of women than they apply to his criticism of other men.

[classhandicapper]

With that many people on stage, there was no time to get into detailed answers. Once the field gets consolidated to 3-5 people, the questions and answers will get better.

I thought pretty much everyone did OK.

I am rooting for Rubio and Cruz because I think putting a Latin on the ticket in either slot is the best chance the republicans have of winning. I thought both of them did really well. Long term, I think Rubio has the better career. I like Cruz a lot, but he reminds me a little of Newt Gingrich. He's really smart. I agree with a lot of what he says. But he's a little too rough around the edges to appeal to a really broad audience. Rubio is probably not ready to head the ticket (not sure though), but he'd be a great vice presidential candidate. The problem for him is that if Bush gets the nomination, he's probably not going to pick Rubio because they both come out of Florida. They'd probably lock up Florida, but I'm not sure they'd want 2 guys from the same state on the ticket.

[Greyfox]

With that many people on stage, there was no time to get into detailed answers..

That is exactly why it is truly hard to call both of last night's events debates,
It was just some mean spirited moderators asking each of the candidates questions.
They shouldn't have billed it as a debate - because it wasn't one.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Trump is equally disparaging of both men and women with whom he disagrees. If women want to compete on the same terms as men, they can't play the gender card to shield themselves from verbal abuse or criticism, or apply different standards to a man's criticism of women than they apply to his criticism of other men.

Far be it from me to take the point of view of the same voting bloc that eviscerated the last Republican candidate for using the phrase "binders full of women" as an objectification of women - which I still can't fathom - but the standard that you mention is nowhere near the same. Trump may in fact, disparage men, but he does so with comments on their intellect, or lack thereof, or their accomplishments, or lack thereof. The comments about women that were used as examples were disparaging their appearance. Slobs, fat pigs, dogs, animals. If you think that in 2015 that is the same as calling Rick Perry an idiot, or Lindsay Graham a lightweight, or whatever, then he should have just gone ahead and called Megyn Kelly a trampy looking slut. The majority of my criticism was levied against FOX and their obvious attack on Trump as persona non grata by winning under their rules, but this is the easy forum. You can talk about gender card, but the reality is that the gender card is going to be played and attacking women on the merits of their bodies or appearance while attacking men on the merits of their brainpower won't play well when it matters and few will see the two as the same thing.

[Tom]

If you are going to play the Gender card with Hillary, which card would that be? :eek:

She was out with the Kardashian's last night, and you know with them gender can be so, so.....fluid.

[dartman51]

If you are going to play the Gender card with Hillary, which card would that be? :eek:

She was out with the Kardashian's last night, and you know with them gender can be so, so.....fluid.


:lol: :lol: No doubt. :D

[Robert Goren]

A democrat's view of the debate. Megyn Kelly was the clear winner last night. Obviously Trump does not like a bright and articulate women. He like a lot of older men who are still living in the 1950s and are having a tough time dealing with them. Trump scored points with them. That said, Trump did the best of the bunch on the stage which is saying much. Kasich and Christie had their moments, but...... Walker looked small in physical stature. I am not sure why, maybe camera angles. He did not look like a leader. Paul came off as crazy which he is. Bush was bland. Huckabee came off as a religious nut. None of his folksiness(his strong point) got through. Carson did not even know who Greenspan was. So much his "I am the smartest person in the room" image. Cruz and Rubio sounded like senators speaking to an empty senate chamber for a tape to sent back to their local TV stations. I am pretty sure Kasich will go up in the poles and Walker and Paul will go down. Trump will keep getting his 20%. What will happen to the rest is anybody's guess.
I did not see any of the "happy hour" debate. From what I heard this morning Perry made another "gaff" calling Reagan "Ronald Raven". That can not be a good thing. Carly Fiorina apparently made a big impression there although it is tough to make case for her after tenure as CEO of HP. I have friend who owned stock in HP while she was there. He still throws things at the TV when she is on. I guessing he went through all TVs in his house this morning.

[Greyfox]

A democrat's view of the debate. Megyn Kelly was the clear winner last night.

She's tried to be a castrating female, but Trump protected his balls pretty well.

This "bimbo" didn't win anything last night except disrespect from those of us who never knew her before.

[Robert Goren]

She's tried to be a castrating female, but Trump protected his balls pretty well.

This "bimbo" didn't win anything last night except disrespect from those of us who never knew her before. Really? I though you were better than this post.

[Greyfox]

Really? I though you were better than this post.

Drat. My image has been tarnished by my honest opinion of Megyn Kelly. :lol:

[AndyC]

She's tried to be a castrating female, but Trump protected his balls pretty well.

This "bimbo" didn't win anything last night except disrespect from those of us who never knew her before.

Nonsense. You obviously don't know her or you would realize that she doesn't take her marching orders from anybody. She has always asked tough questions and seldom uses her show as a platform for her political viewpoint.

While I agree with Trump regarding political correctness, I am putoff by his condescending remarks. You can still be civil and eschew political correctness.

[boxcar]

I keep hearing Trump has no evidence of what he says. Ok, that's fine I agree. It's not like in the past years and debates those who had " evidence " followed through on what they said.

One thing seemed clear tonight. FOX doesn't want the Donald to win the nomination. Tread carefully FOX and cue the Pink Floyd. You're skating on thin ice....

No one in the Republican establishment wants Trump to win. Trump stands about as much chance winning the nomination as a snowball has surviving in a raging furnace.

[fast4522]

No one in the Republican establishment wants Trump to win. Trump stands about as much chance winning the nomination as a snowball has surviving in a raging furnace.

And who here would not relish seeing the establishment getting screwed.

[zico20]

My take on the debate. The four worst performances.

Carson was boring and has no charisma. He should drop out immediately.
Paul came across as an arrogant asshole who killed any chance he had.
Bush was bland and rigid. Poor performance. No energy.
Walker I was not impressed with at all. Doesn't seem presidential.

Cruz came across as the smartest of the bunch.
Huckabee was consistant. Gave the performance that was expected.
Christie did much better than I thought he would.

Kasich came across as the most sincere and the most like able.

Trump stayed with his game plan, which I liked.

Rubio was excellent in every way. He should get a boost from this.

[mountainman]

Trump's history of mean, ridiculous statements made him fair game for some of the tough questioning, but it was still obvious that Fox was out to damage him. Perhaps that was to be expected from an unabashedly conservative network that sees him as unelectable.

I wonder, though, on the longshot chance that The Donald DOES sustain his implausible popularity and secure the nomination, if Fox will then climb dutifully onto his bandwagon?

And that is EXACTLY how Trump should have fired back when asked to pledge his support for whatever Republican nominee might emerge. That is, by asking both his inquisitors AND fellow candidates if they would pledge, RIGHT then and there, to support HIM should he win the nomination.

Since they wanted to single him out and make him the center of attention, he should have rode with it and made THEM squirm in that very way. And as a side bonus, one attendant bitch slap from The Donald for being the media wing of the Republican party would have discredited his tormentors far more than their pointed questions could ever have discredited him.

On a somewhat related note: The softball questions they teed up for Jeb Bush made it VERY apparent as to whom Fox supports. That the man couldn't capitalize brings his mental dexterity and very candidacy into sharp question with me.

[dkithore]

"Who do you like", applies here as well. Trump of course. Can he win the nomination of his party? I believe he can. Media hates him and so does career politicians. That is a plus.

I think our country needs a leader with balls. Trump has them. Simple. Republican establishment will try as we saw yesterday to destroy him as we witnessed the Fox panel go after him like bloodhounds.

His revealed weak points (past statements about illegal immigrants and some women or men like Luntz) are his strength in IMO. The only candidate who speaks with conviction to make America great again, is trump. and I am buying it. He can. But then I am a long-shot player.

[dkithore]

Trump's history of mean, ridiculous statements made him fair game for some of the tough questioning, but it was still obvious that Fox was out to damage him. Perhaps that was to be expected from an unabashedly conservative network that sees him as unelectable.

I wonder, though, on the longshot chance that The Donald DOES sustain his implausible popularity and secure the nomination, if Fox will then climb dutifully onto his bandwagon?

And that is EXACTLY how Trump should have fired back when asked to pledge his support for whatever Republican nominee might emerge. That is, by asking both his inquisitors AND fellow candidates if they would pledge, RIGHT then and there, to support HIM should he win the nomination.

Since they wanted to single him out and make him the center of attention, he should have rode with it and made THEM squirm in that very way. And as a side bonus, one attendant bitch slap from The Donald for being the media wing of the Republican party would have discredited his tormentors far more than their pointed questions could ever have discredited him.

On a somewhat related note: The softball questions they teed up for Jeb Bush made it VERY apparent as to whom Fox supports. That the man couldn't capitalize brings his mental dexterity and very candidacy into sharp question with me.
GREAT POINT.

[mountainman]

"Who do you like", applies here as well. Trump of course. Can he win the nomination of his party? I believe he can. Media hates him and so does career politicians. That is a plus.

I think our country needs a leader with balls. Trump has them. Simple. Republican establishment will try as we saw yesterday to destroy him as we witnessed the Fox panel go after him like bloodhounds.

His revealed weak points (past statements about illegal immigrants and some women or men like Luntz) are his strength in IMO. The only candidate who speaks with conviction to make America great again, is trump. and I am buying it. He can. But then I am a long-shot player.

sharp post. if I ran fox news, i'd can Frank Lunz tomorrow. the man gives bias a bad name. there IS no cause his support wouldn't hurt. he's that obvious, creepy, and dislikeable.

[fast4522]

My take on the debate. The four worst performances.

Carson was boring and has no charisma. He should drop out immediately.
Paul came across as an arrogant asshole who killed any chance he had.
Bush was bland and rigid. Poor performance. No energy.
Walker I was not impressed with at all. Doesn't seem presidential.

Cruz came across as the smartest of the bunch.
Huckabee was consistant. Gave the performance that was expected.
Christie did much better than I thought he would.

Kasich came across as the most sincere and the most like able.

Trump stayed with his game plan, which I liked.

Rubio was excellent in every way. He should get a boost from this.

I will take note: "Carson was boring and has no charisma. He should drop out immediately."

I will score Mr Carson for being clear and concise, answering questions from the heart. It was like watching a ball game that had home runs, the format sucked.

[reckless]

The designed first question of asking all the candidates to raise their hand if they won't pledge to support the winner of the GOP nomination interested me.

Many of "knew" that only Trump was going to raise his hand, with the others keeping their hands in their pockets. To ask this silly question almost 6 months before the Iowa caucus was to paint Trump as an outsider.

So, that means if Trump wins the nomination, no establishment Republican will run for President as a 3rd party candidate against him. Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, Walker, et al, will all support Trump per their pledge as I see this.

Personally, knowing how small-minded and out of touch the GOP is, I believe there just might be a 3rd party candidate from the GOP running against Trump and the Democrat. Using as their excuse, the GOP will say that Trump is divisive and not representative of the GOP brand. :lol: :lol:

Don't laugh. There is precedent for the left wing GOP pooh-bahs to act in this selfish disregard of the wishes of the American (Republican) citizen.

They had John Anderson run against Carter and Reagan in 1980. Jerry Ford, and the liberal eastern Dewey-Rockefellerl banking wing of the GOP, were allegedly behind this insidious scheme to stop Reagan, even at the possible cost of losing the Presidency.

[mountainman]

Nonsense. You obviously don't know her or you would realize that she doesn't take her marching orders from anybody. She has always asked tough questions and seldom uses her show as a platform for her political viewpoint.



She is as objective a commentator as Fox has. But I liked her more before she sold her soul (and a precious slither of that objectivity) to Rupert Murdoch in exchange for Hannity's slot. Back then, she NEVER betrayed any hint of ideology. These days, she sometimes carries water for conservatives.

Those are just my impressions.

[ArlJim78]

Conservatives I know don't like Fox News, I don't. Kelly is great looking but when she opens her mouth I find it grating. She has this Nancy Grace quality that I find off putting. I generally don't like or watch these presidential "debates", but for some reason like a lot of people I felt compelled to watch this one. This was a 2 hour edition of The Kelly File/Fox News Sunday, where they sanctimoniously grill people in a manner which is solely determined by whether or not they support the grillee, while of course trying to make themselves look good in the process and even become part of the story which Kelly achieved this time with great success. There was so much bias against Trump on display, it was a hit job, but if you read their public statements from Murdoch on down the line this should come as no surprise. He's a gruff outsider who doesn't play by their rules so they want him out.

The most creepy thing about that non-debate, to me was the "God" question. Before the commercial Kelly was laughing about it. Then afterword it went like this.
Kelly to ALL the candidates:
"I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.”

Senator Cruz, start from you. Any word from God?

Cruz answered and then they specifically followed up with Kasich, Walker, Rubio, and Carson. Not asked if they had heard from God were Bush, Christie, Trump, Huckabee and Paul.

WTF? I have my theories as to what this was all about, but I won't go into it. I just cite it as one of the reasons why I can't stand these manufactured phony debates.

[lamboguy]

i find very little difference between conservatives and liberals, Trump does not fit either and that's probably why they went after him.

remember all these 2 concepts represent is ideology, political parties base their support on these. when the candidate gets elected its a brand new ballgame.

[Tom]

A democrat's view of the debate. Megyn Kelly was the clear winner last night. Obviously Trump does not like a bright and articulate women.

I bet you have a poster of Kandy Krowley the Kommie Kommentator on your bedroom wall! :lol:

I say FAUX did exactly what she did - inserted herself and her own personal agenda into the debate, which to me, is unforgivable. The idea a debate is to get the candidates to explain their positions and give the voters well needed information. FAUX and Krowley both took it upon themselves to show how truly unprofessional they both are.

I will respect any repub candidate who refuse to take part in another FAUX NEWS ambush party. Honorable men of integrity of not patronize phonies like those nitwits at FAUX.

[Track Collector]

I thought Cruz's comments about the lobbyists was spot on.

The republicans now have the majority in both houses, yet bills and amendments that many of us want (i.e. defund Planned Parenthood, etc.) are not even allowed up for discussion and vote. The one logical explanation for Boehner and McConnell acting the way they do is not that they have changed their ideology, but rather they are supporting the interests of their donor class. There is little difference between the current Republican leadership and the Democrats, which is why we need new Republican leaders. BTW Jeb Bush is NOT that new direction we need to go in.

Remember too that most of those on the debate stage are not really running for President, but rather are auditioning for key cabinet posts should a Republican win the Presidency.

Overall I thought Trump looked too angry and mean. As stated earlier, I view Trump only as the catalyst to bring about discussion on the most important topics.

[FocusWiz]

I bet you have a poster of Kandy Krowley the Kommie Kommentator on your bedroom wall! :lol:

I say FAUX did exactly what she did - inserted herself and her own personal agenda into the debate, which to me, is unforgivable. The idea a debate is to get the candidates to explain their positions and give the voters well needed information. FAUX and Krowley both took it upon themselves to show how truly unprofessional they both are.

I will respect any repub candidate who refuse to take part in another FAUX NEWS ambush party. Honorable men of integrity of not patronize phonies like those nitwits at FAUX.You may be right, but if the expected nominee is going to run against Hillary, Trump's past history with women is going to be raised by them as an issue. This question had to be asked by someone (at some time) and it made sense to ask it at this "debate" or Fox would have been accused of being too soft.

In the aftermath, had Chris Wallace or Bret Baer asked the question, we would be talking about why this was not asked by Megyn Kelly and you would be saying that she is too timid to handle such an obviously tough question to such a strong personality. There really is no easy way around this issue.

[FocusWiz]

So, that means if Trump wins the nomination, no establishment Republican will run for President as a 3rd party candidate against him. Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, Walker, et al, will all support Trump per their pledge as I see this.There should have been a follow-up question.

Baer should have called out specific candidates and ask them, "If Mr. Trump is the Republican candidate, why do you support him as being qualified to be President of the United States beyond his party affiliation?" This would have made this question more fair and balanced. As it was, it solely highlighted that Trump is his own man and not just someone who plays the party line (two traits that I think would be highly desirable in the White House, though I doubt I would vote for him).

[Tom]

This question had to be asked by someone (at some time) and it made sense to ask it at this "debate" or Fox would have been accused of being too soft.

Only those who do not know what a debate is.
Obviously, FAUX has no clue, only an agenda.

btw, speaking of questions that have to be asked, when if the Bitch ever going to answer ANY questions? :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Only those who do not know what a debate is.
Obviously, FAUX has no clue, only an agenda.

btw, speaking of questions that have to be asked, when if the Bitch ever going to answer ANY questions? :lol:This was not a debate. None of these forums are. They are not even suppose to be a debate. The purpose of these forums is to find out how the candidates feel about some issues and how they will react when they are faced with something unexpected. If all a candidate wants to do is go over his talking points, then he can by a TV commercial. Being president is not an easy job and has many unforeseen challenges. There will be 9 GOP debates, all from different networks. The way I look at it, if a candidate is complaining about the questions, they were unprepared. If they can't handle a tough(or any question for that matter) question from Megyn Kelly, how can I expect then to handle something unexpected from Russia or China or Some unexpect and unheard of source. The president needs to be able "act on his feet" (my dad's favorite term).
If you think Fox had an agenda, wait until CNBC goes after them on business and economic issues. The questions you hear them ask as about the social issues from them is "Do you believe that your stance and that of the other GOP candidates on social issues will hurt the chances of a pro business candidate from being elected?" Or "Why should a gay, woman, black or Latino vote for you when so many of your stances effect them in a negative way socially even though what you stand for would help them economically?". "Why do you oppose import-export bank when killing it will cost American jobs?" "What are going to do other than cut taxes and regulations to help American business?" Every network hosting these debates has an agenda and that Agenda is finding where the candidates stand on issues that matter to their listeners, not just the candidates's talking points.
What did we learn from the Fox debate. One thing for sure, Trump if he feels he slighted in anyway by the GOP, he is going to run as a third party candidate. I think it is important to get that out in the open once and for all. Apparently some Trump supporters did not want that known.

[Tom]

This was not a debate. None of these forums are. They are not even suppose to be a debate.

My point - FAUX is too stupid to know what a debate is.
But they sold it as one, so I hold them to it.
No excuses for ignorance or fraudulent advertising.

That is Why I would suggest any serious candidate boycott FAUX, as well as CNN.

The media version of Twins of Deception.

[Robert Goren]

For the record, I think Trump is really democratic businessman much like Warren Buffet. He has decide he for whatever reason, he wants to be president and the easiest path is through the GOP primaries this time. Even if he is not the GOP standard bearer and he goes third party, he gains the most by running in the GOP primaries. Anybody who thinks is stands with the religious right on social issues such as abortion is kidding themselves. He is like any other politician, he will say almost anything to get himself elected.

[Robert Goren]

My point - FAUX is too stupid to know what a debate is.
But they sold it as one, so I hold them to it.
No excuses for ignorance or fraudulent advertising.

That is Why I would suggest any serious candidate boycott FAUX, as well as CNN.

The media version of Twins of Deception.They sold it as a presidential debate which is an entirely different animal from a debate in a debate contest that is held for high school and college students. Get over it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The guy just gave FOX the highest rated primary debate in history all by himself. They wouldn't have had 3% the viewers without him. He has managed to become the most relevant person in the country at the moment.

He's already won. Everything else is gravy.

[Robert Goren]

I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but since they didn't I will. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Rubio was able pay off over a 100k in student debt while serving only 4 years as a US senator? He apparently was not able to make a dent in the loans in the 15 years between his graduation from law school and his election to the senate. It sounds "funny" to me. Does it to you? or I am making something out of nothing because I can't stand the guy?

[Clocker]

I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but since they didn't I will. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Rubio was able pay off over a 100k in student debt while serving only 4 years as a US senator? He apparently was not able to make a dent in the loans in the 15 years between his graduation from law school and his election to the senate. It sounds "funny" to me. Does it to you? or I am making something out of nothing because I can't stand the guy?

Rubio got an $800,000 advance from Penguin Group in 2012 for his book that they published. He paid off about $100,000 in student loans, and then bought an $80,000 fishing boat for his family, which the media tried to portray as a luxury yacht. Apparently it was about a $30K boat with two huge outboards and other accessories for ocean fishing.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/rubios-financial-disclosure-shows-800000-book-advance/2121256

[zico20]

I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but since they didn't I will. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Rubio was able pay off over a 100k in student debt while serving only 4 years as a US senator? He apparently was not able to make a dent in the loans in the 15 years between his graduation from law school and his election to the senate. It sounds "funny" to me. Does it to you? or I am making something out of nothing because I can't stand the guy?

why do you hate Rubio so much?

[Robert Goren]

The guy just gave FOX the highest rated primary debate in history all by himself. They wouldn't have had 3% the viewers without him. He has managed to become the most relevant person in the country at the moment.

He's already won. Everything else is gravy. The "debate" got higher ratings than an average Monday Night NFL game. Amazing! I think your estimate of 3% without Trump is a little high. He has done nothing since the debate to make him less interesting. America is on the edge of its seat waiting to see what he will say next. I still have a hard time believing that "real people" are interested in politics over 15 months from the 2016 election. Fox, CNN and the rest are counting their money. I bet Fox wishes they had charged more their ads during the debate.

[fast4522]

I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but since they didn't I will. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Rubio was able pay off over a 100k in student debt while serving only 4 years as a US senator? He apparently was not able to make a dent in the loans in the 15 years between his graduation from law school and his election to the senate. It sounds "funny" to me. Does it to you? or I am making something out of nothing because I can't stand the guy?

RG,

Rubio makes good money, 20k applied to principal four years plus what is paid to principal prior. As a United States Senator what do you think his salary is?

[Robert Goren]

Did Rubio say he paid off his student loan in four years? I must of missed that in the debate. Or did he say it in another interview or something. He said it during the debate. He said it like he took pride in it. Maybe he should, but I wouldn't when so many people are upset with congressional salaries.
I am also having a tough time understanding why a publisher would advance a second year senator 800k for book. It does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems like a very risky deal. I do not blame Rubio for taking it, if that is all there is all to it. I could not get the check to bank fast enough if I had been him. I would have bought a better boat though.

[Clocker]

As a United States Senator what do you think his salary is?

$174,000

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/Annual-Salaries-Of-Top-Us-Government-Officials.htm

[_______]

The "debate" got higher ratings than an average Monday Night NFL game. Amazing! I think your estimate of 3% without Trump is a little high. He has done nothing since the debate to make him less interesting. America is on the edge of its seat waiting to see what he will say next. I still have a hard time believing that "real people" are interested in politics over 15 months from the 2016 election. Fox, CNN and the rest are counting their money. I bet Fox wishes they had charged more their ads during the debate.

Trump brings in the Real Housewives crowd. Everyone wants to see the next train wreck.

There is something fascinating about watching someone whose mind is filled with truly ugly thoughts and feels there is no consequence to vomiting them up in public.

Latinos, Veterans, and Women so far. I can't wait to see who is next on his hit list.

[fast4522]

The real bad consequence would be to continue the path we are on, we can't say we were not warned.

[Tom]

Vile - it's not just for democrats anymore!

Come on, nothing he has said compares the BS out of the Kenyan Krackpot's mouth - anyone who is against the Iran deal is on the side of those chanting
death to America. Hard to be worse than that. Pretty much brings out the slime that is his soul.

[Robert Goren]

RG,

Rubio makes good money, 20k applied to principal four years plus what is paid to principal prior. As a United States Senator what do you think his salary is?$175k, give or take a little. Most senators say that can not live on that considering they have to keep up two fairly nice residences. I think most could, but don't. A 175K is nothing in the corporate business world. The going salary for regional managers in parking management field is over $200k today. The honchos at corporate head quarters make much more. That would be about 3 steps from the job I held. I got paid about $35k at the end, but my immediate boss as a city manager made $75k in 2007. I believe that job now pays over a $100k. Then there are stock options and bonuses. I did not get stocks options, but I did get bonuses which for me was about 7% depending on how well the company did for the year. City managers and above get both. In 2001, I got nothing because the company took a big loss because of 9/11. I still wonder where the money went.

[fast4522]

RG

You might notice in this thread #41 that I tried to be fair to Dr. Carson, these guys are performing well on the fly under pressure, not an easy thing to do. I really think we all have to be thankful to those who participate in this process.
We can both get the knives out when the nominee's have been selected.

[Robert Goren]

RG

You might notice in this thread #41 that I tried to be fair to Dr. Carson, these guys are performing well on the fly under pressure, not an easy thing to do. I really think we all have to be thankful to those who participate in this process.
We can both get the knives out when the nominee's have been selected.
I do not agree that all of them are preforming well under pressure. Several looked lost (and most importantly lacking presidential stature) to me in the debate by not being able to get beyond their talking points. Remember the president, no matter who it is under tremendous pressure 24 hours a day for at least 4 years.
Dr. Carson who no government experience to judge him on has only thing going for him. He is suppose to be a lot smarter than anyone else running. If that were true, it could be worth a lot of votes. He needs to convince voters that he really is that that smart. I think he took a big step backward in that effort in the debate. He will get at least one more chance to make his case in the next debate. Debates are critical for him because he is probably the least well known of the candidates. I do not think he can survive another flub. It has been a long time since we have elected a president who has not been a senator or governor.
The only GOP candidate I even half way like, Rick Perry, from all reports sucked big time in the "happy hour" debate. He has a lot of work to do to get the nomination, but I still have hope.

[fast4522]

I do not agree that all of them are preforming well under pressure. Several looked lost (and most importantly lacking presidential stature) to me in the debate by not being able to get beyond their talking points. Remember the president, no matter who it is under tremendous pressure 24 hours a day for at least 4 years.
Dr. Carson who no government experience to judge him on has only thing going for him. He is suppose to be a lot smarter than anyone else running. If that were true, it could be worth a lot of votes. He needs to convince voters that he really is that that smart. I think he took a big step backward in that effort in the debate. He will get at least one more chance to make his case in the next debate. Debates are critical for him because he is probably the least well known of the candidates. I do not think he can survive another flub. It has been a long time since we have elected a president who has not been a senator or governor.
The only GOP candidate I even half way like, Rick Perry, from all reports sucked big time in the "happy hour" debate. He has a lot of work to do to get the nomination, but I still have hope.

Follow with me RG,

The many on stage are applying for VP, it goes without saying all but a few have NO chance at the top of the ticket. Rick Perry is by all measure a long shot for President, but would make the short list for VP very easily.

This is going to occur fast, some are going to be viewed toxic for both top and bottom parts of the ticket.

[PaceAdvantage]

The winners that I saw were Kasich and Walker. Kasich is probably the most electable of the bunch and just suffers from no recognition whatsoever and due in part to his own folksy tone and the support of a home crowd had to have moved his stock up with those that have no idea who is by a mile.I agree with you on Kasich. And wasn't it interesting, that if you suffered through some of the post-game analysis on FOX, not a ONE of the pundits even MENTIONED Kasich (good or bad) during their analysis.

I found that striking, as I thought he by far came off the best and should have moved forward the most from this debate. But they completely and utterly ignored him (at least during the time I was watching the post-debate shows...I admit I did not watch all of it, but I did watch at least the first 30-45 minutes, and he wasn't mentioned ONCE that I heard).

[FocusWiz]

He said it during the debate. He said it like he took pride in it. Maybe he should, but I wouldn't when so many people are upset with congressional salaries.It is a bit foggy, but I thought he said that four years ago he owed more than $100,000 in student loans without saying if he now owes more or now owes less.

I was listening rather carefully to that comment and I certainly did not hear him say they were paid off in four years. Perhaps he said that later on or in a follow-up, but I did not hear him say it when he was talking about Hillary.

[horses4courses]

Carly Fiorina asking me (and the rest of the world) on Twitter for $3. :lol:

She's a bit high falutin to be shaking down folks for change, don't ya think? :lol:

Runs HP into the ground....lays off 30,000....gets canned
gets around $20 million in severance....buys a million dollar yacht...yada yada

$3???.......take a hike :lol:

[dkithore]

Carly Fiorina asking me (and the rest of the world) on Twitter for $3. :lol:

She's a bit high falutin to be shaking down folks for change, don't ya think? :lol:

Runs HP into the ground....lays off 30,000....gets canned
gets around $20 million in severance....buys a million dollar yacht...yada yada

$3???.......take a hike :lol:
Sounds like Trump. lol.

[TJDave]

Runs HP into the ground....lays off 30,000....gets canned
gets around $20 million in severance....

Try twice that.

[sammy the sage]

$174,000

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/Annual-Salaries-Of-Top-Us-Government-Officials.htm

plus 100's & 100's of thousands from off the books INSIDER trades on stock market...or upcoming policy changes in other areas...ect...+speaking...yada,yada,yada...

that WAS NOT supposed to be what congress was about....back in the day...

[Tom]

At least she is asking for it from AMERICANS.
Hillary, on the other hand.......

Actually, her way is how it SHOULD be done.
Not many of those #3 contributors are going to visiting the WH as often as some of Obama's big $$$ guys.

[reckless]

Carly Fiorina asking me (and the rest of the world) on Twitter for $3. :lol:

She's a bit high falutin to be shaking down folks for change, don't ya think? :lol:

Runs HP into the ground....lays off 30,000....gets canned
gets around $20 million in severance....buys a million dollar yacht...yada yada

$3???.......take a hike :lol:

Right now, Carly is the darling of the media and popular culture. She is a sweet sounding, smart sounding candidate. And her personal story is compelling, starting in the steno pool and working her way up to eventually becoming the head of Hewlett-Packard, then having a run for the US Senate and now, for President.

But, let's be real here. Carly's tenure at H-P is objectively viewed as a failure, plain and simple. And in her first attempt in running for the Senate, she got thrashed by Barbara Boxer. Yes, I understand it's California but the reality is, she lost.

The reason for the current love fest is that the media 'wants' her to beat up on both Trump and Hillary. She's a fantastic sound bite, that's for sure.

But once this side-show becomes old hat they'll bury her in the very same media, using as examples some of those same facts and near facts listed by our friend, h4c.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with you on Kasich. And wasn't it interesting, that if you suffered through some of the post-game analysis on FOX, not a ONE of the pundits even MENTIONED Kasich (good or bad) during their analysis.

I found that striking, as I thought he by far came off the best and should have moved forward the most from this debate. But they completely and utterly ignored him (at least during the time I was watching the post-debate shows...I admit I did not watch all of it, but I did watch at least the first 30-45 minutes, and he wasn't mentioned ONCE that I heard).

I thought Kasich was terrific also. The funny thing is that he may be the most qualified of anyone in the field. He has executive experience as a governor and he also has experience in Congress.

[horses4courses]

Right now, Carly is the darling of the media and popular culture. She is a sweet sounding, smart sounding candidate. And her personal story is compelling, starting in the steno pool and working her way up to eventually becoming the head of Hewlett-Packard, then having a run for the US Senate and now, for President.

But, let's be real here. Carly's tenure at H-P is objectively viewed as a failure, plain and simple. And in her first attempt in running for the Senate, she got thrashed by Barbara Boxer. Yes, I understand it's California but the reality is, she lost.

The reason for the current love fest is that the media 'wants' her to beat up on both Trump and Hillary. She's a fantastic sound bite, that's for sure.

But once this side-show becomes old hat they'll bury her in the very same media, using as examples some of those same facts and near facts listed by our friend, h4c.

Think she is a decent VP option?
I don't see her hurting a GOP ticket.

I haven't liked her since her run against Boxer out here.
She still has potential for the Republicans, though.

[reckless]

Think she is a decent VP option?
I don't see her hurting a GOP ticket.

I haven't liked her since her run against Boxer out here.
She still has potential for the Republicans, though.

I personally kinda like Carly a lot but she just might be a one-trick pony as the anti-Hillary candidate. Even a VP spot sounds iffy to me. Being on the ticket won't provide a GOP win in California, that's for sure. And if she can't deliver that, then why have her on the ticket in the first place?

If the narrow minded GOP pooh-bahs feel they need a woman on the ticket, then Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and Susana Martinez of New Mexico are better picks, imo.

[barn32]

Trump's undoing will be Trump.

So far it seems like he's escaping. But I fear he will go to far in the not too distant future and there will be no coming back.

Perot did the same thing.

Learn from the past, Trump.

[TJDave]

and Susana Martinez of New Mexico are better picks, imo.

Excellent. She could deliver her home state probably bring along Colorado & Nevada and help big time with Florida. Republicans would still need some help with either Virginia or Ohio.

[Clocker]

Excellent. She could deliver her home state probably bring along Colorado & Nevada and help big time with Florida.

I think the GOP would have trouble carrying any of those states if Trump is the nominee. And I have trouble seeing any woman on the ticket with Trump.

[TJDave]

I think the GOP would have trouble carrying any of those states if Trump is the nominee.

You and I know that's not going to happen.

[TJDave]

What I find more intriguing is Hillary's running mate. Almost has to be a woman, no?

[Clocker]

You and I know that's not going to happen.

True, but it's fun to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Without him the political scene isn't very entertaining right now.

[Tom]

What I find more intriguing is Hillary's running mate. Almost has to be a woman, no?

Caitlyn.
Covers a lot of territory! :eek:

[Clocker]

What I find more intriguing is Hillary's running mate. Almost has to be a woman, no?

Elizabeth Warren? :eek: Debbie Schultz? :eek::eek:

Strange that the party that holds itself up as the leader in fighting the war against women doesn't have any prominent, powerful women beyond Hillary and the aging Congress critters from California.

Hard to imagine anyone prominent in the party that would want to serve under Hillary. Maybe some young, rising minority male looking to run for president down the road.

[barn32]

Interesting Article (http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/10/swan-song-for-the-donald-gop-party-bosses-plan-to-take-out-trump/)

Party Bosses plan to "Take Out" Trump

[Buckeye]

The Founding Fathers did NOT include women for a reason?

Guess not?

[classhandicapper]

Trump's undoing will be Trump.

So far it seems like he's escaping. But I fear he will go to far in the not too distant future and there will be no coming back.

Perot did the same thing.

Learn from the past, Trump.

My revised odds on Trump getting the nomination are 200,000-1.

My revised odds on Trump getting elected president are 6 trillion - 1.

My line on a plague wiping out everyone except the Trump family and them voting him in are also 6 trillion - 1.

[horses4courses]

What non-Californians don't know about Carly Fiorina -- but should

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-non-californians-carly-fiorina-20150811-column.html#page=1

Even before her 2010 campaign against Boxer could get off the ground, it was poleaxed by the revelation that she had failed to cast a ballot in 75% of the California elections for which she was an eligible voter.

During her reign at Hewlett-Packard, according to public records, her corporation spent $4.7 million to lobby Congress and donated more than $390,000 to political candidates through its political action committee. Fiorina and her husband, Frank, a former AT&T executive, have made more than $100,000 in political donations personally since 2000.

That suggests not that Fiorina 'felt disconnected' from what was going on in Washington, but rather that she understood all too well that in politics, money talks. Why bother to vote when you can get what you need with greenbacks?

[Tom]

During her reign at Hewlett-Packard, according to public records, her corporation spent $4.7 million to lobby Congress and donated more than $390,000 to political candidates through its political action committee. Fiorina and her husband, Frank, a former AT&T executive, have made more than $100,000 in political donations personally since 2000.

So let's explore this.

If she made those contribution to Obama and other democrats, would you still be whining about it?

If just the act of heavy donating is bad, how do you justify Obama spends most of his time flying around to hang with these people? Sucking up to them?

Were any of those contributions illegally made? If not, get the bug out of yer arse and quit crying.

Your double standards are boring.

[horses4courses]

So let's explore this.

If she made those contribution to Obama and other democrats, would you still be whining about it?

If just the act of heavy donating is bad, how do you justify Obama spends most of his time flying around to hang with these people? Sucking up to them?

Were any of those contributions illegally made? If not, get the bug out of yer arse and quit crying.

Your double standards are boring.

I'm not questioning the $ amount of her donations at all.
If you can put 2+2 together (doubtful), you will notice
that she realizes very well how important contributions
are in Washington. Yet, she said her lousy voting record
in elections was due to the fact that she felt her vote
didn't matter. BS. Voting record is important for candidates.
She just has a different set of priorities.

[Tom]

BS. Voting record is important for candidates.

You got me there.
I forgot Obama's record of voting "present." :lol:

[Clocker]

I forgot Obama's record of voting "present." :lol:

Moonbat and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen said that 80% of success is just showing up. I guess that explains why so many on the left consider Obama to be successful.

[reckless]

Moonbat and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen said that 80% of success is just showing up. I guess that explains why so many on the left consider Obama to be successful.

What Woody Allen never mentions, clocker, was the 20% of the time that Mia Farrow didn't show up and he was diddling Soon-Yi.

[PaceAdvantage]

All those who paint a Trump nomination or victory as some sort of astronomical event (think odds of asteroid wiping out Earth tomorrow) haven't paid a lot of attention to the world lately. The events of the past 10 years or so show ANYONE can be elected President. Even a man with a semi-hidden past who had very real ties to domestic terrorists and nutball preachers...

[horses4courses]

What Woody Allen never mentions, clocker, was the 20% of the time that Mia Farrow didn't show up and he was diddling Soon-Yi.

You. sir, have an extremely overactive imagination. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

You. sir, have an extremely overactive imagination. :rolleyes:

Apparently, so did Woody "the perv" Allen.

[Stillriledup]

Trump brings in the Real Housewives crowd. Everyone wants to see the next train wreck.

There is something fascinating about watching someone whose mind is filled with truly ugly thoughts and feels there is no consequence to vomiting them up in public.

Latinos, Veterans, and Women so far. I can't wait to see who is next on his hit list.

Illegals? But maybe you want them all to stay?

[dnlgfnk]

All those who paint a Trump nomination or victory as some sort of astronomical event (think odds of asteroid wiping out Earth tomorrow) haven't paid a lot of attention to the world lately. The events of the past 10 years or so show ANYONE can be elected President. Even a man with a semi-hidden past who had very real ties to domestic terrorists and nutball preachers...

Forty percent of Obama's support came from minorities in what will be an ongoing trend ...and I think George Will captured the reality this morning on Fox News Sunday..."Do you trust Donald Trump with an atomic bomb"?

[Greyfox]

Forty percent of Obama's support came from minorities in what will be an ongoing trend ...and I think George Will captured the reality this morning on Fox News Sunday..."Do you trust Donald Trump with an atomic bomb"?

Better question:

Will Putin, Iran, and North Korea trust Trump with an atomic bomb?

His election would change their posturing towards America, fast.

[ReplayRandall]

Forty percent of Obama's support came from minorities in what will be an ongoing trend ...and I think George Will captured the reality this morning on Fox News Sunday..."Do you trust Donald Trump with an atomic bomb"?

The reality captured on Fox news is this.....George Will's opinion means zip, nada, nothing. Maybe he should take a 10 day vacation with Megyn Kelly.

[dnlgfnk]

The reality captured on Fox news is this.....George Will's opinion means zip, nada, nothing. Maybe he should take a 10 day vacation with Megyn Kelly.

Maybe, but I think he captured the fear of Joe Sixpack on election night--the public perception of Trump's unpredictability and recklessness.

I'm an independent nowadays. Republicans torture prisoners, Democrats torture babies.

[Stillriledup]

Better question:

Will Putin, Iran, and North Korea trust Trump with an atomic bomb?

His election would change their posturing towards America, fast.

Exactly. No more of this lets beat America down verbally because they won't do anything about it stuff.

[PaceAdvantage]

Forty percent of Obama's support came from minorities in what will be an ongoing trend ...and I think George Will captured the reality this morning on Fox News Sunday..."Do you trust Donald Trump with an atomic bomb"?George Will is stuck in some sort of odd delusional past.

Who exactly would you trust with the bomb? :lol:

George W. Bush? Barack Obama? :lol: :lol:

You guys still don't understand the point I've been trying to make these past many weeks. You're all acting as if Trump is somehow inferior to those we've elected in the past. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[NorCalGreg]

My revised odds on Trump getting the nomination are 200,000-1.

My revised odds on Trump getting elected president are 6 trillion - 1.

My line on a plague wiping out everyone except the Trump family and them voting him in are also 6 trillion - 1.

Are your odds posted somewhere? I'd like one dollar on Trump, please....on everything except that plague thing. (my wife will kill me if she finds out I'm gambling again)

[classhandicapper]

Are your odds posted somewhere? I'd like one dollar on Trump, please....on everything except that plague thing. (my wife will kill me if she finds out I'm gambling again)

These are just my "fair odds" estimates. I'll give you updates. ;)

185,000 - 1

6 trillion - 1

[reckless]

... ...and I think George Will captured the reality this morning on Fox News Sunday..."Do you trust Donald Trump with an atomic bomb"?

As the stilted George Will becomes more and more less relevant, he volleys the 'atomic bomb' trust scare out there to all his pseudo conservative pals from the Washington DC lunch crowd.

Where was the constipated Mister Will when Obama made this Iran deal -- now there's a real atomic bomb threat, Iran, and not Donald Trump.

Stuffy George doesn't seem too worried about nuclear armadeggon coming out of Iran, does he?

[elysiantraveller]

You guys still don't understand the point I've been trying to make these past many weeks. You're all acting as if Trump is somehow inferior to those we've elected in the past. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I feel Trump is vastly inferior.

[zico20]

Are your odds posted somewhere? I'd like one dollar on Trump, please....on everything except that plague thing. (my wife will kill me if she finds out I'm gambling again)

Hey buddy, just tell your wife, "it's not gambling if it is a sure thing." :D

[Robert Goren]

Just as I predicted, both Walker and Paul are losing ground in the latest round of Polls. Paul is probably toast. Walker need a strong showing in the next debate. As I said in an earlier post, he appeared small in physical stature and he failed to sound like a president when he talked. He lacked fire. The next debate is do or die for him. This early, it is better to be polling at consistent low number than it is to be slipping at a higher number. At least it has been that way in the past. Trump is killing off the non traditional candidates or as I call them, " the demagogues ". Pretty soon all that will be left are a couple of the radicial verison of the social conservatives, a rinos or three, Carson and Trump. Carson while he has fallen some, he has fallen like he should have for getting his facts wrong, but then he has yet to feel the "power of the media aimed at him". They will get around to him sooner or later. They always do.

[Clocker]

Just as I predicted, both Walker and Paul are losing ground in the latest round of Polls.

The peasants are angry and up in arms. They are getting out their torches and pitchforks and preparing to march against the castle of the politicians. Trump, Carson, and Fiorina all have momentum while all of the professional politicians are in decline. Same thing on the left. Bernie is rising and Hillary is in decline. And on the left there ain't no one else on the scene to pick up the pieces. When Hillary self-destructs, the Dems are toast.

Obama said that he was going to put an end to business as usual in Washington. He made it worse. In doing that, maybe he did put an end to it, by poisoning the well.

[Track Collector]

While no one bats 100%, I have come to respect Nate Silver's on-going analysis of political elections. He currently gives Trump a 2% chance of winning the Republican party nomination, citing something like 6 different factors to support this figure. Interesting read regardless of the side of the political spectrum one is on.

[classhandicapper]

While no one bats 100%, I have come to respect Nate Silver's on-going analysis of political elections. He currently gives Trump a 2% chance of winning the Republican party nomination, citing something like 6 different factors to support this figure. Interesting read regardless of the side of the political spectrum one is on.

I read Silver's analysis and I think he's pretty much spot on.

The problem is that Trump's negatives cap his support.

Trump has 25% and the rest of the 75% is divided among a lot of candidates. But as some of those others start to drop out, I think those votes are going to shift to the remaining candidates in much larger numbers than they will shift to Trump. That will slowly narrow the gap until there are only a few candidates left. Then someone will pass him.

If you look at that on the presidential level, he has almost no chance of getting the middle swing voters in large enough numbers to win.

It's great that he's talking about illegal immigration and bad trade deals. I may not agree with his details, but I agree with him that those are two huge problems that must be dealt with. So I welcome the fact that he's out there ranting about that stuff. But he's doing it in a way that is creating negatives for himself that are capping his support while riling up others. Unless he changes his approach, I still think he has no chance whatsoever. We'll see if he can behave more professionally and presidential while still getting out the message.

[reckless]

Better question:

Will Putin, Iran, and North Korea trust Trump with an atomic bomb?

His election would change their posturing towards America, fast.

Well put, Greyfox.

The atomic bomb 'issue' is never mentioned except and only when some strong and conservative politician is making headway, such as what Trump is doing now.

I am with you that the games these thugs play will end when Trump (or Cruz) becomes president, for sure.

[horses4courses]

Well put, Greyfox.

The atomic bomb 'issue' is never mentioned except and only when some strong and conservative politician is making headway, such as what Trump is doing now.

I am with you that the games these thugs play will end when Trump (or Cruz) becomes president, for sure.

You say these things as if the US has a decided advantage,
and a strong bargaining position in these matters.
The folly of conservative bravado.

Yes, animated tyrants like we have in N.Korea aren't the threat they
like to think they are. However, China and Russia aren't the least bit
scared of the US - no matter who is in the White House.

Potential loose cannons, like having Trump and Cruz in power,
would put this country at risk more than ever before.

Luckily, such a perilous position is very unlikely to come about.

[reckless]

You say these things as if the US has a decided advantage, and a strong bargaining position in these matters.
The folly of conservative bravado.

Yes, animated tyrants like we have in N.Korea aren't the threat they
like to think they are. However, China and Russia aren't the least bit
scared of the US - no matter who is in the White House.

Potential loose cannons, like having Trump and Cruz in power,
would put this country at risk more than ever before.

Luckily, such a perilous position is very unlikely to come about.

America officially began surrendering the bargaining position of being the world's beacon of hope, treasure, freedom and success -- the very essence of the United States of America -- when Obama became president. But, in all fairness, it started even sooner than that.

Our history and the successes of the USA from our Founding isn't idle fodder of conservative thinking nor naive blind patriotism.

Yes, China and Russia aren't threatened by us. And why should they be?

We sold our financial future to China to finance a lifestyle of cradle to grave socialism. We first emasculated, then hollowed out our military. Now, ISIS is laughing at us too. We elected cowards such as Clinton, Bush and Obama as presidents, We give credibility to douce bags like Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Al Sharpton and Bill diBlasio and we now even give credence to the 1960s Cal-Berkeley and CCNY pot heads as our education, political and cultural 'leaders'.

Is anyone truly satisfied with our current education system, from K-12 thru college? Who runs these once-revered institutions? The very same deviants, draft dodgers and dope heads that were the 1960s protesters and loudmouths.

So, is it any wonder that a tough guy such as Putin laughs at us? That North Korea is even considered a threat of any kind? That is laughable but also scary. Same can be said for little Syria, who does wee-wee on the Red Line that tough guy Obama drew. Ha-ha-ha.

China could punish this country's financial system in so many ways -- by either stop buying our Treasury bonds and notes, by selling bonds, dollars and notes already owned and even via computer hacking and skullduggery. Name your poison, please.

The same lame and naive thinking of our left wing 'leaders and intellects' that helped create this horror today refer to people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump as loose cannons or threats to our safety. Iran, Russia, China isn't a threat to these people, but Cruz and Trump are. :lol:

Conservatives such Cruz and to some extent, Trump, are the real saviors this country needs right now and to whom we'll eventually call upon as this presidential campaign plays out.

Enjoy all this while you can because conservatives and patriots are forging ahead full boar and will not stop until we take our country back. That's a promise.

[woodtoo]

America officially began surrendering the bargaining position of being the world's beacon of hope, treasure, freedom and success -- the very essence of the United States of America -- when Obama became president. But, in all fairness, it started even sooner than that.

Our history and the successes of the USA from our Founding isn't idle fodder of conservative thinking nor naive blind patriotism.

Yes, China and Russia aren't threatened by us. And why should they be?

We sold our financial future to China to finance a lifestyle of cradle to grave socialism. We first emasculated, then hollowed out our military. Now, ISIS is laughing at us too. We elected cowards such as Clinton, Bush and Obama as presidents, We give credibility to douce bags like Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Al Sharpton and Bill diBlasio and we now even give credence to the 1960s Cal-Berkeley and CCNY pot heads as our education, political and cultural 'leaders'.

Is anyone truly satisfied with our current education system, from K-12 thru college? Who runs these once-revered institutions? The very same deviants, draft dodgers and dope heads that were the 1960s protesters and loudmouths.

So, is it any wonder that a tough guy such as Putin laughs at us? That North Korea is even considered a threat of any kind? That is laughable but also scary. Same can be said for little Syria, who does wee-wee on the Red Line that tough guy Obama drew. Ha-ha-ha.

China could punish this country's financial system in so many ways -- by either stop buying our Treasury bonds and notes, by selling bonds, dollars and notes already owned and even via computer hacking and skullduggery. Name your poison, please.

The same lame and naive thinking of our left wing 'leaders and intellects' that helped create this horror today refer to people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump as loose cannons or threats to our safety. Iran, Russia, China isn't a threat to these people, but Cruz and Trump are. :lol:

Conservatives such Cruz and to some extent, Trump, are the real saviors this country needs right now and to whom we'll eventually call upon as this presidential campaign plays out.

Enjoy all this while you can because conservatives and patriots are forging ahead full boar and will not stop until we take our country back. That's a promise.

Well said Reckless :ThmbUp: