2016 Presidential Debates Thread [2-13-'16 GOP South Carolina]

goldfly said:
he sounded like he was running for prime minister of Israel in that debate

he is bat **** crazy

but cool
Click to expand...

He made good points. He argues for American superiority and state rights. I agree with those arguments. He's not hiding his beliefs or tactics. I respect that. I don't think he's going to win, but I personally back him right now.
 
weso1 said:
It really is. She has legit weaknesses, but the idea that she is a rube is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

She did some homework for the debate and performed well. I give her credit for that.

However, the bar for what a good debate performance is from that group is embarrassing low. Their unwillingness to speak to middle class problems shows they have no real solutions, just more fiddling on the deck.
 
Runnin said:
She did some homework for the debate and performed well. I give her credit for that.

However, the bar for what a good debate performance is from that group is embarrassing low. Their unwillingness to speak to middle class problems shows they have no real solutions, just more fiddling on the deck.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've heard plenty of good solutions. You may not agree with them, but maybe it's time to try something new.
 
weso1 said:
You know that's not true. You're going with the talking points. You're going to vote for a candidate who is more of the same even though you are against it. I would argue that is insane.
Click to expand...

I actually don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, though I have said Bernie vs Trump would at least be something different. Just to be clear I said Rafael Cruz (you don't mind if I call him by his real name do you?) IS a nut, not dumb, just a total nut and I didn't say you were insane, just Rafael. I don't hate Carly if that helps any. And at least Walker is out of the race now so my chances of going to prison for saying really ugly and threatening things about a potential POTUS just went down quite a bit.
 
Runnin said:
Why zero in on Fiorina? She's one of the few who can communicate complex ideas in an intelligent manner.

The phrase "no earthly shot of winning" means nothing in this environment. Candidates are promoting themselves as much as they are running for office. Savvy losers will parlay their popularity into a new gig.
Click to expand...

It goes for the whole party, I don't think I'm "zeroing" in. In fact, this is like the first or second time I've ever mentioned her. Not sure where you're getting that I dislike her more than anyone else on that stage.

I don't think she's intelligent and her performance on stage was a joke. The weed issue, the PP issue, the war issue. She passes herself off as a successful businesswoman when she was terrible there, too.
 
yeezus said:
It goes for the whole party, I don't think I'm "zeroing" in. In fact, this is like the first or second time I've ever mentioned her. Not sure where you're getting that I dislike her more than anyone else on that stage.

I don't think she's intelligent and her performance on stage was a joke. The weed issue, the PP issue, the war issue. She passes herself off as a successful businesswoman when she was terrible there, too.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of Fiorina, she's just too uncomfortably polished. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a candidate who can eloquently vocalize his/her platform, as Fiorina did, but I see less thoughtfulness and more 'script' emanating from Carly. You are right, her response to the question about marijuana seemed disingenuous; sure, I'm greatly sympathetic to her personal experience with drug abuse, but she kind of danced around the notion of weed being a gateway drug (and rightfully so, there isn't a great amount of scientific evidence to support those claims) en route to what was tantamount to a non-answer.

That said, it seems a willing suspension of disbelief to ignore the political tide in the United States right now -- we've seen the GOP make tremendous gains over the past two large cycles and the reason for that is largely because the middle class is being shafted to high heaven by the current administration. Republican economic ideals triumph over Democratic socialist reform any day of the week with this huge and powerful segment of the electorate because they are very much capitalist subscribers to the most real American dream: getting rich. Some people are sick of their tax dollars going to programs that they don't remotely benefit from. In 2008 there was the promise of improved and cheaper health care for all, much needed improvement of our gimpy public transportation infrastructure, a new approach to diplomacy, the ability to dream big again. Unfortunately, none of that has happened, or at least not in the way that would truly impact the average American. We're a finicky people and we like options, and the broad Republican platform may not necessarily be 'new' but it is unmistakably a stark contrast to what a candidate like Hilary might offer.

The funny thing is that all of the Republican candidates are getting a ton of media play right now while the two major Democrats who are actively campaigning are receiving either none (Sanders) or negative press (Clinton). It's a PR field day for the right -- and they've been entirely on the offensive, unloading on character and the status quo without having to really defend any of their own positions. Personally, I'm looking forward to this changing ... but it's going to be a long slough.
 
Hawk said:
I agree with your assessment of Fiorina, she's just too uncomfortably polished. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a candidate who can eloquently vocalize his/her platform, as Fiorina did, but I see less thoughtfulness and more 'script' emanating from Carly. You are right, her response to the question about marijuana seemed disingenuous; sure, I'm greatly sympathetic to her personal experience with drug abuse, but she kind of danced around the notion of weed being a gateway drug (and rightfully so, there isn't a great amount of scientific evidence to support those claims) en route to what was tantamount to a non-answer.

That said, it seems a willing suspension of disbelief to ignore the political tide in the United States right now -- we've seen the GOP make tremendous gains over the past two large cycles and the reason for that is largely because the middle class is being shafted to high heaven by the current administration. Republican economic ideals triumph over Democratic socialist reform any day of the week with this huge and powerful segment of the electorate because they are very much capitalist subscribers to the most real American dream: getting rich. Some people are sick of their tax dollars going to programs that they don't remotely benefit from. In 2008 there was the promise of improved and cheaper health care for all, much needed improvement of our gimpy public transportation infrastructure, a new approach to diplomacy, the ability to dream big again. Unfortunately, none of that has happened, or at least not in the way that would truly impact the average American. We're a finicky people and we like options, and the broad Republican platform may not necessarily be 'new' but it is unmistakably a stark contrast to what a candidate like Hilary might offer.

The funny thing is that all of the Republican candidates are getting a ton of media play right now while the two major Democrats who are actively campaigning are receiving either none (Sanders) or negative press (Clinton). It's a PR field day for the right -- and they've been entirely on the offensive, unloading on character and the status quo without having to really defend any of their own positions. Personally, I'm looking forward to this changing ... but it's going to be a long slough.
Click to expand...

What are the Republicans offering that deviates markedly from the status quo? Look at Bush's tax plan. I'm not saying it's necessarily good or bad, but whenever you propose to streamline the deduction framework, the middle class tends to lose. And I guess we'll see how popular moves like that will be if a Republican does take the White House and Congress remains in control of the Republicans. I frankly don't see how Obama has blunted the desire (or ability) to get rich. And the socialist schtick really has run threadbare. Largest Keynesian presence in the federal budget today is the defense budget (and Keynes wasn't a socialist for what that's worth).

As for Fiorina, she's good on the stump. You don't get to her level as a corporate executive without having public speaking chops. I agree that she very well-rehearsed and she really gobbled up a lot of low-hanging fruit in the last debate. Curious to see if it lasts and if anyone tries to knock her off stride. I'm still thinking it will be Jeb at the end, although Rubio is rising quietly and Walker's exit helps him.
 
Her only job the past 7-8 years is unsuccessfully running for office - she should be polished

The irony of (R) talking about career politicians. Even Trump ? Looking back, we should have seen this coming
The only reason Fiorina Trump or Carson haven't been elected is, they haven't been elected.

I'm real curious to see how polling 15-30% in (R) primaries translates nationally
 
acesfull86 said:
LOL. As if the left offers ideas that don't involve more federal gov't involvement, paid for by higher taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...

but it's nice to see you admit they do have new ideas

just the same way to pay for them in your eyes

we are making progress

well, other than hearing the new ideas conservatives come up with
 
goldfly said:
what new ideas are being brought to the table that is "new"?
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say new ideas. I meant actually putting something new into practice. If actually put into practice there are some pretty radical positions on tax reform, illegal immigration and health care. Obviously it depends on who wins. If for example Jeb wins then it will just be back to G-Dub days. Nothing really all that new will be put into practice. If Trump or Cruz wins you'll see sweeping changes to illegal immigration, a flat tax with limited deductions and significant incentives to keep jobs from going over seas.

To me it would be refreshing to actually have a President who cares about the constitution. Unfortunately that would be something we haven't seen in quite a while.
 
goldfly said:
but it's nice to see you admit they do have new ideas

just the same way to pay for them in your eyes

we are making progress

well, other than hearing the new ideas conservatives come up with
Click to expand...

Never said "new".

In my eyes? Show me where that's not reality.

I don't think we're making any progress.
 
weso1 said:
Well, I didn't say new ideas. I meant actually putting something new into practice. If actually put into practice there are some pretty radical positions on tax reform, illegal immigration and health care. Obviously it depends on who wins. If for example Jeb wins then it will just be back to G-Dub days. Nothing really all that new will be put into practice. If Trump or Cruz wins you'll see sweeping changes to illegal immigration, a flat tax with limited deductions and significant incentives to keep jobs from going over seas.

To me it would be refreshing to actually have a President who cares about the constitution. Unfortunately that would be something we haven't seen in quite a while.
Click to expand...

(1) A flat individual income tax pretty much screws the middle class. If you are talking corporate taxes, that's another animal entirely.

(2) What incentives will keep jobs here without considerable interference into both labor and capital markets? All I've heard from the Republican field except Trump is "free market, free market, free market." Fiorina already sent a bunch of jobs overseas when she headed up HP.

(3) Cruz cares about his interpretation of the Constitution more than the Constitution per se.
 
50PoundHead said:
(1) A flat individual income tax pretty much screws the middle class. If you are talking corporate taxes, that's another animal entirely.

(2) What incentives will keep jobs here without considerable interference into both labor and capital markets? All I've heard from the Republican field except Trump is "free market, free market, free market." Fiorina already sent a bunch of jobs overseas when she headed up HP.

(3) Cruz cares about his interpretation of the Constitution more than the Constitution per se.
Click to expand...

1) I don't know how you would know that. A flat tax can still be progressive. The idea is to just simplify things. It depends on the plan, which we really only have one right now, which is Rand Paul's plan. It gives a tax cut to the middle class. If you bumped up the rate a bit on his plan and increased the standard deduction then everyone would nearly get the same tax cut.

2) I was speaking specifically about Trump.

3) Well either way, the constitution is very important to him. Moreso than any other politician running in either party outside of Paul.
 
weso1 said:
1) I don't know how you would know that. A flat tax can still be progressive. The idea is to just simplify things. It depends on the plan, which we really only have one right now, which is Rand Paul's plan. It gives a tax cut to the middle class. If you bumped up the rate a bit on his plan and increased the standard deduction then everyone would nearly get the same tax cut.

2) I was speaking specifically about Trump.

3) Well either way, the constitution is very important to him. Moreso than any other politician running in either party outside of Paul.
Click to expand...

What is the effect on the deficit of Paul's plan? I'm not saying that budget cuts should be off the table, but my guess is if you are designing a flat tax that is progressive, the zero bracket amount will have to be extremely high, which will drive the rate up. I'll take a look at Paul's tax plan, but color me skeptical.
 
50PoundHead said:
What is the effect on the deficit of Paul's plan? I'm not saying that budget cuts should be off the table, but my guess is if you are designing a flat tax that is progressive, the zero bracket amount will have to be extremely high, which will drive the rate up. I'll take a look at Paul's tax plan, but color me skeptical.
Click to expand...

PS--I know this is the internet and all, but I did my graduate paper in the 1980s and I wrote it for a professor who was once the Chair of a US President's Council of Economic Advisers, so I do have a bit of knowledge on this subject.

PPS--But I did flunk post editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top