Republican Primary Debates

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm wondering if you'd call our capital punishment a version of legalized revenge, because that would desperately be reaching. I notice you're from LA so I expect a self proclaimed enlightened rebuttal that makes zero sense whatsoever.

Btw, I don't even know what Star said, I'm just familiar with "retards" who call our version of justice "legalized revenge" to make their argument stick.

Star argued that people should decide for themselves what happens to the murderers of their family members. Which is, whether you agree with it or not, the same as Sharia law. I find it humorous that people who are so anti-Islam and think the US should intervene in the Middle-East to destroy ISIS, have some pretty ISIS-like beliefs.

Star argued that people should decided for themselves what happens to the murderers of their family members. Which is, whether you agree with it or not, the same as Sharia law.

LOL@anyone who thinks what I suggested is even remotely similar to Sharia Law trash.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL@anyone who thinks what I suggested is even remotely similar to Sharia Law trash.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure why Bush is losing. He had a very good debate. He's more center right than anyone else up there (except maybe Carson), and he's likable.

Opinion I saw on him was that he didn't seem to be too passionate about most of the topics and played it too conservatively (in the not-making-waves sense).

Not that he had a bad debate, just that he didn't work as hard to make a splash as Trump, Rubio, or Carson did.

The BBC rundown on each candidate

Here's an interesting response, on the relative lack of Obama mentions in the debate despite him normally being a favored topic.

The GOP Debate and Obama's failure to fail

What did the men who would be president talk about during last week’s prime-time Republican debate? Well, there were 19 references to God, while the economy rated only 10 mentions. Republicans in Congress have voted dozens of times to repeal all or part of Obamacare, but the candidates only named President Obama’s signature policy nine times over the course of two hours. And energy, another erstwhile G.O.P. favorite, came up only four times.

Strange, isn’t it? The shared premise of everyone on the Republican side is that the Obama years have been a time of policy disaster on every front. Yet the candidates on that stage had almost nothing to say about any of the supposed disaster areas.

And there was a good reason they seemed so tongue-tied: Out there in the real world, none of the disasters their party predicted have actually come to pass. President Obama just keeps failing to fail. And that’s a big problem for the G.O.P..

Basically, while Obama's results often have room for improvement ("Economic recovery is still incomplete and Obamacare isn't a system anyone would design from scratch," Krugman says), the doom predicting of the last 7 years hasn't materialized, so when it comes time to debate, the GOP candidates largely focused on other stuff, rather than trying to say how they'd change course from this or that Obama policy, because that's not a big debate winner.

Originally posted by Q99
Opinion I saw on him was that he didn't seem to be too passionate about most of the topics and played it too conservatively (in the not-making-waves sense).

Not that he had a bad debate, just that he didn't work as hard to make a splash as Trump, Rubio, or Carson did.

The BBC rundown on each candidate

Ugh, the Chris Christie hug is really a thing? What a reminder that we live in a world where you can't show affection to a political peer - and your Commander-in-Chief - if he's from the opposite party. What a worthless, petty thing to lose political points over. And even a detached media entity like the BBC sees it as a knock.

Bush may just be waiting for Trump to implode. It wouldn't be the worst strategy.

Originally posted by Digi
Ugh, the Chris Christie hug is really a thing? What a reminder that we live in a world where you can't show affection to a political peer - and your Commander-in-Chief - if he's from the opposite party. What a worthless, petty thing to lose political points over. And even a detached media entity like the BBC sees it as a knock.

Bush may just be waiting for Trump to implode. It wouldn't be the worst strategy.

BBC is noting it's a knock to the Republicans. Who hate Obama. Not that they personally have a problem with it.

But seriously, Hurricane Sandy was huge, Obama gave him his number and said, "If you need anything done, give me a call and I'll personally get on it." And together, they did a great response to a huge disaster. That is totally hug worthy.

---

Yeah, sorry, should have clarified. I realized they don't see it as a knock, they were just acknowledging it as a knock within the GOP.

And yeah, he could lose a shot at the presidency bc he hugged a guy who helped him provide aid and recovery to thousands of people. It's just irreconcilably vindictive.

Originally posted by Digi

Bush may just be waiting for Trump to implode. It wouldn't be the worst strategy.

Yea. I mainly look at the second place position.

It is interesting that most of the establishment and most experienced politicians lost points/standing here (Rubio being the exception), while the more unconventional firebrands gained.

One question is how long it's going to be before this becomes a race of the conventional politicians. A thing that arguably hurt Romney is how long the circus went on before it turned to that level.

Q99, I moved the death penalty aspect of the GOP's position to the Death Penalty thread.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, back to the debate results! Morning Consult has after-debate poll, with change from its before-debate poll listed:

An Atlas poster had a good summary of the post-debate polls, minus the Reuters one above:

Just remember, early leads don't always work out, it draws a lot of attention to the candidate and if they're not on the top of their game, they'll crash and burn under the stress and scrutiny.

Rudy Giuliani 2007
Fred Thompson 2007 (just under Rudy in points)
Hillary Clinton 2007
Herman Cain 2011

All were leading their opposition by sizeable leads and then they faltered.

The b**** Megyn Kelly is a hypocrit:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/megyn-kelly-howard-stern-sex-talk-donald-trump/2015/08/09/id/669255

Remember trump body slamming vince mcmahon. That'll get him a few thousand votes

Women talking about their appearance and sex life does not make them hypocritical when they complain about a clown making sexist remarks at their expense.

LOL. Obviously, you only read the title of article and nothing more.

I read the whole article.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just remember, early leads don't always work out, it draws a lot of attention to the candidate and if they're not on the top of their game, they'll crash and burn under the stress and scrutiny.

Rudy Giuliani 2007
Fred Thompson 2007 (just under Rudy in points)
Hillary Clinton 2007
Herman Cain 2011

All were leading their opposition by sizeable leads and then they faltered.

Right. I wouldn't include Hillary in that since it was a neck-and-neck at the end rather than a crash and burn, but there's plenty of examples.

Still, this one's made it past the first debate (not all of those made it *to* their debates!), and one of the big issues is as long as there's so many other competitors, no other faction has that much chance of rallying the rest behind them. The establishment is split between Bush, Walker, Rubio, even Christie is drawing some, and so on, while Trump being more off on his own, gets all of the ones over there.

A 17 way race is a very unusual situation, and means someone with a loyal but unlikely to expand following is in a better position than someone who's support can both shrink and grow.