Republican Primary Debates

Originally posted by Digi
Talk time: 1 Trump 5:06 2 Bush 4:29 3 Crz 3:30 4 Rbio 3:00 5 Chrstie 2:50 6 Carson 2:45 7 Kasich 2:11 8 Huck 2:03 9 Paul 2:01 10 Walker 1:54

That was as of about 10pm EST. Seems unofficial, but it got picked up by a couple major news sources, so it's likely fairly accurate.

I'm starting to filter through many of the responses and clips from the debate. Undoubtedly a good night for Kasich. First, he got into the debate, which was in some question when he announced his candidacy last week. Second, I can't find any negative reactions to his comments.

It seems Trump wasn't hurt by his occasional outbursts. The field will have to narrow some before he's in any real danger; at this point the top 2-3 guys are likely just standing pat, while the ones behind in the polls need to make a splash. I lol'd at Trump when he ducked out of the question on illegal immigration, but he also had a few really strong responses that I've seen or read.

The commentary on Hillary did seem to assume her as the Democratic nominee, which is a little surprising. I won't get into the fear debate that the forum seems to be obsessed with - I find it largely irrelevant - but one or two comments did steer the debate toward Hillary-bashing. I would have avoided it entirely, were I them. Tonight was either about differentiating themselves as candidates, or not screwing up (Trump, Bush, etc.). And you're not going to be able to take a stand on Hillary-bashing; there's no differentiation to be had there among GOP candidates. Everyone's basically the same there.

And ouch to Walker's air time. He's up there with Trump, Bush, and Rubio in the polls right now iirc. Only comments I see about him are about how it felt like he wasn't there.

Liberal media isn't important right now. Conservative media is. They'll control the narrative for the GOP until the nomination. Trump's antagonism toward Fox may end up being a thorn in his side. But if they don't go after him for this debate, it will have been a win for him.

This is pretty good assessment.

Trump crashed and burned.

Maybe, but if he doesn't drop his clown douchebag act in the next debate, he's likely done aside from entertainment purposes, people are going to want some substance out of him, instead bravado.

http://www.drudgereport.com/now.htm 🙂

Not even close.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her😂

I take it back, sexism plays no part in the group that hate Hillary Clinton...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I take it back, sexism plays no part in the group that hate Hillary Clinton...

Why? Is Hillary Clinton a women, or something?

Watching Chris Christie and Rand Paul take verbal jabs at each other was the highlight imo

I thought Kasich did the best. His answer on the question about gay marriage was refreshingly tolerant and straight forward.

I also didn't realize how apparently being in favor of allowing abortion in instances of rape or when the mother's life may be in danger was such a no-no in the party these days. One of the most awkward and disturbing moments was when Rubio was seemingly forced to walk back his supposed support for such allowances in the past. They really seem to be in a race to the bottom on the issue.

Trump was funny. He cracked me up when he told Paul that he "Was having trouble tonight" because he responded to something Trump didn't say.

I also thought Rubio, despite my previously mentioned moment of moral collapse, did very well and presented himself and everything he said very nicely.

Carson did well enough. Walker might as well have not been there.

Christie and Paul were both meh. Paul was pretty aggressive and confrontational and just seemed like he needed a nap or something.

Bush was okay too, I guess. I dunno. There were just too many people on that stage. It's pretty much impossible to gauge any of them to any meaningful degree because they weren't allowed to say anything but essentially taglines.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh funny Q99, Tze can call Chris chisty fat, yet you say nothing. Take your bias and shove it🙂

Hey, if that gets to be a wide-spread thing, that type of stuff too can impact an election.

The GOP has a gender problem.

I'm picturing it now, "(Gendered insult) (sex comment), and the Democrats try and shut everything down by crying sexism!". That's something we'll probably be hearing a lot in the coming election, just like what happened with Obama.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Just played a nice test on you liberals.

Digi, Rob and Q99 exposed their biasm.

Tze talks about how Chri Christy is a fat ****.

I say Hilary is an ugly broad.

Yet neither three of them say shit about the first comment.

You three just got Rick rolled.

Sucks to be caught being biased😂

That's a really poor argument.

All it says is Tzeentch didn't get called for fat bias (which, yes, he was being), while you got called for blatant sexism.

This is fairly typical- You get called on something you really were doing and which is common-as-heck in talk on Hillary. But then you go, "Ah ha, but a liberal poster *didn't* get called on something else! Therefore there was nothing wrong with what I did and you're the ones who're biased!".

If you let yourself be blind to problems in your message and your party's message, and importantly if many think like you, then that leaves them in a poor position to not-cause-problems for their own party by driving people to the democrats.

Originally posted by Digi

The commentary on Hillary did seem to assume her as the Democratic nominee, which is a little surprising.

Not to me. Sanders has his crew but he's like Ron Paul, unlikely to extend past them.

Clinton dominants the polls. If the gap closed by 30 points he'd still lose.

Assuming Clinton is a safe bet.

And ouch to Walker's air time. He's up there with Trump, Bush, and Rubio in the polls right now iirc. Only comments I see about him are about how it felt like he wasn't there.

Yea, really. Heck, well past Rubio, there's a couple people between them.

Liberal media isn't important right now. Conservative media is. They'll control the narrative for the GOP until the nomination. Trump's antagonism toward Fox may end up being a thorn in his side. But if they don't go after him for this debate, it will have been a win for him.

Right.

And the Fox antagonism seems interesting to me- Fox was really trying to hit him, even though they're the moderators.

Fox News is, unsurprisingly, in bed with the party, but it's interesting for it to show up so noticeably in the Republican debate (and possibly backfire?).

If you let yourself be blind to problems in your message and your party's message, and importantly if many think like you, then that leaves them in a poor position to not-cause-problems for their own party by driving people to the democrats.

Most of us don't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Most of us don't.

Ah, but here's a thing- It doesn't require most. If it's say 20-30%, and everyone else just stays quiet about it to avoid internal fighting, then that's what people see.

A large part of the Obama/Racism thing wasn't that most Republican were being openly racist, they weren't, but-

Noticeable chunk of Reps: *Says racist things*

Black Voters and those sympathetic: "You gonna do something about that...?"

Rest of Reps/candidates: "They weren't being racist/no comment!"

Black Voters and those sympathetic: "Riiight. I'm going to vote Dem even harder now. Maybe run a turn-out-to-vote campaign."

If the Republicans don't show self-control over their inner dialog, they're likely to drive away a lot of women voters this time around.

The party chose to stay silent about the racists because they thought it was convenient to do so, and it cost them.

There's a real danger of that sort of thing happening again.

I saw real promise in yesterday's debates, aside from Trump.

Originally posted by Q99
Hey, if that gets to be a wide-spread thing, that type of stuff too can impact an election.

The GOP has a gender problem.

I'm picturing it now, "(Gendered insult) (sex comment), and the Democrats try and shut everything down by crying sexism!". That's something we'll probably be hearing a lot in the coming election, just like what happened with Obama.

That's a really poor argument.

All it says is Tzeentch didn't get called for fat bias (which, yes, he was being), while you got called for blatant sexism.

This is fairly typical- You get called on something you really were doing and which is common-as-heck in talk on Hillary. But then you go, "Ah ha, but a liberal poster *didn't* get called on something else! Therefore there was nothing wrong with what I did and you're the ones who're biased!".

If you let yourself be blind to problems in your message and your party's message, and importantly if many think like you, then that leaves them in a poor position to not-cause-problems for their own party by driving people to the democrats.

No sorry this won't work.

Here in this thread Chris Christy was called a fat ****, Ted Cruz "a closet homosexual", Carson is a "black token", Donal Trump a "douche bag". But I said Hilary is ugly...

Yet you didn't lecture anyone. I'm done listening to your biased "sexist" rants from you and your liberal friends here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No sorry this won't work.

Here in this thread Chris Christy was called a fat ****, Ted Cruz "a closet homosexual", Carson is a "black token", Donal Trump a "douche bag". But I said Hilary is ugly...

All of which are bad, and he'd already been told to shut up by you before I responded to anything, so... yea. It's not like he was responded to, or do you not count now?

Are only you allowed to call people on stuff, but not vice-versa?

Unlike Tzeentch you've also got a habit of complaining about 'liberals using racism/sexism to shut down debates,' so responding to yours made a nice meta-commentary on something we're more than likely to see a lot of in the coming year. I figured I'd pre-emptively point this out so that in the future, we have a nice clear example of you being sexist about Hillary.

But yea, you told someone to shut up on something, no-one complained. You get called on something, and it's a whole other story.

Yet you didn't lecture anyone. I'm done listening to your biased "sexist" rants from you and your liberal friends here.

Yea, this is typical. Even if you get called on something you really were doing, if you feel someone else does something and wasn't sufficiently called on it, then your thing is ok and you don't have to feel bad or change your behavior in anyway, you feel justified in saying the other person is bad while excusing yours.

It's the party's problem with these issues in a nutshell. You care more about finding an excuse than not being (blank)ist, and only bring up racism/sexism/etc. as a deflection when you're called on something. Everyone was fine with Tze being told to shut up and then him shutting up, until it turned out you also got called on something, and only then did you get mad about other people not bringing up details. Meaning you only cared enough to get into specifics when your own behavior was called into question.

Were Tzeentch's comments bad? If you think so, then you should also accept that, hey, maybe yours were too. And not take his comments as a way to excuse yours. Would you take your complaints as a sufficient excuse for his? I don't think so.

So yea, I'm going to say- Tzeentch's comments were bad, yours was also definitely bad, and this martyr complex thing is very clearly a deflection. You want to be able to say stuff like Tzeentch does, you want to be able to say it in seriousness, and you want to not be called on it.

I never seen it but I presume it went like this
https://youtu.be/PYtbWWmtVYM

Were Tzeentch's comments bad? If you think so, then you should also accept that, hey, maybe yours were too. And not take his comments as a way to excuse yours.

So yea, I'm going to say- Tzeentch's comments were bad, yours was also definitely bad, and this martyr complex thing is very clearly a deflection. You want to be able to say stuff like Tzeentch does, you want to be able to say it in seriousness, and you want to not be called on it.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Blax is very left leaning and he was drunk, I don't think anyone should have taken offense to his rants.

Still, a "dude, you're drunk. Shut up," was entirely called for.

Of course, he'd already gotten that, so, yea..

Originally posted by Q99
All of which are bad, and he'd already been told to shut up by you before I responded to anything, so... yea. It's not like he was responded to, or do you not count now?

Are only you allowed to call people on stuff, but not vice-versa?

Unlike Tzeentch you've also got a habit of complaining about 'liberals using racism/sexism to shut down debates,' so responding to yours made a nice meta-commentary on something we're more than likely to see a lot of in the coming year. I figured I'd pre-emptively point this out so that in the future, we have a nice clear example of you being sexist about Hillary.

But yea, you told someone to shut up on something, no-one complained. You get called on something, and it's a whole other story.

Yea, this is typical. Even if you get called on something you really were doing, if you feel someone else does something and wasn't sufficiently called on it, then your thing is ok and you don't have to feel bad or change your behavior in anyway, you feel justified in saying the other person is bad while excusing yours.

It's the party's problem with these issues in a nutshell. You care more about finding an excuse than not being (blank)ist, and only bring up racism/sexism/etc. as a deflection when you're called on something. Everyone was fine with Tze being told to shut up and then him shutting up, until it turned out you also got called on something, and only then did you get mad about other people not bringing up details. Meaning you only cared enough to get into specifics when your own behavior was called into question.

Were Tzeentch's comments bad? If you think so, then you should also accept that, hey, maybe yours were too. And not take his comments as a way to excuse yours. Would you take your complaints as a sufficient excuse for his? I don't think so.

So yea, I'm going to say- Tzeentch's comments were bad, yours was also definitely bad, and this martyr complex thing is very clearly a deflection. You want to be able to say stuff like Tzeentch does, you want to be able to say it in seriousness, and you want to not be called on it.

Sorry won't work again. Difference is you lecturing me about one thing when multiple comments were said from multiple people.

Nice try but you failed again

Originally posted by BackFire
I also thought Rubio, despite my previously mentioned moment of moral collapse, did very well and presented himself and everything he said very nicely.

Rubio was one of the better debaters, calm and clear; announced every syllable. His youth is probably a bonus for him in the 20-40ish voter crowd.

But I felt he teetered on the edge of sounding too preachy at times.

On the abortion thing, his rebuttal was that he never made those claims, yeah? Was that an outright lie?