1st Republican debate

[bwframe]

So we're back to the purity discussion?
Never gonna find that, because the one who does cannot get elected.
Those who fan the flames of purity rather than striving to fix their perceived problems should take a look in the mirror to whether they are solving or creating problems. I say they are creating problems as evidenced in Ritz, Donnelly and Obama. Yes, the alternative would have been better, no matter how much you'd try to marginalize.

 

[HoughMade]

So we're back to the purity discussion?
Never gonna find that, because the one who does cannot get elected.
Those who fan the flames of purity rather than striving to fix their perceived problems should take a look in the mirror to whether they are solving or creating problems. I say they are creating problems as evidenced in Ritz, Donnelly and Obama. Yes, the alternative would have been better, no matter how much you'd try to marginalize.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So we're back to the purity discussion?
Never gonna find that, because the one who does cannot get elected.
Those who fan the flames of purity rather than striving to fix their perceived problems should take a look in the mirror to whether they are solving or creating problems. I say they are creating problems as evidenced in Ritz, Donnelly and Obama. Yes, the alternative would have been better, no matter how much you'd try to marginalize.

Not really. If it were a purity match, I would not even consider anyone who didn't eat, breathe, and, well, eject constitutional values. While having misgivings, I could accept Trump. He really isn't a conservative, but I don't believe that anyone owns him. I would be happy with Cruz in spite of some 'natural born' issues, but if it's good enough for Obama, it's good enough for Cruz. Rubio has gone establishment in ways that give me a less than warm feeling, but he would be worth voting for. Paul could stand to firm up on proactive treatment of building threats, but I would be happy with him. Walker isn't perfect but would be a serviceable president. Huckabee would likewise suit me well enough albeit with reservations regarding some areas of overreach. Unfortunately, Trump is the only one of the bunch I would say has a realistic chance because he is self-supporting.

Right now, the establishment would be content with either Bush or Christie. I do not consider Bush a good choice but would reluctantly vote for him over Hillary. Christie would keep me from voting or else vote third party. So far as I can tell, the only difference between Christie and Hillary is possession or nonpossession of a dick.

Ritz was the product of the GOP establishment. Their man needed to hit the bricks bad enough that anyone running against him was virtually guaranteed to win regardless of merit or lack thereof.

Same deal with Donnelly. Lugar was an establishment favorite and was not worth the 95¢ it would have cost me to kill him. Unfortunately, Mourdock got tired and sloppy and fell into a setup bringing us Donnelly. In any event, we are no worse off than we were before.

Obama--We let the media and the GOP establishment choose the weakest GOP candidate from the field in 2008. McStupid never had a chance in a general election. Sarah Palin offered the only surge in support he ever received and he was content to throw (or allow his staffers to throw) her under the bus. It isn't my fault that the GOP establishment insists on shoving nonviable candidates down our throats. In 2012, we had the same thing all over again. Anyone with half a working brain could see that Romney didn't have a chance in the general election. We were being asked to punish Obama or ObamaCare by voting for the guy who first brought it to us. Also significant is that both of these idiots ran aggressive primary campaigns and then practically laid down while campaigning for the general election.

The problem is that anyone who might be worth voting for gets shut down in the primary. No one will ever win an election by running an ersatz-Democrat against an actual Democrat. At minimum, even though our 'friends' at the RNC have proven over and over again that they are too damned stupid to live--no, wait--they are doing too well building their own positions to be that stupid. Come to think of it, why is it that they insist on ramming through candidates that the party base is almost guaranteed to reject? Could it be for the same reasons that our supposed constitutionalist of a Chief Justice has been completely disregarding the Constitution and/or twisting it into a pretzel? Could it be that we really don't have a choice but rather have only bad theater in which no matter how we vote the greatest amount of choice we get is which one of the teleprompter's flunkies will sit in the Oval Office? At the end of the day, our vote boils down to, "Do you want Rosencrantz and Guildenstern or Guildenstern and Rosencrantz?"

 

[jamil]

I saw, maybe, half of the debate. Though I don't base decisions on one performance, I saw several people that I could live with. Even more if we open it up to the "kid's table" debate. Sure, there are a couple of bad candidates, but I think the primaries will wash out the outliers...even if they currently are riding a wave. Who we have left- many good people.

Now, being a decent person and being correct on most of the issues (from my perspective) doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it a lot easier to fill in the bubble (which sounds less satisfying than "pulling the lever").

Sounds pretty reasonable. I came into the debates fearing I would end up not liking anyone. Instead I came away liking most of them. Most surprising was Carly Fiorina. I had written her off before, not knowing much more about her other than what I remember from when she was fired from her HP gig. For the first time in years I have not been disgusted with the majority of Republican candidates.

So we're back to the purity discussion?
Never gonna find that, because the one who does cannot get elected.
Those who fan the flames of purity rather than striving to fix their perceived problems should take a look in the mirror to whether they are solving or creating problems. I say they are creating problems as evidenced in Ritz, Donnelly and Obama. Yes, the alternative would have been better, no matter how much you'd try to marginalize.

Who's advocating purity? There isn't a "pure" candidate in the lot, and I'm willing to settle for *just about* any of them. That is very far from imposing any kind of purity test.

I'm acknowledging the fact that there is a point where the political water can be too polluted for consumption. If the only justification to vote for Christi over Clinton is, "well, at least he's a Republican", that's not a reason that appeals to me. I do tend to vote for Republicans, but I am not a Republican.

When it comes to Christie, as evil as the evil witch Hilary is, I find it very difficult to see him as any less evil. That's not elevating Hilary. That's placing Christie at the absolute bottom where he belongs. And, thankfully, it looks pretty doubtful that I'll have to make that decision. Christie should crash and burn. There are too many better candidates.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have to disagree.

I can accept a B student.

I can accept a C student.

I can grit my teeth and accept a D student.

I draw the line at an F.

 

[HoughMade]

I have to disagree.

I can accept a B student.

I can accept a C student.

I can grit my teeth and accept a D student.

I draw the line at an F.

For me, I guess that depends on whether the other choice is a guy who never showed up to class and took a **** on the roof of the teacher's car. In that case, the F student may be the better choice.

 

[Dead Duck]

For me, I guess that depends on whether the other choice is a guy who never showed up to class and took a **** on the roof of the teacher's car. In that case, the F student may be the better choice.

I also peed in her gas tank. I really did but she deserved it. Big time!

 

[jamil]

I also peed in her gas tank. I really did but she deserved it. Big time!

Dead Duck for POTUS!

 

[spec4]

IMO Hillary has been involved in criminal activity going back at least to her and Bubba's stint in the white house. IANAL, but obstruction of justice comes to mind for openers. As far as I know, none of the GOP candidates have been involved in out and out criminal activity. I for one will not forget Travelgate, Filegate, Cattlegate, Vince Foster, the Jim McDougall fiasco ,et cetera ad nauseum.

If anyone has a source on criminal activity perpetrated by any GOP candidate, please enlighten the rest of us.

 

[rambone]

Christie said, "I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day..."

Actually he wasn’t nominated until December 2001, and he wasn't sworn into the position until the following year.

Christie says he was 'appointed' U.S. attorney the day before Sept. 11 attacks | politifact

 

[IndyDave1776]

Christie said, "I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day..."

Actually he wasn’t nominated until December 2001, and he wasn't sworn into the position until the following year.

Christie says he was 'appointed' U.S. attorney the day before Sept. 11 attacks | politifact

I am shocked! Shocked! Lardball said something that isn't so? I can't believe it!

 

[jamil]

That information would have been useful in the confrontation between him and Paul. The perfect time to spring it would be right after Christie bragged about hugging the 911 victims. Boom.

 

[halfmileharry]

I'm thinking that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This bringing the truth to light will come at the end of the process.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Nancy Reagan invites 16 candidates to CNN debate - CNNPolitics.com

Trump still not ruling out third-party run, despite report - CNNPolitics.com

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow, excellent news

CNN says Jake Tapper will moderate both the network's GOP debates at Reagan Library next month

Now to see who moderates the Dem debates.

 

[Redtbird]

Lou Dobbs phone interview with "The Donald"...

Donald Trump: China is a major abuser of the U.S. | On Air Videos | Fox Business


ETA: This is in two segments. There is a commercial after the above link, then it goes into the rest of last night's interview.