I thought there was some interesting back and forth. What did you all think?
I'm not sure! I was hesitant with all the candidates to begin with, but I was pretty impressed by Trudeau and May. Say what you will about Justin, but dude has some solid debate skills. May is a tad crazy and I don't really see her running a country, but she knows her stuff. Mulcair picked his words carefully and it made him seem quiet at times, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Harper, of course, just continuously said everyone else was wrong ("Let me be clear on the facts of the matter..." Tories and their repetition...). Basically it was just a "Harper sucks" party, and it was great. I'm super disappointed this will likely be one of the only debates with the four major candidates this time around. I don't see how Harper refusing to participate helps his campaign much at all come October. ... Oh, are we talking about American politics? Damn it. Every time.
I didn't bother. Watched Birdman for the second time instead. Not trying to sound pretentious. I just figured I'd catch the "best" clips later. The GOP at this point is a joke I can't laugh at anymore. "Who are they possibly appealing to?" I desperately ask. I can get plenty drunk without their help.
Watching Birdman is a much better use of your time IMO.
So my boyfriend is republican, the internet went out so we couldn't see it live.
I tease that he is a refluffican, and I don't understand these weird political views. I just say that someone with three feet of Viking hair, cannot be ruled by someone with a comb over. Your hair is like a wolverine and his is like a sparrow, man. I'm volunteering for Bernie. I live in a crappy pace, where no liberal would choose to live. My boyfriend is a good person, I just have no idea how someone with a master's degree, still believes that shit.
I thought Christie and Paul's back and forth on NSA surveillance was real interesting. Unfortunately, I thought Christie got the best of Paul, who should have done much better. These debates are never really "debates," but it still would have been better for an opponent of the NSA programs to make the case to a live national audience. I mean, Paul should have seen this topic coming, and he should have had a much better answer for any confrontation with a supporter of the NSA programs. It seems pretty simple. Attack the "conservative" candidate for playing lip service to the idea of "small government" while supporting such programs. Then use the rhetorical punch of calling the guy "Big Brother," which even those who haven't read 1984 understand. Instead, Christie got to shout emotional platitudes while Paul struggled to communicate the problems with bulk surveillance.
Yeah. I wish Paul would have focused less on the Obama bashing and more on the facts. But that would mean that Americans were actually watching the debate for well thought out content. I read Donald Trump was widely considered the winner so I know that well thought out content is not the way to win these debates.
It's absolutely wild when someone's legitimacy can be captured in a 16 second piece of video footage that not only alienates me entirely from Trump for the umpteenth time, but also makes me balk at the audience's reality-comedy-show-esque reaction. P.S. I didn't watch the debates, but if that's not the "highlight"... well, that doesn't bode well for optimism. Edit: broken video link was to Trump "defending" his being accused of misogyny with a misogynistic response directed towards only one woman. Phew, sigh of relief, as long as it's just Rosie O'Donnell.Hahahah, that's hilarious!!1 He should be preisdent!
That's fucking disgusting. There are people who actually support him...
Opposite of George HW Bush = Clinton. Opposite of Clinton = W Opposite of W = Obama. Who is the opposite of Obama? Is it H. Clinton or Trump? You tell me.better for everyone when the general election comes
-You know what, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Trump could be our next President. It's not such a giant leap to consider it happening. People tend to gravitate to the opposite of what they've had. My wife is literally the opposite of the girl I dated prior to her etc.
There is a chance that letting someone so retarded run, would help the reasonable candidate. You are right, though. This is the country that elected Bush twice. There could be more problems at the polls. Moving to a mountain in the Yukon, if he gets a landslide. There is no saving the world after that.
I think it is naive to say that either Bush or Trump are unintelligent. I'm not a fan of either but they get things done. Unfortunately, Bush got things done that I didn't agree with and I'm pretty sure Trump would follow suit (see what I did there). In order to be so effective at getting your agenda pushed though, you can't be "stupid." At least IMO. If you are a democrat, I think to refer to Trump as unintelligent would be dangerous. He's a real threat.
I didn't watch it, but from what I've gathered from the news they did not discuss any of the issues I'm concerned wtih: the economy, climate change, and civil liberties (NSA spying programs, net neutrality). Good thing I will never vote for any of them in a million years.
They tangentially mentioned all those things. In their defence, it's pretty difficult to present in-depth policy positions in 30 second intervals. Chris Christie and Rand Paul sparred re privacy.
Maybe it's just that he was standing next to a pack of clowns, but he seemed to be an actual adult. I was particularly surprised that anyone on that stage was willing to endorse much-needed prison reforms.The court has ruled, and I said we'll accept it. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn't think the way I do, doesn't mean that I can't care about them or can't love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That's what we're taught when we have strong faith.
I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio, to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons at $22,500 a year. I’d rather get them the medication so they can lead a decent life.
Economic growth is the key. Economic growth is the key to everything. But once you have economic growth, it is important that we reach out to people who live in the shadows, the people who don’t seem to ever think that they get a fair deal. And that includes people in our minority community; that includes people who feel as though they don’t have a chance to move up.
I'm hoping that it probably spells the end of Donald Trump, but I doubt that it will, just as yet. Kasich seemed reasonably decent in comparison to the others - I once had hope that maybe Rubio was decent too, but his thoughts on abortion and the like are way too out there for me. More than anything it seemed to just spell out to me just how backwards the GOP is as a party. Say what you want about the Dems being the same and corporate politics and that whole spiel, but, shit, the GOP is way behind the Dems on most major social issues as far as I see it. I dislike establishment politics in this country a lot of times as much as the next guy but holy shit.
I completely agree. I found it strange that at some points in the debate they wanted to emphasize their "conservatism" especially after how that's lost them the past two elections. Gay rights, abortions, immigration and especially climate change are huge issues that they need to seriously reconsider.
I didn't enjoy it for the most part, because a lot of the statements made were backed up with false, or misleading premises. I don't quite remember them all clearly, I was drinking to keep myself relaxed through all the rage, but I remember Rand saying that we've been funding allies of ISIS, and mentioning their possession of American humvees, in the same breath. That annoyed me because those humvees were captured when members of the Iraqi army fled their posts, so I don't see how it's too relevant to who we fund in Syria, which was obviously the legislation he was referencing when he said he voted against it. I also still don't understand how people seem to buy Trump's assertion that the Mexican government is literally pushing killers into the US so they don't have to deal with them, as if those few violent immigrants had any noticeable effect in Mexico compared to the actual cartel killings that still go on regularly in the country. It's taking away attention from the fact that we have a neighbor that desperately needs reform and desperately needs assistance from its more fortunate ally. I do like that one of the moderators tried to push Trump on where his proof was of these assertions, at least, but it still seems like there was a lot of support. I mean, I'm further left than Bernie Sanders, so I don't know why I subjected myself to watching this, but it made me feel very cynical.
I think the reason that Trump is so popular is not just because he doesn't have a filter, but because that lack of a filter spews out slurs against the mexican people to which the listeners can then channel their inner racism through their support of him all under the guise that it's his "hard hitting, tell it like it is" language.
I think his point with the Humvees was that we left those in the care of the Iraqi military. I've served in Iraq, everyone there knew for god damn sure that giving those guys guns was a stupid way to get out of Iraq, but it was the best shot we had at not making it the 51st state because of the poor planning on W's part. Since Paul is very much so against expeditionary warfare, his argument is more along the lines that we shouldn't have been in a foreign country for no reason in the first place which forced us to leave thousands of military vehicles (entire fully built-up bases were left in place) in the hands of an irresponsible military. Expeditionary warfare leaves all of these possibilities wide open, and in a not so indirect way should be understood as helping future enemies by giving extravagant weaponry to people who can't (or won't in the case of the Iraqis) defend it.
I just think he framed it disingenuously, because he made it seem like we were supplying ISIS allies with humvees and that's how they acquired them. Even if I agree that we arm groups in an irresponsible fashion, ISIS didn't acquire its weaponry through trade with other groups.
I thought Trump and Jeb Bush performed really well. It was their debate to lose. Both thought quickly on their feet which is essentially what a debate at this point is all about. We want to see who has the cognitive ability to quickly handle a tough question. mk is about to enter the restaurant. More later...