GOP Debate Number 7

[haymarket]

If he had called Cruz a whiny loser with a tiny penis, maybe. But instead he pointed out that Cruz, too, has shifted his political position, along with the party, on immigration. Following that might involve more brain energy than apparently some of our electorate has to spare.

Agreed. And Christie hit the point home with the jibe about Senate parliamentary tactics that allows somebody to be on both sides of an issue claiming anything they want to later on down the line.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I never thought of that. Why would he go from US Senator to governor? Seems like a step down to me.

Normally yes, it would be a step down. But in Cruz's case he's hated in Congress, which means he's not going to get anything he wants pushed through. Even his follow Republicans in Congress hate him. BUT if he's governor of Texas, the 2nd largest state in the Union he can, and will push through just about anything he wants. With little opposition he can try to turn Texas into a Kansas like Tea Party hell hole. But because of Texas's economy is 1000x better than Kansas it might be impossible to F'up Texas the way Brownback has screwed up Kansas, but to be a even bigger hero in the TP, Cruz will try.

Texas's economy is a powerhouse. Even though it's just 1 state Cruz can be a powerful player on the nation stage. Probably more so than he is now.

 

[cpwill]

Lowry made the comment that, while news junkies and reporters are used to Rubio's performances, and therefore discount them, casual observers are not, and so he remains effective.

That is interesting. Iowans (at least, this test group) apparently saw the debate differently than I.

 

[justabubba]

I quit watching about half an hour in, but I thought Rand Paul did the best job of staying on message and separating himself from the crazy ones. He didn't jump on the "we need to be more like Nazis" bandwagon. His campaign never took off, but IMO, he really deserves a second look.

post about something acknowledged not to have been observed:good_job:

 

[calamity]

post about something acknowledged not to have been observed:good_job:

I just finished watching/listening to the rest of it on YouTube and also read over a half-dozen articles on it this morning. The only thing I didn't do was find myself stuck watching it last night.

 

[ARealConservative]

That is interesting. Iowans (at least, this test group) apparently saw the debate differently than I.

the Frank Luntz propaganda group convinced you of that?

 

[calamity]

the Frank Luntz propaganda group convinced you of that?

My take back from seeing Rubio: Nut.

My take on those folks in the focus group: Dumb

 

[vesper]

The debate as far as substance goes was a wash. There wasn't a whole lot of serious discussion in depth about the problems facing this nation. There wasn't one question addressing the debt crisis that I heard. There was next to nothing about jobs and how government hinders growth. There was nothing about how Europe turning into whores lining up to do business with Iran since they will soon have billions to spend thanks to Obama, Kerry and Clinton. I think Carson is the only one who brought up the derogatory effect of the stack of feckless regulations pouring out of this administration and our broken Visa program but nothing was discussed in depth and that is the moderators fault because of the type of questions they asked. What they call debates today sure don't look anything like they did a couple of decades ago and I think what is going on today may be why the Republicans keep picking losers.

Bush had a good night as far as a fluff of a debate goes and I use the word debate in a tongue and cheek way. Rubio and Christie are very good at answering questions without really answering them. Paul had some good answers but he was also very dishonest on his attack at Cruz over his audit the Fed bill.

Personally there wasn't anything gained for the Republicans in general last night. Men repeating their stump speeches line for line is what it amounted to.

 

[haymarket]

the Frank Luntz propaganda group convinced you of that?

I would not trust Frank Luntz as far as he could run. However, IF these people were honestly selected, and IF this was not a stacked deck, and IF they are a true reflection of Iowans who are going vote on monday - it could be very interesting. I really DO NOT see the Trump voter changing their mind - but IF this debate caused any movement this could cause some Carson voters or Bush voters or Kasich voters to center around Rubio and a strong third place finish would be a victory for Rubio.

But those are a lot of IFS.

 

[justabubba]

i must have been watching a different debate

I actually enjoyed both debates (main and undercard).

Here's my assessment:

Winners
Jeb Bush - looked Presidential and likeable, stuck it to Rubio (dammit)

Jeb!s best outing by far. displayed what could have been. but still pulled his punches against cruz and rubio

Marco Rubio - he did what he needed to do although I wish he had done better

toss up who was worse between rubio and cruz. beware isis is under your bed! seems like he picked up the same schtick lindsey graham was preaching. notice how 'well' it worked for graham
and shut down mosques?! does he eve know there is this document called the Constitution

John Kasich - looked Presidential

good guy who needs a charisma implant

Rand Paul - best performance of any debate for him but I don't think it's enough

he spoke as he has at every debate. only this time he did not mix it up with trump. he cut rubio to the quick on foreign affairs. i would cast my vote for him instead of anyone else except Bernie. i might not agree with him but i know where he stands and why. a rare quality

Carly Fiorina - props to her stylist for giving her that outfit

didn't notice, but then i am a guy. when she is good, she is very good. when she is bad, she is atrocious. good carly showed up at this debate

Megyn Kelly - she didn't let this Trump thing get under her skin

kudos to her boss for refusing to be bulldozed by the donald

Losers
Megyn Kelly - I really can't stand that short hair cut

she would be cute if she was bald; but i have seen hawks with wingspans shorter than her false eyelashes

Chris Christie - for the love of doG, when you're asked about Rubio and Cruz, don't have your answer be all about Hillary Clinton as you are NOT running against her right now

i don't want to like christie because he's a dick and i suspect a made man. but the bastard had a great nite. maybe his best outing yet. he is the one who has consistently told us he will not take the bait to criticize his GOP competitors and will instead vent his spleen at the democrats ... which is exactly what he did. like hillary and her emails i hope bridgegate sinks this guy's candidacy, but he consistently debates well. still can't govern for ****, however

Ben Carson - there are just no words...please, Mumbles, you're a nice man, but seriously?

some people have gifts that run deep but in a very narrow vein. carson is one of those fellows

 

[justabubba]

Normally yes, it would be a step down. But in Cruz's case he's hated in Congress, which means he's not going to get anything he wants pushed through. Even his follow Republicans in Congress hate him. BUT if he's governor of Texas, the 2nd largest state in the Union he can, and will push through just about anything he wants. With little opposition he can try to turn Texas into a Kansas like Tea Party hell hole. But because of Texas's economy is 1000x better than Kansas it might be impossible to F'up Texas the way Brownback has screwed up Kansas, but to be a even bigger hero in the TP, Cruz will try.

Texas's economy is a powerhouse. Even though it's just 1 state Cruz can be a powerful player on the nation stage. Probably more so than he is now.

he would make a good fit at some hyper-partisan echo-chamber organization like the cato institute. cruz is that classic "does not play well with others" fellow

 

[Threegoofs]

That is interesting. Iowans (at least, this test group) apparently saw the debate differently than I.

LOL.

Somehow, the test group missed the fact that ISIS!!! (Scary! Run!) was included in almost every single answer Rubio gave. Maybe they've just internalized the fear.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't really have an opinion as to who won the debate, but I find this article very interesting.

Forget about trying to graph, measure or quantify how sharp Donald Trump’s political instincts are, he’s just off the charts. However, his decision to spotlight Ted Cruz’s greatest weakness, “the personality of Cruz“, the “in-authenticity”, is beyond brilliant.

Such a keen instinct is simply immeasurable.

Not only did Donald Trump win the seventh GOP debate by not showing up; and not only did Trump avoid the best laid ambush plans of the Fox News team; and not only did Donald Trump raise well over $6 million for American veterans; but by removing himself from the debate stage – Trump’s absence forced Ted Cruz out of the shadows and into the brightest possible sunlight.

Candidate Trump previously stated: “Ted Cruz is just a nasty person” – and by all accounts the pontificating arrogance and personality of Ted Cruz was not only captured by the broadcast, but for the first time Iowans who tuned-in saw first hand WHY Ted Cruz is the loneliest man in Washington DC.

Even the most rabid Cruz supporters on social media are hunkered down amid an absolutely shameful display of how arbitrary and condescending their candidate displayed himself. Only those pundits with similar personal characteristics will say it was not visible.

Actually, those radio voices will shout it at you – desperately.

The ‘holier-than-thou humor’ Cruz attempted was over-the-top snarky and failed miserably. Additionally, senator Cruz’s argumentative nature with the moderators was belligerent and without cause. But, perhaps most deliciously, the cameras did capture the rest of the candidates’ responses as exhibited in this video snippet:




Donald Trump Brilliantly Diminishes Ted Cruz By Putting Him on Full Display – (With Video)… | The Last Refuge

Did anyone else get this impression from this whole thing? That Cruz was probably the biggest loser?

 

[Hicup]

Well my two cents is that I thought the debate was horribly moderated, and I mean that. I also didn't learn a single new thing about any of the candidates.

Terrible job by the FOX A-Team.

Tim-

 

[cpwill]

the Frank Luntz propaganda group convinced you of that?

:shrug: We'll see how it plays out in any polling this weekend and then come Monday, but generally speaking I'm fairly open to the possibility that other people see things differently than I do.

 

[cpwill]

I don't really have an opinion as to who won the debate, but I find this article very interesting.

I do to, but in a different way. While I agree Cruz was the biggest loser, I notice that the language that Trump Fans are using to describe Trump is increasingly mirroring the language that Obama fans used to describe Obama in 2008.

That's a cult of personality for you, I suppose, but it's a bit spooky.

 

[calamity]

I do to, but in a different way. While I agree Cruz was the biggest loser, I notice that the language that Trump Fans are using to describe Trump is increasingly mirroring the language that Obama fans used to describe Obama in 2008.

That's a cult of personality for you, I suppose, but it's a bit spooky.

Trump is definitely the Right's Obama.

 

[calamity]

Ok, this Carson guy...doesn't he seem to look like he just finished smoking a joint?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

cruz is that classic "does not play well with others" fellow

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If he's the governor of the 2nd largest state in the union, an oil producing state but whose economy isn't totally dependent on just oil, he won't have to play well with others. In the Senate he's not playing well with others, and that's causing him problems with his 'agenda', he's still a TP favorite, but that's not doing him a bit of good in the Senate.

But as gov of Texas, him not playing with others won't matter, he can still do as he pleases.

 

[calamity]

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If he's the governor of the 2nd largest state in the union, an oil producing state but whose economy isn't totally dependent on just oil, he won't have to play well with others. In the Senate he's not playing well with others, and that's causing him problems with his 'agenda', he's still a TP favorite, but that's not doing him a bit of good in the Senate.

But as gov of Texas, him not playing with others won't matter, he can still do as he pleases.

Speaking of governors...I really do not get why Kasich isn't catching on. He's probably the most level-headed and accomplished guy in the clown car.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Speaking of governors...I really do not get why Kasich isn't catching on. He's probably the most level-headed and accomplished guy in the clown car.

You asked and answered your own question. He's not catching on because he's not catering to the vocal far right loons. Iowa is a conservative state, and honestly history tells us whoever wins Iowa means nothing. Rick Santorum won in 2012. Huck won in 2008.(both very conservative and very far right) Not only did neither get the GOP nom in 2008 and 2012. But neither are even on the GOP RADAR now. Once they get to the more moderate states people like Santorum and Huck fade away.

But building up how much Iowa means to the election makes great drama and makes for good ratings.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If he's the governor of the 2nd largest state in the union, an oil producing state but whose economy isn't totally dependent on just oil, he won't have to play well with others. In the Senate he's not playing well with others, and that's causing him problems with his 'agenda', he's still a TP favorite, but that's not doing him a bit of good in the Senate.

But as gov of Texas, him not playing with others won't matter, he can still do as he pleases.

It's no skin off my nose, but you should probably read up on Cruz before you talk about him. You see, he isn't...and never was...the Governor of Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

It's no skin off my nose, but you should probably read up on Cruz before you talk about him. You see, he isn't...and never was...the Governor of Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

Please re-read my posts. You've misunderstood what I wrote.

I know he isn't, nor has ever been gov of Texas. I said, a few times here, that IMO this run for prez is about him positioning himself for an eventually run at being gov. of Texas.

 

[Mycroft]

Please re-read my posts. You've misunderstood what I wrote.

I know he isn't, nor has ever been gov of Texas. I said, a few times here, that IMO this run for prez is about him positioning himself for an eventually run at being gov. of Texas.

Okay. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Okay. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

No problem.