• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

March 10 GOP Debate

I agree that Trump cares about nobody other than himself. He is the supreme narcissist which makes for an authoritarian bully boy once he gets the power to control.

I disagree about Cruz and the Constitution. Like too many far right extremists, his view of the Constitution is so perverted that it resembles nothing in reality. He cares about his own frankenstein monster version of the Constitution and I suspect lots of the people in this country are beneath his contempt.

Chris Matthews got it right about Cruz

Cruz is the real Dead Zone candidate.

:roll: Chris Matthews declared pickup trucks to be a dogwhistle for racism, he's a worthless hack of a commentator.
 
:roll: Chris Matthews declared pickup trucks to be a dogwhistle for racism, he's a worthless hack of a commentator.

Ok I did have a drink or two last night, but I must have missed when he said that.
 
Ok I did have a drink or two last night, but I must have missed when he said that.

That was the Scott Brown race. Scott Brown said he had put thousands of miles on his pickup, driving around, meeting everyone in the state, shaking hands, etc., and Chris Matthews declared that driving a pickup was code word for Racist So Vote for Mme because I'm a Racist. :roll:
 
So, you are OK with Obama's executive orders and if Hillary gets elected, even more executive orders from her? The last several years it seems like we have been trying to change the presidency into a dictatorship and the fight is on as to which party gets to be the dictator. All executive orders should be very limited in scope. Presidents should not be allowed to be dictators.

Why do you do this????

There has been no change in the way presidents do business with regard to Executive orders since the time of George Washington.

You are correct that presidents should not be allowed to be dictators...but things hav to gest done...and often the chief executive has to act where the congress cannot gets it ducks in a row.

Stop allowing your hatred for President Obama to short circuit your reasoning.
 
Anyone notice how much denial Kaisch is in about his campaign during his post debate interview. It was amazing, he kept saying "why does everything have to be do or die, we're doing just fine, were going to win Ohio and everything will be great..yadadada" lol...fast forward to Wednesday(im calling it he will be dropping out of the race)...he wouldn't even suggest that if he loses Ohio he would suspend his campaign, because he is sure he is going to win Ohio. In his closing speech he basically pleaded with Ohio (his own state) to vote for him. Doesn't sound like confidence to me. :lol:
 
Anyone notice how much denial Kaisch is in about his campaign during his post debate interview. It was amazing, he kept saying "why does everything have to be do or die, we're doing just fine, were going to win Ohio and everything will be great..yadadada" lol...fast forward to Wednesday(im calling it he will be dropping out of the race)...he wouldn't even suggest that if he loses Ohio he would suspend his campaign, because he is sure he is going to win Ohio. In his closing speech he basically pleaded with Ohio (his own state) to vote for him. Doesn't sound like confidence to me. :lol:

He doesn't want to say something ridiculously obviously balatantly idiotic, but also knows that he can't win. So he tries to word-salad through it.

He is playing for VP at this point, and has been for some time. And apparently he's willing to screw up everyone else in order to make sure that that happens.
 
As cynical as it is witless- but tell us how you REALLY feel... :roll:

Cruz has said he will use EO to attack Obamacare... that's a tad more than ordering flags to half staff... :doh

He wants to end the IRS, not a mundane housekeeping matter....

Time to get real... :peace


I didn't hear exactly what Sen. Cruz said about using executive orders to attack Obamacare. But he knows constitutional law so thoroughly--he argued eight cases before the Supreme Court of the U.S.--that I am very sure he would not have embarrassed himself by suggesting the use of any method that is not plainly legitimate.

The 2,000-plus pages of tripe that are the Obamacare law itself could only be repealed by Congress, and I hope it will do just that. But the administrative rules that HHS, IRS, and other administrative agencies publish to implement that law are within the President's control.

The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. Any President, as Chief Executive, could dissolve it by executive order. Nothing about that would interfere in any way with Congress' power to make laws.
 
Anyone notice how much denial Kaisch is in about his campaign during his post debate interview. It was amazing, he kept saying "why does everything have to be do or die, we're doing just fine, were going to win Ohio and everything will be great..yadadada" lol...fast forward to Wednesday(im calling it he will be dropping out of the race)...he wouldn't even suggest that if he loses Ohio he would suspend his campaign, because he is sure he is going to win Ohio. In his closing speech he basically pleaded with Ohio (his own state) to vote for him. Doesn't sound like confidence to me. :lol:

He's probably hoping against hope that he can still catch Cruz as the number two guy. Had he came in second last Tuesday in Michigan, instead of finishing 3rd, a point behind Ted, I'd argue that case with him. But, barring a victory in Ohio, he's probably toast.
 
So, you are OK with Obama's executive orders and if Hillary gets elected, even more executive orders from her? The last several years it seems like we have been trying to change the presidency into a dictatorship and the fight is on as to which party gets to be the dictator. All executive orders should be very limited in scope. Presidents should not be allowed to be dictators.

No one could dislike Mr. Obama's misuse of executive orders more than I do. And of course no President of the U.S. should be allowed to be a dictator. Any President who tried to set himself up as one would be grossly abusing the public trust, and the Constitution includes an impeachment process for removing officials who do that.

A President misuses executive orders when he uses them to usurp Congress' power to make laws. Doing that violates the separation of powers that is built into the Constitution, and that makes it a threat to our liberties. But there is nothing improper about a President using executive orders to make changes--even large ones--that involve only the Executive Branch. President Roosevelt's executive order for the Army to relocate persons of Japanese descent away from the West Coast is an example. The Supreme Court later upheld his authority to issue that order.

President Nixon created the EPA by reorganizing parts of existing administrative agencies. He chose to explain the details of this action and the reasons for it to Congress, because he wanted to get as much support for it as he could. But that doesn't mean a President must get Congress' approval for reorganizing agencies in the Executive Branch. A President could eliminate that same EPA, for example, through a reorganization, even if a majority in Congress opposed it. Whether that would be wise politically is another question. It's usually better for a President to have Congress' support for a far-reaching executive order, or at least not to have it oppose the order.

The general rule about a President's power to use executive orders that's most often cited is the one Justice Jackson set out in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
 
:lamo and when asked, he can't name them, or he names people "on the shows" who have never talked to him; nor can he name a single time that he's ever listened to an advisor when they told him something he didn't want to hear.

"Don't worry, I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'll hire great advisors" isn't a selling point. How the hell are you going to hire good advisors if you don't even have a way of establishing what makes them good?

Every candidate up there intends to hire the best people. The difference between Trump and the rest is that the rest have some idea what's going on, so they know how to filter for them.



:lol: no he isn't. Finance, maybe, but on economics he's fairly obviously clueless. The man didn't even know that China wasn't in the TPP, which didn't stop him from ranting about all the ways China was screwing us in the TPP. :lol:



Good for them. They should continue to tout free trade while learning about economics. When Ted Cruz pointed out last night that a tarrif was a tax on the people who bought the goods here in the United States, he was exactly right. And the hilarious thing to watch was Trump's face. You could almost see the startled "Wait - what? - I thought it was a tax on the country."



Much more effective than a candidate who knows nothing.



Ronald Reagan had a deep understanding of policy, and was well read and versed in it, as well as the philosophical underpinnings of the conservative argument. The reason he could delegate is because he had the resident knowledge to A) check those he was delegating to and B) he knew how to select people that knew the right answers because he knew what the right answers were.



A President has enormous influence, especially since both parties have expanded the Imperial Presidency model that leaves Congress as a check, rather than a driver, of policy.
Me thinks your idea of economics and Trump's (and mine) is different. Economics, you know, like the discipline in college? Not necessarily about who America's trade partners are in Asia, for example. That's more political than economic knowledge, BTW. Is Cruz an expert on trading relations with the TTP? What difference does it make, anyway? Is Trump going to be negotiating any trade agreements with China, for example? Is Cruz? Your love of Reagan even with his bare minimum of knowledge in federal government and your love for free traders with little to no economic knowledge yet high amounts of ideology shows how disingenuous you are.

Your comment about Trump's confusion on who a tariff would be placed on is a strawman. First, can you read Trump's mind? Second, how many products made in the US will be charged this tariff?
 
Last edited:
Yup, he was back to the Rubio I greatly admired in the months leading up to New Hampshire. But it's too late.

You mean the perfectly programmed Rubio. All the circuits were going smooth as silk, I agree.
 
Why do you do this????

There has been no change in the way presidents do business with regard to Executive orders since the time of George Washington.

You are correct that presidents should not be allowed to be dictators...but things hav to gest done...and often the chief executive has to act where the congress cannot gets it ducks in a row.

Stop allowing your hatred for President Obama to short circuit your reasoning.

My response was aimed at a Cruz supporter drooling over the prospect of Cruz issuing a bunch of EO's if elected president. I'm not sure I understand why it is we have a House of Representatives and a Senate if we're just going to bypass them and let the president dictate what he wants. Right now Republicans control both the House and the Senate so the Congress can function and make decisions if they go with the will of the majority. But, the president refuses to sign off on what congress sends him and then turns around and makes his own decision, over the will of the people who elected congress. That's effed up. Obama has been extremely partisan in his EO's and so would Cruz. I don't want either one of them being a dictator. I fear Cruz as much or more than Obama when it comes to EO's. Do you really want Cruz issuing a bunch of EO's?
 
Me thinks your idea of economics and Trump's (and mine) is different. Economics, you know, like the discipline in college?

I have a masters degree in political science and cover down on global economic changes professionally. Yeah, I know.

Not necessarily about who America's trade partners are in Asia, for example. That's more political than economic knowledge, BTW. Is Cruz an expert on trading relations with the TTP? What difference does it make, anyway? Is Trump going to be negotiating any trade agreements with China, for example? Is Cruz? Your love of Reagan even with his bare minimum of knowledge in federal government and your love for free traders with little to no economic knowledge yet high amounts of ideology shows how disingenuous you are.

Knowing the major trade deals that are occurring yes, impacts one's understanding of economic changes for the United States and the reasons. Reagan had decades of experience in both conservatism and government, the man knew deeply what he was talking about. Trump doesn't have a clue, which he shows, every time he is asked to provide any specifics, whatsoever.

Free Trade has been the correct answer, and demonstrated to be the correct answer, since Ricardo. I know this, because I read in, think about, and try to study economics. You are going to go google who that is because you don't.

Your comment about Trump's confusion on who a tariff would be placed on is a strawman. First, can you read Trump's mind?

He was confused. He had no idea what he was talking about. Unless you want to seriously argue that it was all part of a plan designed to make him look like a moron.

Second, how many products made in the US will be charged this tariff?

LOTS. You don't get to slap one tariff on one good and walk away, Cab. They retaliate. And usually feel obliged to retaliate stronger than you hit them. This is how trade wars start.

When we slapped a tariff on Chinese tires, for example, our chicken industry suffered.

Luckily, we don’t have to guess how such a tariff would impact the economy, because the Obama administration attempted a version of Trump’s idea seven years ago.

“It’s basically a real-world case study on what would happen if we imposed 35 percent tariffs on Chinese imports,” says Scott Lincicome, an international trade attorney and adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute. “In this case, we saw huge costs for consumers, gains by other foreign competitors, and almost no gains for American workers, even under the most generous of assumptions.”..

Economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry note that the number of Americans employed in tire manufacturing increased from 50,800 in September 2009 to 52,000 in September 2011. If all 1,200 jobs were attributed to the tariff — an exceedingly generous assumption — they calculate that Obama’s move could be credited with saving or creating $48 million of additional worker income and purchasing power...

But the tariff also forced consumers to spend $1.1 billion more on tires than they otherwise would have — or roughly $900,000 per U.S. tire industry job created. And retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Chinese further hurt our economy. In early 2010, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs ranging from 50.3 to 105.4 percent on American poultry imports, which “reduced exports by $1 billion as U.S. poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China,”...​


We lost $2.1 billion in order to save $48 million. That's how tariffs "work".
 
My response was aimed at a Cruz supporter drooling over the prospect of Cruz issuing a bunch of EO's if elected president. I'm not sure I understand why it is we have a House of Representatives and a Senate if we're just going to bypass them and let the president dictate what he wants. Right now Republicans control both the House and the Senate so the Congress can function and make decisions if they go with the will of the majority. But, the president refuses to sign off on what congress sends him and then turns around and makes his own decision, over the will of the people who elected congress. That's effed up. Obama has been extremely partisan in his EO's and so would Cruz. I don't want either one of them being a dictator. I fear Cruz as much or more than Obama when it comes to EO's. Do you really want Cruz issuing a bunch of EO's?

I'm not even worried about it. The only way Cruz gets into the White House...is as a guest.
 
Cpwill, Reagan didn't have any experience in the things you demand Trump of having experience...Free market economics doesn't work when one assumes all sides in the agreement are playing fairly (why would anyone assume that?). China, for example, is devaluing its currency. Has lower wages than the US. You think the average American manufacturing laborer will agree to lower wages to compete with the likes of China or Mexico? Huh, will labor unions?? How long has manufacturing been dried up in the US? How many decades? You think the free market will bring back manufacturing jobs to the US while China does this, Mexico does that, and the US sits idly by on its free market deal? Tell that to voters who can't afford college for those 'livable' wages. It's no wonder many want the government to pay for college. College is the only way to make money in America unless you're a business owner.
 
Last edited:
Anyone notice how much denial Kaisch is in about his campaign during his post debate interview. It was amazing, he kept saying "why does everything have to be do or die, we're doing just fine, were going to win Ohio and everything will be great..yadadada" lol...fast forward to Wednesday(im calling it he will be dropping out of the race)...he wouldn't even suggest that if he loses Ohio he would suspend his campaign, because he is sure he is going to win Ohio. In his closing speech he basically pleaded with Ohio (his own state) to vote for him. Doesn't sound like confidence to me. :lol:

Greetings, RBIII. :2wave:

1. Kasich said over a week ago that if he didn't carry Ohio on March 15 that he would suspend his campaign. I have no reason to believe he wasn't serious about that.

2. Every candidate on the stage has repeatedly asked people to vote for them - I don't consider that "pleading," so why would you single Kasich out?

3. Kasich has a high approval rating from voters of both parties in Ohio, carrying 86 out of 88 counties in his recent reelection. He turned the deficit he inherited into a surplus of several billion dollars, and made Ohio business friendly, which brought 400,000 new jobs to Ohio. Unfortunately, Ohio law limits the Governor to two consecutive terms, or he would doubtless win again if he were permitted by Ohio law to run.

4. I have never bad-mouthed any of the GOP candidates currently running, nor will I! They're all trying to win, and I will support the winner, whoever it turns out to be. I would like to reduce our $19 trillion debt, and have a balanced budget, and I believe Kasich would do that, which is why he's my choice. He and his committee did it during the Clinton administration against great odds, and it hasn't happened since - we have just continued to run up more and more debt instead - and we cannot continue on the path we're on for much longer! The people in this country are unhappy with the status quo, unlike anything I have ever seen before, so changes are necessary if we are to succeed in remaining the greatest country in the world, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Greetings, RBIII. :2wave:

1. Kasich said over a week ago that if he didn't carry Ohio on March 15 that he would suspend his campaign. I have no reason to believe he wasn't serious about that.

2. Every candidate on the stage has repeatedly asked people to vote for them - I don't consider that "pleading," so why would you single Kasich out?

3. Kasich has a high approval rating from voters of both parties in Ohio, carrying 86 out of 88 counties in his recent reelection. He turned the deficit he inherited into a surplus of several billion dollars, and made Ohio business friendly, which brought 400,000 new jobs to Ohio. Unfortunately, Ohio law limits the Governor to two consecutive terms, or he would doubtless win again if he were permitted by Ohio law to run.

4. I have never bad-mouthed any of the GOP candidates currently running, nor will I! They're all trying to win, and I will support the winner, whoever it turns out to be. I would like to reduce our $19 trillion debt, and have a balanced budget, and I believe Kasich would do that, which is why he's my choice. He and his committee did it during the Clinton administration against great odds, and it hasn't happened since - we have just continued to run up more and more debt instead - and we cannot continue on the path we're on for much longer! The people in this country are unhappy with the status quo, unlike anything I have ever seen before, so changes are necessary if we are to succeed in remaining the greatest country in the world, IMO.

Howdy polgara. :2wave:

I actually like Kasich, he lost me a little bit when he was talking about basically arming every country with US arms pretty much across the board. Never heard him speak so much about his Military vision. As far as his accomplishments as Governor goes...as Trump the Great has said... Ohio struck oil lol.

I kid, i just think he is in denial about his campaign future if you watch that post debate interview. If i can find the clip i will post.
 
He doesn't want to say something ridiculously obviously balatantly idiotic, but also knows that he can't win. So he tries to word-salad through it.

He is playing for VP at this point, and has been for some time. And apparently he's willing to screw up everyone else in order to make sure that that happens.

I don't even think he has a chance at VP, for some reason i can't see Kaisch being tough or engaging an any hardball negotiations. He has become the everybody hold hands and sing kumbuya candidate. He may be great 8 years from now.
 
He doesn't want to say something ridiculously obviously balatantly idiotic, but also knows that he can't win. So he tries to word-salad through it.

He is playing for VP at this point, and has been for some time. And apparently he's willing to screw up everyone else in order to make sure that that happens.

With all due respect, I disagree. He's playing to win, and has a credible plan to do so.
 
I don't even think he has a chance at VP, for some reason i can't see Kaisch being tough or engaging an any hardball negotiations. He has become the everybody hold hands and sing kumbuya candidate. He may be great 8 years from now.

Then you don't know Kasich.
 
Then you don't know Kasich.

Have you seen the current anti-Kasich ads being run by Trump in Ohio?
Why do you think Kasich won't hit back?

Nice visuals today for the GOP in Missouri .
 
Have you seen the current anti-Kasich ads being run by Trump in Ohio?
Why do you think Kasich won't hit back?

Nice visuals today for the GOP in Missouri .

Kasich will win Ohio going away. He doesn't need to hit back.
 
Kasich will win Ohio going away. He doesn't need to hit back.

trump is pounding kasich on being an absentee governor and his time at lehman brothers.
When did kasich turn into an invertebrate ?
 
With all due respect, I disagree. He's playing to win, and has a credible plan to do so.
[emoji38] no he doesn't. He has no mathematical potential to get to 1237, and wouldn't be acceptable to that many delegates, or the party.

Kasich at this point has only slightly better odds of becoming President than Ben Carson.
 
Back
Top Bottom