The official ATS GOP debate discussion

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I ask this with complete sincerity: how often in our lifetime has ANY presidential candidate actually offered *rational* solutions while campaigning? The campaigns generally showcase who can best describe the problems in a way that energizes their specific target base.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fair point, but it did seem some of the other candidates had some answers/ideas...some kind of e-verification process, defund the "sanctuary" cities, pay fines in a path to citizenship. Trump? Great Wall of America. Oh, with a door. He did mention it would have a door.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's the problem with soundbyte campaigns, all we hear is the goals of a plan. We don't get to hear the details of the plan in order to evaluate it. Well, usually that's the case. Cruz did say tonight that peace in the middle east just requires us to kill everyone tolerant of ISIS.

Details usually don't sit with people though. That's just the way it is, I think that's treating the viewers like they're too dumb to understand issues, and in many cases that is true, but you should still give the person the chance.

Remember last election where the Rep candidate listed off his 74 point plan to fix America? He was chastised by everyone for including so many details.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The wall may be his plan for more jobs.


They all had crazy ideas or ideas that will never happen. This was just entertainment WWE smackdown style.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

He did mention it would have a door.

Think it was a beautiful door as well!

a reply to: Aazadan

While I admittedly don't represent the average American voter, I want 3 things laid clear and open for any problem+solution a candidate presents.
1. WHAT is the solution and HOW will you enact it ( this includes getting it through Congress and past the SCOTUS)
2. WHEN will you enact you solution if elected?
3. HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST ME? Truth is, #3 has become my personal deal maker and breaker. A presidential candidate could have a viable solution to effect global peace, but if it involves raising my taxes (real taxes and phantom taxes like the ACA), he will not get my vote.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The wall may be his plan for more jobs.

They all had crazy ideas or ideas that will never happen. This was just entertainment WWE smackdown style.

Some ideas were definitely more out there than others. Constitutional protections to unborn children, cut taxes to 10% for all, double the size of our military, and others. There were a couple of level headed candidates on stage but the usual suspects were in full blown crazy mode. We hit nearly every single item on Trump Bingo.

All in all, I don't think Walker got enough time, Kasich and Paul did ok, Christie actually broke down details on entitlement reform which wasn't expected, Trump took way too much camera time, Carson had ideas that were too far out there for most in the GOP, Bush spoke well but forgot to mention that Florida is very close to being our worst state, Huckabee went into a rant, Rubio is going to get destroyed by fact checks, though he spoke well, and Cruz beat out Trump in crazy spewed.

That was my take away from it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

While I admittedly don't represent the average American voter, I want 3 things laid clear and open for any problem+solution a candidate presents.
1. WHAT is the solution and HOW will you enact it ( this includes getting it through Congress and past the SCOTUS)
2. WHEN will you enact you solution if elected?
3. HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST ME? Truth is, #3 has become my personal deal maker and breaker. A presidential candidate could have a viable solution to effect global peace, but if it involves raising my taxes (real taxes and phantom taxes like the ACA), he will not get my vote.

I want this same thing, except I'm more versatile than you on #3. I think we have many of the solutions already, we just don't fund them well enough. It's my opinion that effective tax rates are too low in the US, across the board.

Unfortunately, life isn't quite that simple though. Lets say we ease up on some drug sentencing. That's fewer people in jail, so less profit on prison labor. It's jail rooms getting utilities but not being used, it's jail staff getting laid off, and it's ultimately newer, smaller, more efficient jails we have to pay to build. So something like trying to reduce the burden on our legal system, has many related costs.

Between our prison system and our Military Industrial Complex we're funding something like 1/3 of the jobs in the US. We can't simply cut back that funding support in order to put the money elsewhere because it creates mass unemployment. This is part of why we need tax increases to make any worthwhile shift in economic policy.

The big one they like to talk about is creating jobs. They speak of it in terms like tax incentives to expand your business and hire new employees, except that's a load of crap. If the employee is profitable pretax, the business will expand, and if only the tax break makes them eligible then that job is gone as soon as the temporary tax cut is gone too, and then your business shrinks (after spending the money to expand).

The budget can't really be cut at this point, there's virtually nothing that's extraneous as a percentage of amount spent. We could maybe cut 100 billion from it. The truth is that we need to start generating a budget surplus of about 1.5 trillion per year to pay the debt down. Finding 100 billion in cuts that will just be respent elsewhere isn't going to do it. The only way to do this is to increase revenues which inevitably means tax increases.

My live view of the event was interrupted a few times but I did watch most of the debate,

Christi seemed like a old 80's style republican, and the Fox news peeps were saying how he barely got in on the debate, but most likely helped his position more than hurt it. I thought he got noobed by Paul.

Rand Paul I think supported his product brand well, and Rubio I think did a solid job.

Cruz, kucinich, Carson, should have just stayed home.

Walker was really boring and Trump played Trump well for live TV.

Can't wait to see who the next front 3 look like im guessing Trump, Paul, Rubio not sure what order in the next week.

Then again Christi could come out better as well, I hope not but we will see.

I just finished watching the debate. Well not surprisingly at this early stage it was fairly non eventful. I think it is very telling that many of the candidates referred to if and not when they are president. This indicates that they are not in the race to take on Hillary Clinton. Most of the candidates are in the race to boost their national profile with future elections in mind.

I think the polls will remain unchanged after the debate. I am still not convinced that Jeb Bush heart is in it at all. I still think he is running because of his family name. Rand Paul shows promise as a future leader in the Senate (he may not want to be a presidential candidate.) The GOP should have culled the field of the nobodies and Wannabe like Christie and focused getting its house of cards in order.

a reply to: ChiefD

The more I hear from Linsey Graham, the more I really pity him.
I think it is just sad for some one to have a mind so small it can be so easily filled with fear.

So Drudge has Trump winning the debate at 47.5%

With RW Media hyper focused on the evils of PC it looks like Conservatives have truly been marginalized into one issue so all it takes is for one buffoon to make it his platform and boom. Congratulations.

ETA: My personal opinion is that Rubio, Paul and Kasich (who had like zero time) were the only ones to give answers with any kind of depth.

Kasich seems like the most electable Republican candidate at the moment, too bad that his comment about gay marriage and loving his daughter if she were gay will most likely cost him big time.

I thought one of the most notable moments was when Trump was asked about his bankruptcies, he said without shame, although perhaps with some "understanding" of how absurd it was...." That he wisely used the laws that many rich people use, because it was a smart business move " ...lol....no one can say the man isn't honest !

Very little mention of Hillary and no mention of Bernie that I recall...that's sort of interesting...wonder why?

Oh Crispy Creme really did use 911 as his defense to Paul's poke about the Obama hug. LMFAO, classic scumbag politician move. "911 therefore your point is invalid" HAHAHAHAHAHA that was pure desperation.

It should be a rule that you can't bring up 911 to defend your stance its been 14 years already seriously.

Just think.

One of those jokers is going to be President.

a reply to: muse7

I dont think it will...most people can appreciate one's love for your kids.

I didnt (for me) see a clear winner. A few did better than I expected, a few were exactly as expected and a few disappointed.

I thought Huckabee did quite well.

Bush was boring and barely present.

Cruz didnt sound totally insane for a change.

I liked Carson, but I felt he was in over his head.

Christie...no way Jose'. I do not want this phony clown in the White House any more than I want Trump there.

Rand Paul seemed constantly pissed off. He focused on his strength: fiscal conservatism.

Trump...was Trump. I dont think he did himself any favors. He was unprepared, at the very least.

Rubio did well.

Walker... all I could focus on what how he looked like Howdy Doodie. He has a positive record, but... Howdy Doodie??

Kasinitch (sp?) I thought did fairly well.

From the previous debate, Fiorina took the cake. She was poised, well spoken, knowledgeable and animated. She was the clear winner. Lindsey Graham should just pack it in and go home.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

While I admittedly don't represent the average American voter, I want 3 things laid clear and open for any problem+solution a candidate presents.
1. WHAT is the solution and HOW will you enact it ( this includes getting it through Congress and past the SCOTUS)
2. WHEN will you enact you solution if elected?
3. HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST ME? Truth is, #3 has become my personal deal maker and breaker. A presidential candidate could have a viable solution to effect global peace, but if it involves raising my taxes (real taxes and phantom taxes like the ACA), he will not get my vote.

No offense, but this is a ridiculous expectation for a debate. There is not enough time for a single candidate to detail your request in 2 hours, let alone for all 10 to present a single problem solution as detailed.

Nice expectation for an interview with a single candidate, but in a debate? Ridiculous......

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Christie lost all credibility. He literally used the SAME exact retort against Rand Paul that Guliani used against Ron Paul in the 2008 rep. debate. Out of all the outlandish things that I heard last night, Christie talking about hugging 9/11 victims made me shudder in absolute disgust. He is the epitome of dirty, slimy politician and he belongs nowhere near a presidential election.

I am admittedly Libertarian / Constitutionalist. With that being said, I liked Paul, Carson, and Kasich. I think with more marketing and air time people will open up to Carson.

I know it is early, but if I had to choose a P / VP ticket it would be Carson / Paul.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Just think.

One of those jokers is going to be President.

In your dreams.

So which one did you prefer our resident dyed in the wool repub?

___________________________

... I got a few LOL's, but not as many as I'd hoped. Have you noticed how Trump's mouth forms a perfect litte "o" when he speaks? Rubio much handsomer than I knew, and Jeb wore a nice tie. They all wore little flag pins. That is my superficial analysis of the day.

I thought Ben Carson's antics were mainly platitudes. I expected him to say "the U.S. doesn't need to run with scissors, or count it's chickens, etc., at any moment. However he is very goodlooking. : )

Nothing substantive from any of them insofar as I could tell. Other than Rand Paul, I think we'd find ourselves at war very quickly with any of them.