2nd Republican Debate, LIVE STREAM!

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Don't know, since Sanders doesn't appeal to me, I mentioned him since I have seen plenty of folks on ATS that find him attractive... I like Webb on the Dem side....

I stand corrected then I though you liked sanders

So ill amend, heres why I LIKE Sanders and Paul.........

They BOTH stand on their principles.........they BOTH have a history of standing for what they believe in, voting for what they believe in , and admitting their mistakes.....

you KNOW what you are getting with them

I like them even though they are polar opposites because I RESPECT them........I know they are true to their word
And I KNOW they both love this country, they might not like the country the way it is NOW but I know they do

I respect that they say what they mean, and back it up with their actions

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Can't ask for anything more than that from our candidates

a reply to: Sremmos80

Rand did have a couple moments. It took some balls to go against the group and say flat out "I'm not putting boot no the ground in a failed war again."

I liked that . It showed some character.

Too bad ATS doesn't have a poll feature for who won the debate.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Reagan supported the 7 day waiting period in the Brady Bill on guns, and gave amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. Federal employment grew by 60,000 people under Reagan, and the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion. In 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986 he raised taxes.

Regan would be seen as a "RINO" by today's Republican party, he would not make it past the primary. Today's GOP/Republican party likes to cherry pick quotes and tidbits about Reagan and elevate them to near messianic heights.

The truth is, Reagan was much more reasonable than any of the candidates on that stage tonight. The current voting block of the Republican party is angry, disenfranchised and radicalized -- they don't want "reasonable". Sure, not all Republican voters have swung farther right, but enough have to keep Reagan from winning the primary.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
To be honest I enjoyed the 2nd tier candidates much more than the supposed 1st tier. Too many people onstage. It's just a free for all. Whether you like him or not, Trump is leading in the polls so he deserves to be onstage. Christie, Kasich, Rubio, and Walker should not be there IMO. In fact there should be no more than 5 onstage. I've watched from the beginning and IMO it has been a hot mess with no winners. No one stood out to me because they can't with that large a group onstage.

The 2nd tier candidates surprised me. I actually liked Graham even though I can't stand his voice. He was funny and turned every question back to his chosen topic. I was surprised.

That is exactly how I felt. I have always detested Lindsey Graham, but he was quite impressive in the debate. Made more sense than the others, much more rational and realistic. That group also talked about lobbyists, and that's an issue I find important.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



"Integrity" .... comes to mind, and while it's usually a dirty word in politics, I agree with your assessment of both..

Paul is not his father, so to me, he doesn't have the same appeal.. But damn, he sure got railroaded tonight, just like his father always did. I think he's out now, but we'll see. I think the general public would rather have a circus Hollywood style zoo like Trump would provide Americans as president. WTF has happened to people, damn! This is insane. It's funny to me now, let's just wait for the collapse.

I'd rank it as follows:

1. Fiorina
2. Paul
3. Christie

a reply to: mOjOm

Him and Kasich both brought up the point that we have allies that agreed on the Iran deal as well and ripping it up on day one isn't necessarily a good idea.

Kasich wasn't bad either, but feel he is to moderate to have a chance.

a reply to: JetBlackStare

1. Fiorina
2. Paul
3. Christie

1. Carson
2. Paul
3. Fiorina

Debate Format:
1. Cnn
2. Fox

a reply to: JetBlackStare

Fiorina was kinda middle of the road for me.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That's how you can unify this nation once more. Have a Pres and VP from each side of the spectrum. A Sanders/Paul team together running stuff would work.

As others have said, with them at least they say what they mean and stick by it. You may not like it but you know they mean what they say.

EDIT: I think I'll vote for Carson's Mom!!

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm not saying that's who I prefer. That's just debate performance.

I like Carson the best but I don't think he is qualified from a foreign policy stand point. I like Trump the least and wouldn't vote for him for that reason either, among others.

a reply to: mOjOm

While I like the idea of Sanders/Paul, I don't think it would work.

They would just be to far apart on some issues I think.
But agree with the point you are making.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually I said he SPEAKS like a lawyer. There were another 11-12 candidates that I had no problem listening to and be objective to what they were saying. How can you say "feelings" should not come into play? There have been many leaders who have said all the right things, but maybe we shouldn't have listened so "objectively".

a reply to: Wookiep

It's always been tough running straight Constitutional...

most folks would be hard pressed to know the words to the National Anthem let alone the Constitution...

Those who do know, understand when he talks of it, but .. the day's politics are fueled so much on divisive topics that his words are lost, in a general election scenario...

We are a spoiled nation, who needs our leader's to say NO! instead of continuing to let us raid the cookie jar...

Trouble is, the one's who have raided that cookie jar the most are the one's who are supposed to be guarding that jar...

a reply to: JetBlackStare

Ya I just didn't think she did all the great, I think Kasich did better.
But that is also just my personal opinion.

Also agree this debate was sooo much better then Fox.

Wonder if Trump is going to complain about the questions.

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

"Integrity" .... comes to mind, and while it's usually a dirty word in politics, I agree with your assessment of both..

Spot on my brother spot on

originally posted by: Watcher777
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually I said he SPEAKS like a lawyer. There were another 11-12 candidates that I had no problem listening to and be objective to what they were saying. How can you say "feelings" should not come into play? There have been many leaders who have said all the right things, but maybe we shouldn't have listened so "objectively".

Im still waiting for what he SAID that you didnt agree with

I dont care how you think he sounds, I want to know what policies you dont agree with