"An island of reality in an ocean of diarrhea" will absolutely be on my tombstone now.
Trump to shine in the 2nd debate?
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
What did that accomplish?
About the same as voting for Mitt, except he actually agreed with his candidates policies.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Who Won the Second Republican Presidential Debate? Vote Now
http://time.com/4037510/poll-second-republican-presidential-debate/
Trump - 60%
Carly - 17%
Rubio - 6%
everyone else
I told you that attacking him will only help him
http://time.com/4037510/poll-second-republican-presidential-debate/
Trump - 60%
Carly - 17%
Rubio - 6%
everyone else
I told you that attacking him will only help him
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
A lot of time was spent attacking Trump. This can only help him as he's not used to it. Donald is a quick study and needs to brush up on some issues though.
I thought Fiorna was very good. I thought Rubio was very good.
Stock up: Firona, and Rubio. Both have good answers and can debate
No change:. Trump, Bush. Kasich, Cruz, . I think Cruz and Kasich who really did not attack trump are thinking VP right now.
Stock down: Carson, Walker. Carson's stock drop will benefit Trump.
Drop out: All names not mentioned
Love that he has basically the same tax the rich plan as Bernie and Hilldawg and the right still loves him. Style>substance.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
Forgot this was on last night so only caught the latter half of the debate.
Biggest complaint -- too many participants. I think all of the candidates had a statement here and there that I could agree with, but just as often their comments on a different topic just fell flat for me.
I think I'd like to have a good summary of what each candidate said that I could read through to figure out where they stand across the board.
I don't think Trump did anything exceptional compared to the other candidates. For the parts I saw he wasn't anymore conversant on the issues than the other candidates.
As for write-in voting, it is pretty much a wasted vote in the grand scheme of the Presidential election -- so is your conscience really clean if you essentially throw a vote on the floor? I don't have an answer for that at all, but I would vote for an independent candidate before any of the 2 big party candidates if I agree more with that independent's record and stance on the issues.
But as Ed points out -- in New Jersey, voting for anyone other than a Democrat tends to be a wasted pick.
In rural New Jersey, the voting population is largely conservative, but the liberal urban voting populations far exceed those populations.
Biggest complaint -- too many participants. I think all of the candidates had a statement here and there that I could agree with, but just as often their comments on a different topic just fell flat for me.
I think I'd like to have a good summary of what each candidate said that I could read through to figure out where they stand across the board.
I don't think Trump did anything exceptional compared to the other candidates. For the parts I saw he wasn't anymore conversant on the issues than the other candidates.
As for write-in voting, it is pretty much a wasted vote in the grand scheme of the Presidential election -- so is your conscience really clean if you essentially throw a vote on the floor? I don't have an answer for that at all, but I would vote for an independent candidate before any of the 2 big party candidates if I agree more with that independent's record and stance on the issues.
But as Ed points out -- in New Jersey, voting for anyone other than a Democrat tends to be a wasted pick.
In rural New Jersey, the voting population is largely conservative, but the liberal urban voting populations far exceed those populations.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Nothing much new was said by any of them worth repeating - like I said - it was a clusterfuck. Carly will rise her head above 15% by stealing some votes from the also-rans
Trump's bumptious body language dominates
(CNN) For anyone who watched Wednesday night's Republican primary debate with the volume turned down, there was a clear winner, communication experts say: Donald Trump, hands down.
"When it comes to body language, nobody does it better," says David Givens, director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Washington. "He just neutralizes the opposition."
While Trump's opponents appear to be "wooden," Givens says, Trump is "exceptional" at communicating with his bodyBody language experts point out these five signature Trumpisms that put him in a class by himself among candidates:
He leans forward on the lectern.
Trump's opponents tend to stand up straight, which might please their mothers, but doesn't do much for the audience. Givens notes that Trump puts his hands on the lectern and leans forward. "It's like he's doing a pushup. It's a display of power," he says.
He gestures out to the audience.
It's a very big gesture, Givens says, reaching way out. "He extends his hands towards you. It's very personal," Givens says.
His palms are up.
When he does these big gestures, he usually has his palms up.
"He's saying 'I'm open, I am who I am and you can trust me,'" Morgan says, noting that Trump tends to have his palms up when facing the audience or when journalists ask him questions, but not when he faces his opponents.
He turns his torso toward his opponents.
His opponents might turn just their heads or shoulders, but Trump fully faces his opponents. "This shows he has no fear," says Eric Goulard, a body language expert in Lille, France. "I would compare him to an animal ready to attack another animal."
He purses his lips when opponents are talking.
This, along with big gestures with his right hand, is what reminds Givens of Benito Mussolini. "He's basically saying, 'I don't need to worry about the rest of you insects,'" Morgan says..
http://www.wsbt.com/news/health/trumps-bumptious-body-language-dominates/35322934
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I watched the whole thing and was fascinated by it all.
Thought almost everyone on stage had their moments (both high and low). My opinion:
Trump - Nothing new. The CNN moderators were clearly trying to make this whole debate into them attacking each other. Every questions was "this candidate said this about you, how do you respond?". And since Trump has spoken the most about all the other candidates, he was involved in this tactic the most. For the most part he held his own but he still has significant holes in his game plan. I continue to think he will fail with women voters in the long run and that will be the end of him. His low point was the vaccine/autism point. He looked like an idiot (even more than normal).
Carson - Very likable as always, but I was shocked he didn't take a stronger stand on the vaccine/autism point. There was his moment to show some presidential backbone on a subject he knows better than everyone up there and he had a chance to BURY his chief competition in Trump and he failed miserably. He was just so soft on that topic like he was tippy-toeing and figuring out what the best answer was. I was extremely disappointed in him at that moment and have serious questions about his ability to make tough choices in a crisis.
Bush - He's just such a dork and a typical politician. He can't say anything off the cuff. Everything looks rehearsed with him. If he didn't have the biggest war chest, he's probably insignificant in this race, but you can't discount all that money and backing. In many ways, if he ends up being the nominee, that's a sad indictment on just how much power/influence money means in this process.
Rubio - He's still a dark horse. Would do very well with minorities but since so few are registered Republican it isn't helping him much in the primaries. Some of the stuff he talks about hits home with voters. Low point was when he was called out on his attendance record in congress. That hurt him a lot. Looks like the little brother of the group. No one really wants to take him on.
Kasich - I'm actually starting to think Kasich would make the best President. He's not going to make everyone happy, but the guy clearly has a realistic view on what is and isn't doable as a president. While all the others are grandiose in the changes they will make, Kasich (correctly) acknowledges that none of this stuff is going to happen (both domestically and internationally) without compromise, allies and time. He's the complete opposite of Ted Cruz. I also think Kasich could beat Hillary. He'd have Ohio rapped up and I think he would be very appealing to Florida voters. Something like Kasich/Rubio would be unbeatable in my opinion.
Cruz - The guy's a nutbag. He's so off the farm right-leaning that he scares me the most of everyone on stage (including Trump). His extremism will do well during the primary season, but he's just way too out there for a general election. I know some here love his gun-toting, religious touting, constitutionalism, but I just think that political position is gone and will never win on a national level.
Fiorina - She's clearly an exceptional speaker. Maybe the best in the room. And this is the first I've heard her talk for an extended time frame. But there are some skeleton's in her past I might need to look into. Her track record at HP has some chinks. Her record of laying off thousands of workers while giving/approving herself huge bonuses hits home for much of America in a negative way. She interrupted a lot of people last night and she's probably a bulldog in real life to get where she has. I don't think she's a serious candidate for POTUS, but she could be a viable VP candidate.
Paul - The truth is Paul isn't a republican. He's a federalist. And on many issues you see the differences sort of emerge as to how he'd like to govern. I thought he had some great points and sounded super intelligent at times, but he beat the medicinal marijuana "Mom and kid" thing to death against Christie and I thought he looked a bit petty on that issue. That's partly Paul's problem. When he really tries to drive a point home or gets a bit angry, he looses his appeal in a hurry. He just looks like a whiny kid not getting his way.
Christie - As a northeastern, registered Republican, Christie kind of appeals to me. He's no nonsense. He's non-secular. His platform isn't all pro-gun, pro-life. But I am so tired of every one of his answers starting with "When I was governor or New Jersey...." He comes across and loud and obnoxious at times and it's not working so far in the polls and he's giving himself way to much credit for things happening in Jersey. Jersey's not a picnic state to live in and there's still plenty of ******** that live there. I would be very careful how proud he is of that state's record to republican voters.
Huckabee - He's basically just a platform of religion at this point. He blew it being at the joke of a rally for Kim Davis. He'll get his 5% of the super religious wackos out there, but that's it. He should be the next to withdraw in my opinion. Looks old and out of touch. More minister than president.
Walker - Walker's done too. Should withdraw sooner rather than later and quit wasting our time. I'm tired of hearing how "threatened" he was when he went against those evil unions. He makes it sound like he was serving in Iraq. He comes across as condescending. And his platform lacks focus. He's trying to be all things to everyone (everyone meaning republicans).
I think we'll see Huckabee/Walker out soon.
Carson will eventually drop out. So will Fiorina. So will Christie. I really think it's a 4-man race: Trump/Bush/Kasich/Rubio. I think Cruz and Rand might be in it very deep because they will become "unique" and have some core followers.
After last night's debate, I'm leaning Kasich.
Thought almost everyone on stage had their moments (both high and low). My opinion:
Trump - Nothing new. The CNN moderators were clearly trying to make this whole debate into them attacking each other. Every questions was "this candidate said this about you, how do you respond?". And since Trump has spoken the most about all the other candidates, he was involved in this tactic the most. For the most part he held his own but he still has significant holes in his game plan. I continue to think he will fail with women voters in the long run and that will be the end of him. His low point was the vaccine/autism point. He looked like an idiot (even more than normal).
Carson - Very likable as always, but I was shocked he didn't take a stronger stand on the vaccine/autism point. There was his moment to show some presidential backbone on a subject he knows better than everyone up there and he had a chance to BURY his chief competition in Trump and he failed miserably. He was just so soft on that topic like he was tippy-toeing and figuring out what the best answer was. I was extremely disappointed in him at that moment and have serious questions about his ability to make tough choices in a crisis.
Bush - He's just such a dork and a typical politician. He can't say anything off the cuff. Everything looks rehearsed with him. If he didn't have the biggest war chest, he's probably insignificant in this race, but you can't discount all that money and backing. In many ways, if he ends up being the nominee, that's a sad indictment on just how much power/influence money means in this process.
Rubio - He's still a dark horse. Would do very well with minorities but since so few are registered Republican it isn't helping him much in the primaries. Some of the stuff he talks about hits home with voters. Low point was when he was called out on his attendance record in congress. That hurt him a lot. Looks like the little brother of the group. No one really wants to take him on.
Kasich - I'm actually starting to think Kasich would make the best President. He's not going to make everyone happy, but the guy clearly has a realistic view on what is and isn't doable as a president. While all the others are grandiose in the changes they will make, Kasich (correctly) acknowledges that none of this stuff is going to happen (both domestically and internationally) without compromise, allies and time. He's the complete opposite of Ted Cruz. I also think Kasich could beat Hillary. He'd have Ohio rapped up and I think he would be very appealing to Florida voters. Something like Kasich/Rubio would be unbeatable in my opinion.
Cruz - The guy's a nutbag. He's so off the farm right-leaning that he scares me the most of everyone on stage (including Trump). His extremism will do well during the primary season, but he's just way too out there for a general election. I know some here love his gun-toting, religious touting, constitutionalism, but I just think that political position is gone and will never win on a national level.
Fiorina - She's clearly an exceptional speaker. Maybe the best in the room. And this is the first I've heard her talk for an extended time frame. But there are some skeleton's in her past I might need to look into. Her track record at HP has some chinks. Her record of laying off thousands of workers while giving/approving herself huge bonuses hits home for much of America in a negative way. She interrupted a lot of people last night and she's probably a bulldog in real life to get where she has. I don't think she's a serious candidate for POTUS, but she could be a viable VP candidate.
Paul - The truth is Paul isn't a republican. He's a federalist. And on many issues you see the differences sort of emerge as to how he'd like to govern. I thought he had some great points and sounded super intelligent at times, but he beat the medicinal marijuana "Mom and kid" thing to death against Christie and I thought he looked a bit petty on that issue. That's partly Paul's problem. When he really tries to drive a point home or gets a bit angry, he looses his appeal in a hurry. He just looks like a whiny kid not getting his way.
Christie - As a northeastern, registered Republican, Christie kind of appeals to me. He's no nonsense. He's non-secular. His platform isn't all pro-gun, pro-life. But I am so tired of every one of his answers starting with "When I was governor or New Jersey...." He comes across and loud and obnoxious at times and it's not working so far in the polls and he's giving himself way to much credit for things happening in Jersey. Jersey's not a picnic state to live in and there's still plenty of ******** that live there. I would be very careful how proud he is of that state's record to republican voters.
Huckabee - He's basically just a platform of religion at this point. He blew it being at the joke of a rally for Kim Davis. He'll get his 5% of the super religious wackos out there, but that's it. He should be the next to withdraw in my opinion. Looks old and out of touch. More minister than president.
Walker - Walker's done too. Should withdraw sooner rather than later and quit wasting our time. I'm tired of hearing how "threatened" he was when he went against those evil unions. He makes it sound like he was serving in Iraq. He comes across as condescending. And his platform lacks focus. He's trying to be all things to everyone (everyone meaning republicans).
I think we'll see Huckabee/Walker out soon.
Carson will eventually drop out. So will Fiorina. So will Christie. I really think it's a 4-man race: Trump/Bush/Kasich/Rubio. I think Cruz and Rand might be in it very deep because they will become "unique" and have some core followers.
After last night's debate, I'm leaning Kasich.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,394
- Reaction score
- 5,467
- Points
- 113
The same thing that voting for McCain or Romney did.
Leave the Asians out of this.
The next debate should definitely be the top 5 candidates based on polling from now until then. Trump, Carly and Ben should get in and that would be great for this country. Rand Paul will probably drop out as he continues to lose support and money. A few others may drop out soon also due to no donors.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 43
I thought CNBC already said it would be the top ten and the questions would focus on the economy.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
Me exercising my right to vote as an American citizen.
Me proving there are other qualified candidates besides who the rebloodlicans and democrypts trot out every 4 years.
Me not playing the reindeer games and being a mindless sheep that just follows the crowds, conforming to the lie and deception of choice.
Me being able to look myself in the mirror and go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Keep picking the lesser of two evils......it's still evil.
I'll more than likely vote for another candidate next year that won't win the nominations.
It happens.
I know we like to tell our kids today that everyone's a winner, and there's no losers.
But I personally won't contribute to putting a Purple Ribbon of Participation into the White House.
THAT'S what I'll accomplish.
Well, ok. I'm glad it means something and makes a difference in your world.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Next debate will be on Oct 13th and it will the Dems this time. That should be a hoot
There are currently six candidates who are expected to take part in the debate: former Secretary of State and current frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Vermont Senator and close second Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, former U.S. Senator Jim Webb, and former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 43
Bernie will run away with it
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
That's a good philosophy, I just don't think it works without you at least contributing to the campaign of the person you choose to vote for.
And if you're writing in someone that's not on the ballot, your principals may be intact, but your effectiveness is nil.
Do you go out and support that person regardless? How do you do that if that person isn't in your local, regional, state or federal government tree?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
Unfortunately we live in the same world.
Poor Rosa Parks, Ghandi, Dr. King, Mother Teresa, et al.
Those poor delusional individuals thinking that their own singular actions could change the world and inspire others.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
1) Who said I didn't contribute to those two, go out and stump for them, attend speaking engagements, or do everything I could to get their message out?
2) Says who? A citizen is legally casting a vote for someone they wish to be President. If write-in weren't allowed, why is it an option on all ballots?
3) I'm only allowed to vote for representatives/positions/issues/measures assigned to my geographical location. That goes for the lot of us. Nobody can vote outside their "tree". President is the only one ALL of us can vote for. Typically, presidential candidates hit all 50 states minimum once and typically a few times. And I make it a point to see as many of them as I can speak, regardless of their affiliation. I watch a lot online from other parts of the country. I do this so I can make the best possible decision.
I NEVER vote for :
a) someone that runs unopposed - When they vote for themselves, they win. Not too hard.
b) an issue/race I don't fully understand or know enough about the issue/candidates.
c) all Ds, Rs, Ls, Is. This is just foolish. It means you've put zero thought into anything.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
1. I never said you didn't contribute, I asked if you did. A simple yes just confirms that you stand by your viewpoint and work towards getting it heard. That's far above just quietly putting someone's name on a ballot and walking away. Big difference between the two and better in the grand scheme of things.
2. A write-in where there's a chance that you're the only voter doing so is a wasted vote. It's like saying you're voting for Joe Shmo just because you think he's qualified but the guy isn't even running for the office. There's no support there for that person so it just seems to me like an empty gesture. It's a whole different matter if you're voting for an independent who does appear on the ballot. At least then there's a chance your vote means something.
3. Again, valid and honest effort to vote your conscience over just going with the flow. Kudos to you.
Your criteria for voting is very sound... I don't have a problem with it, I just thought your initial description was very incomplete.
I don't see the point in voting straight D or R or what have you either.
We should all try to be educated voters, even in the face of the opposition that has the deepest pockets and best commercials.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
I'm OK with someone writing in a name of anyone who wouldn't have any other support. Although, I'd like everyone who did a write-in to put "None of the above". Actually, I'd like that on the ballot and if it gets more than 30% of the popular vote, the parties have to choose new candidates.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Bernie's platform:
“We can all enjoy 3rd World poverty equally!”
”
Every time I see Bernie I think he is pooping his pants..what is he, 80 now?
Bill Maher backs Hillary Clinton
I like the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, but it's going to be Hillary. I always say her slogan, "Are you ready for Hillary," is a perfectly accurate slogan. Am I ready for Hillary? Yes. Am I enthused about it? No.
http://www.inforum.com/variety/3840852-bill-maher-sounds-and-partially-agrees-donald-trump
Last edited:
Similar threads
