CDZ Debate

[SingleVoyce]

Anybody watch the debate last night?

My impressions:

Rubio didn't perform very well. He seemed to have a standard rant that he wanted to deliver and he worked it into his first several replies even if it had nothing to do with the question. He looked flustered and probably hurt himself with the voters who were watching.

Cruz seemed befuddled on several questions and didn't have very good responses on several tough questions.

Kasich did pretty well and seemed to generate a lot of enthusiasm from the audience. He probably helped himself.

Christie performed pretty well but it's probably too little too late for him.

Trump had some interesting exchanges with the audience. He got booed at one point and accused the audience of all being big donors to one of the other campaigns. He did make a few points though and probably didn't change his standing with the voters much.

Neither Bush nor Carson did much of anything.

My prediction for the primary:

1. Trump
2. Kasich
3. Rubio
4. Bush
5. Cruz
6. Christie
7. Carson

 

[Iceweasel]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Trump, he just looks angry and speaks in platitudes. He's got a scowl going on that is endearing only to his hard core supporters.

Kasich has a great track record but looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown, some weird tick is going on.

Cruz was good and seemed sharp as ever. I do think he's too hard core for most moderates though, and the presidency cannot be won without the moderates, especially for Republicans. Democrats outnumber them by a healthy margin.

Christie would make a good AG, I don't think he's got the presidential material.

Carson is like the gal that didn't get asked to dance.

 

[tinydancer]

Anybody watch the debate last night?

My impressions:

Rubio didn't perform very well. He seemed to have a standard rant that he wanted to deliver and he worked it into his first several replies even if it had nothing to do with the question. He looked flustered and probably hurt himself with the voters who were watching.

Cruz seemed befuddled on several questions and didn't have very good responses on several tough questions.

Kasich did pretty well and seemed to generate a lot of enthusiasm from the audience. He probably helped himself.

Christie performed pretty well but it's probably too little too late for him.

Trump had some interesting exchanges with the audience. He got booed at one point and accused the audience of all being big donors to one of the other campaigns. He did make a few points though and probably didn't change his standing with the voters much.

Neither Bush nor Carson did much of anything.

My prediction for the primary:

1. Trump
2. Kasich
3. Rubio
4. Bush
5. Cruz
6. Christie
7. Carson

Hey I really appreciate the wrap up. I don't have television only radio and it didn't come in well. Normally I can get WLS (Chicago) even out here in the boondocks but not last night. Nothing was coming in.

 

[tinydancer]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Trump, he just looks angry and speaks in platitudes. He's got a scowl going on that is endearing only to his hard core supporters.

Kasich has a great track record but looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown, some weird tick is going on.

Cruz was good and seemed sharp as ever. I do think he's too hard core for most moderates though, and the presidency cannot be won without the moderates, especially for Republicans. Democrats outnumber them by a healthy margin.

Christie would make a good AG, I don't think he's got the presidential material.

Carson is like the gal that didn't get asked to dance.

Ditto what I said to the OP. Really thankful you guys are out there to give the real deal.

 

[Iceweasel]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Trump, he just looks angry and speaks in platitudes. He's got a scowl going on that is endearing only to his hard core supporters.

Kasich has a great track record but looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown, some weird tick is going on.

Cruz was good and seemed sharp as ever. I do think he's too hard core for most moderates though, and the presidency cannot be won without the moderates, especially for Republicans. Democrats outnumber them by a healthy margin.

Christie would make a good AG, I don't think he's got the presidential material.

Carson is like the gal that didn't get asked to dance.

Ditto what I said to the OP. Really thankful you guys are out there to give the real deal.

I forgot to mention Bush. Well, I guess that says it all.

 

[tinydancer]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Trump, he just looks angry and speaks in platitudes. He's got a scowl going on that is endearing only to his hard core supporters.

Kasich has a great track record but looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown, some weird tick is going on.

Cruz was good and seemed sharp as ever. I do think he's too hard core for most moderates though, and the presidency cannot be won without the moderates, especially for Republicans. Democrats outnumber them by a healthy margin.

Christie would make a good AG, I don't think he's got the presidential material.

Carson is like the gal that didn't get asked to dance.

Ditto what I said to the OP. Really thankful you guys are out there to give the real deal.

I forgot to mention Bush. Well, I guess that says it all.

I don't blame Dr Carson at this point in time. He had his volunteers one killed many injured and betrayed by Cruz. Carson should be the Surgeon General. But because of the idiot stunt they pulled to take Iowa, his people will break for Rubio. Not good. Really praying on Carson. He's not in it to win it. But he wanted his voice heard for the people.

Good man.

 

[320 Years of History]

First off, I'll begin by saying the Republican whom I favored, Rand Paul, is no longer in the race.

Second, for folks who didn't see the debate, here it is.



I watched parts of the debate. Frankly, when Donald Trump said, "I would bring back waterboarding" and, "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse," that did it for me. I've not been keen on Mr. Trump for some time now. That pretty well removed any chance he might have had of my regaining the optimism I had for him and his candidacy in Spring 2015 when I began hearing he was thinking seriously of running.

That Mr. Trump is no better now on matters of foreign policy than he was in September 2015 is, I suppose, not surprising. The man shows a profligate wantonness and unyielding reticence for actually becoming deeply savvy on much of anything other than boosting his own image and wealth.



Want more examples of stuff Mr. Trump has said that can only be his just blabbering out whatever crosses his mind, regardless of its veracity?

• The ‘King of Whoppers': Donald Trump
  
• All statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact (Some fo the statements here aren't made by Mr. Trump. I'm not counting those.)

He's the first Presidential candidate I've encountered in my lifetime who quite literally has got verbal diarrhea.

On the upside, he's sometimes genuinely funny.



I thought Mr. Rubio came off looking like a "deer in the headlights." When Mr. Trump opened the door for him to jump on his "Obama knows what he's doing" remark, Rubio seemed only to realize it as an afterthought. Mostly, however, he just stood there looking like he had no idea what to say.

Mr. Christie did a fine job responding to Mr. Rubio's opening remark.

Mr. Cruz's discourse about nuclear proliferation and ostensibly preemptive strikes (~25:00), while impassioned, failed to recognize the basic principle of sovereignty and a nation's rights under that principle. I would expect better of a Constitutional scholar. That he failed to provide better shows him to be about rhetoric and not principle.

Mr. Trump on North Korea: let China deal with them. Really? That's what we should do? Nothing. Let someone else handle what we identify as a problem we have with someone else. Thanks, but I prefer not to delegate my responsibility to act to someone else, particularly someone who has little vested interest in doing so. China will act when they see N. Korea as a problem, not when and because we do. For me, his worst moment was when he attempted to deride the audience of voters....did he completely forget those people sitting there are exactly the people whom he's asking to vote for him? Oops!!!!

 

[Iceweasel]

I watched parts of the debate. Frankly, when Donald Trump said, "I would bring back waterboarding" and, "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse," that did it for me. I've not been keen on Mr. Trump for some time now. That pretty well removed any chance he might have had of my regaining the optimism I had for him and his candidacy in Spring 2015 when I began hearing he was thinking seriously of running.

Rest assured that's plenty of ammo for the left. Trump appeals to that base but that's it. Most Americans aren't going there.

I thought Mr. Rubio came off looking like a "deer in the headlights." When Mr. Trump opened the door for him to jump on his "Obama knows what he's doing" remark, Rubio seemed only to realize it as an afterthought. Mostly, however, he just stood there looking like he had no idea what to say.

I didn't see that at all. It's a matter of opinion, obama doesn't know what he's doing, obama does know what he's doing. You wanted Marco to argue over perceptions? His point is that obama has been systematically changing the country and he doesn't agree with the changes, obviously.

Mr. Cruz's discourse about nuclear proliferation and ostensibly preemptive strikes (~25:00), while impassioned, failed to recognize the basic principle of sovereignty and a nation's rights under that principle. I would expect better of a Constitutional scholar. That he failed to provide better shows him to be about rhetoric and not principle.

I seriously doubt you know more that Ted Cruz about the Constitution. He won all his supreme court cases. and you? Where exactly in the Constitution do you find DPR of Korea or Iran's right to own nuclear weapons?

 

[AquaAthena]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Trump, he just looks angry and speaks in platitudes. He's got a scowl going on that is endearing only to his hard core supporters.

Kasich has a great track record but looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown, some weird tick is going on.

Cruz was good and seemed sharp as ever. I do think he's too hard core for most moderates though, and the presidency cannot be won without the moderates, especially for Republicans. Democrats outnumber them by a healthy margin.

Christie would make a good AG, I don't think he's got the presidential material.

Carson is like the gal that didn't get asked to dance.

It was a good debate with Christie and Cruz the victors in my opinion.

 

[320 Years of History]

I watched parts of the debate. Frankly, when Donald Trump said, "I would bring back waterboarding" and, "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse," that did it for me. I've not been keen on Mr. Trump for some time now. That pretty well removed any chance he might have had of my regaining the optimism I had for him and his candidacy in Spring 2015 when I began hearing he was thinking seriously of running.

Rest assured that's plenty of ammo for the left. Trump appeals to that base but that's it. Most Americans aren't going there.

I thought Mr. Rubio came off looking like a "deer in the headlights." When Mr. Trump opened the door for him to jump on his "Obama knows what he's doing" remark, Rubio seemed only to realize it as an afterthought. Mostly, however, he just stood there looking like he had no idea what to say.

I didn't see that at all. It's a matter of opinion, obama doesn't know what he's doing, obama does know what he's doing. You wanted Marco to argue over perceptions? His point is that obama has been systematically changing the country and he doesn't agree with the changes, obviously.

Mr. Cruz's discourse about nuclear proliferation and ostensibly preemptive strikes (~25:00), while impassioned, failed to recognize the basic principle of sovereignty and a nation's rights under that principle. I would expect better of a Constitutional scholar. That he failed to provide better shows him to be about rhetoric and not principle.

I seriously doubt you know more that Ted Cruz about the Constitution. He won all his supreme court cases. and you? Where exactly in the Constitution do you find DPR of Korea or Iran's right to own nuclear weapons?

Re: Rubio:
Look at the video in my post. It's around one of the yellow markers in the first half that you'll see what I mean about the "deer in the headlights look" and demeanor Mr. Rubio had when asking about responding to Mr. Trump.

Re: Constitutional law:
I'm not at all contending to know more about Constitutional law than Mr. Cruz. I am saying that a sovereign nation has all the right it needs to develop or not develop whatever weaponry it wants to develop. Do you honestly think that the U.S.' right to develop or not develop a given technology should be stipulated by another nation? If not, then what right have we to do the same? None.

 

[Mr Natural]

Little Marco took a royal ass kicking from the fat man from New Jersey.

I love it when they eat their own.

 

[Iceweasel]

I watched parts of the debate. Frankly, when Donald Trump said, "I would bring back waterboarding" and, "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse," that did it for me. I've not been keen on Mr. Trump for some time now. That pretty well removed any chance he might have had of my regaining the optimism I had for him and his candidacy in Spring 2015 when I began hearing he was thinking seriously of running.

Rest assured that's plenty of ammo for the left. Trump appeals to that base but that's it. Most Americans aren't going there.

I thought Mr. Rubio came off looking like a "deer in the headlights." When Mr. Trump opened the door for him to jump on his "Obama knows what he's doing" remark, Rubio seemed only to realize it as an afterthought. Mostly, however, he just stood there looking like he had no idea what to say.

I didn't see that at all. It's a matter of opinion, obama doesn't know what he's doing, obama does know what he's doing. You wanted Marco to argue over perceptions? His point is that obama has been systematically changing the country and he doesn't agree with the changes, obviously.

Mr. Cruz's discourse about nuclear proliferation and ostensibly preemptive strikes (~25:00), while impassioned, failed to recognize the basic principle of sovereignty and a nation's rights under that principle. I would expect better of a Constitutional scholar. That he failed to provide better shows him to be about rhetoric and not principle.

I seriously doubt you know more that Ted Cruz about the Constitution. He won all his supreme court cases. and you? Where exactly in the Constitution do you find DPR of Korea or Iran's right to own nuclear weapons?

Re: Rubio:
Look at the video in my post. It's around one of the yellow markers in the first half that you'll see what I mean about the "deer in the headlights look" and demeanor Mr. Rubio had when asking about responding to Mr. Trump.

Re: Constitutional law:
I'm not at all contending to know more about Constitutional law than Mr. Cruz. I am saying that a sovereign nation has all the right it needs to develop or not develop whatever weaponry it wants to develop. Do you honestly think that the U.S.' right to develop or not develop a given technology should be stipulated by another nation? If not, then what right have we to do the same? None.

I watched the debate so don't really need your special insight or guidance. I don't agree with your opinion, period. And you didn't answer where in the Constitution a country's right to own or use nukes comes from.

Fact is, it doesn't. Should we sit back and wait until one is launched to respond? Maybe obama or Hillary would but I hope if a country is hostile to the US developes the weapons the US does a Israeli raid on Osirak maneuver on them.

 

[320 Years of History]

... you didn't answer where in the Constitution a country's right to own or use nukes comes from.

Fact is, it doesn't. Should we sit back and wait until one is launched to respond? Maybe obama or Hillary would but I hope if a country is hostile to the US developes the weapons the US does a Israeli raid on Osirak maneuver on them.

Apologies for not answering that question.

Nowhere in the Constitution is anything having to do with another country's rights given. I made the remark I did with regard to Mr. Cruz' academic and professional background because I feel it is sufficient enough for im or others like him to understand the principle of sovereignty. I provided in my prior post a link to content that explains that principle. You would not have had to read very far in it to have come upon this:

At its core, sovereignty is typically taken to mean the possession of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space. There is essentially an internal and external dimension of sovereignty. Internally, a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force. It is the supreme authority within its territory.​

I suspect anyone who studies the law, and especially Constitutional law, understands and accepts that concept.

Winning before the SCOTUS:
Earlier you wrote, "[Mr. Cruz] won all his supreme court cases." Well that's just factually wrong. He argued before the SCOTUS nine times, all as Solicitor General of Texas, and won five times and lost four. And I have not argued any.

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

 

[Nyvin]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Rubio was destroyed....everyone knows it....everywhere

Insiders: Marco Rubio crashed and burned

 

[Iceweasel]

... you didn't answer where in the Constitution a country's right to own or use nukes comes from.

Fact is, it doesn't. Should we sit back and wait until one is launched to respond? Maybe obama or Hillary would but I hope if a country is hostile to the US developes the weapons the US does a Israeli raid on Osirak maneuver on them.

Apologies for not answering that question.

Nowhere in the Constitution is anything having to do with another country's rights given. I made the remark I did with regard to Mr. Cruz' academic and professional background because I feel it is sufficient enough for im or others like him to understand the principle of sovereignty. I provided in my prior post a link to content that explains that principle. You would not have had to read very far in it to have come upon this:

At its core, sovereignty is typically taken to mean the possession of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space. There is essentially an internal and external dimension of sovereignty. Internally, a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force. It is the supreme authority within its territory.​

I suspect anyone who studies the law, and especially Constitutional law, understands and accepts that concept.

It doesn't work that way. I don't do other people's research for them. If you have a point to make, go ahead but don't slop out a link and hold others responsible for knowing or agreeing with everything on the website. That's just sloppy work.

Quite obviously Ted, and a bunch of others, do not share your opinion on what rights you think nations have. Germany never invaded us but we invaded them. W here were their rights?

Winning before the SCOTUS:
Earlier you wrote, "[Mr. Cruz] won all his supreme court cases." Well that's just factually wrong. He argued before the SCOTUS nine times, all as Solicitor General of Texas, and won five times and lost four. And I have not argued any.

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

I heard he won them all but that wasn't the point. Obviously the point was too big for you and you need a victory of sorts. Even if Cruz only won five cases before the Supreme Court that puts him five cases ahead of you in the highest court in the land. So I'll go with his legal opinion over some random thin skinned guy on the internet.

 

[Iceweasel]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Rubio was destroyed....everyone knows it....everywhere

Insiders: Marco Rubio crashed and burned

"Everyone knows it" is fodder for children. If you have a point to make, go ahead, I won't do your research for you.

 

[320 Years of History]

It doesn't work that way. I don't do other people's research for them. If you have a point to make, go ahead but don't slop out a link and hold others responsible for knowing or agreeing with everything on the website. That's just sloppy work.

I didn't ask you to do my research; I did the research. I made what I found available to you by linking to it. I did the research because I'm well aware that I'm not a legal scholar, so I have to research legal issues I care to discuss. I only expect you to read the content at the link just as I did. I presume you too are not a legal scholar, but I don't know that. Are you? If you are, I'd like to read some of your publications or publicly available legal briefs. I may find myself citing them at some point. It'd certainly be nice to cite a paper or two written by a fellow member here.

I heard he won them all but that wasn't the point. Obviously the point was too big for you and you need a victory of sorts. Even if Cruz only won five cases before the Supreme Court that puts him five cases ahead of you in the highest court in the land. So I'll go with his legal opinion over some random thin skinned guy on the internet.

Well, if it was just hearsay, you certainly should check it before repeating it, or (1) cite the source from which you heard it, or (2) state it with a disclaimer indicating you haven't confirmed the veracity of the comment. You look at my posts on here and you'll see that I consistently provide references for my statements of fact. I don't ask folks to just accept a fact I present merely because I presented it.

 

[EriktheRed]

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

I didn't ask you to do my research; I did the research. I made what I found available to you by linking to it. I did the research because I'm well aware that I'm not a legal scholar, so I have to research legal issues I care to discuss. I only expect you to read the content at the link just as I did. I presume you too are not a legal scholar, but I don't know that. Are you? If you are, I'd like to read some of your publications or publicly available legal briefs. I may find myself citing them at some point. It'd certainly be nice to cite a paper or two written by a fellow member here.

I heard he won them all but that wasn't the point. Obviously the point was too big for you and you need a victory of sorts. Even if Cruz only won five cases before the Supreme Court that puts him five cases ahead of you in the highest court in the land. So I'll go with his legal opinion over some random thin skinned guy on the internet.

Well, if it was just hearsay, you certainly should check it before repeating it, or (1) cite the source from which you heard it, or (2) state it with a disclaimer indicating you haven't confirmed the veracity of the comment. You look at my posts on here and you'll see that I consistently provide references for my statements of fact. I don't ask folks to just accept a fact I present merely because I presented it.

Uh, dude...

Far be it from me to want to defend a wingnut like iceweasel, but I feel I should point out that these words you quoted...

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

...are actually your words to him from a previous post.

 

[Iceweasel]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Rubio was destroyed....everyone knows it....everywhere

Insiders: Marco Rubio crashed and burned

"Everyone knows it" is fodder for children. If you have a point to make, go ahead, I won't do your research for you.

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

I didn't ask you to do my research; I did the research. I made what I found available to you by linking to it. I did the research because I'm well aware that I'm not a legal scholar, so I have to research legal issues I care to discuss. I only expect you to read the content at the link just as I did. I presume you too are not a legal scholar, but I don't know that. Are you? If you are, I'd like to read some of your publications or publicly available legal briefs. I may find myself citing them at some point. It'd certainly be nice to cite a paper or two written by a fellow member here.

I heard he won them all but that wasn't the point. Obviously the point was too big for you and you need a victory of sorts. Even if Cruz only won five cases before the Supreme Court that puts him five cases ahead of you in the highest court in the land. So I'll go with his legal opinion over some random thin skinned guy on the internet.

Well, if it was just hearsay, you certainly should check it before repeating it, or (1) cite the source from which you heard it, or (2) state it with a disclaimer indicating you haven't confirmed the veracity of the comment. You look at my posts on here and you'll see that I consistently provide references for my statements of fact. I don't ask folks to just accept a fact I present merely because I presented it.

Uh, dude...

Far be it from me to want to defend a wingnut like iceweasel, but I feel I should out that these words you quoted...

You and anyone can cite supposed facts to me if you want to, but you'd best check them before doing so because I absolutely will check them if you try to toss them my way in support of a claim or argument.

...are actually your words to him from a previous post.

Yep.

 

[EriktheRed]

I saw the debate this morning and it must have been a different debate because Rubio did really well. I don't understand what Carson was doing when they called his name to come out but he was making some statement I didn't get. Rubio articulated his positions very well, I'm not sure what more you needed to see. I don't agree with everything he ever did or said but that's true for everyone else. I think he's the most electable. People want someone that is upbeat and positive to represent their country, not:

Rubio was destroyed....everyone knows it....everywhere

Insiders: Marco Rubio crashed and burned

"Everyone knows it" is fodder for children. If you have a point to make, go ahead, I won't do your research for you.

I think the point is that when a guy gets lambasted for repeating the same talking point over and over and responds by repeating the same talking point over and over, it's not unreasonable to question the thinking behind the opinion that said guy actually did well at the debate.