CDZ Debate

[Iceweasel]

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.

He did do well. He overused the line but had much more to say than that during the 90 minutes or so. Reducing him to that comment is unfair.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

TY for pointing out the error.

I have now corrected the attribution of the remarks as well as the quoting the remarks to which my comments pertained.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

I thought the "Obama knows what he's doing" remark was good the first time he uttered it. I think he should have built upon it rather than reiterating it, which in doing, Mr. Rubio made himself hackneyed before the debate was over and he made himself look like a "Suzie One Note" eighth grader. Perhaps he should have memorized a whole paragraph or two instead of just one or two sentences? LOL

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

He did do well. He overused the line but had much more to say than that during the 90 minutes or so. Reducing him to that comment is unfair.

Well, it's a pretty serious charge that the POTUS is deliberately undermining the country, whether through foreign or domestic policy. What has he said to back that charge up besides repeating it?

 

[SingleVoyce]

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?

Rubio used the "25 second sound bite" about Obama knowing what he was doing three times in answer to questions about his experience and never actually answered the questions. It was obviously a scripted spiel that he or his advisors had come up with and it sounded that way. After Christie called him on it and he started into it again, the audience was booing him. He also got booed for taking a cheap shot at Christie. I don't see how anyone could look at this objectively and call it a good performance for Rubio. He did make a few good points later on but, after starting so poorly, it wasn't nearly enough.