Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definition of Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Last night did not present as a debate since the same topic was not presented to each candidate; it should have been labeled "Candidates' Views". Or, in the case of Megyn Kelly: "How to bash a candidate you don't like".
In the future, my preference is to have each candidate presented with the same topic/question; and each candidate allowed to express his/her views and opinions. The way it played out last evening, only one or two candidates were allowed to speak on the same topic.
This was not a debate and I agree with your approach.
Trump's prior public remarks about women came back to haunt him.
As Stossel would say, "give me a break" of course they showed some bias last night, aren't all news people biased in one way or the other, but I guess for you, being biased to the left is acceptable.
I thought it was a very interesting approach.
The questions were pointed and the candidates actually had to do something they rarely do: give uncanned answers.
People claim they want less political correctness - well, here it was.
Dropped Fox due to disliking many on there and Megan definitely one of them. Too bad as there are a couple who at good but so argumentive that it spoils it for me.
Obama is the most mean spirited politician I've seen in my lifetime and republicans in the name of being statesman like was being walked all over. Obama brought the office down to the gutter. It's about time Republicans start getting mean spirited.
I don't. I stopped watching Fox News during the 2012 primary season because they were measuring the White House drapes for Romney from the get-go. I didn't "come back" for months. You know they are in the tank for a particular candidate less by what the Fox News hosts say and more by who the analysts are they have on their shows who have either worked for a particular candidate in the past, bundled money for a particular candidate, lived in the state of a particular candidate, have a family member who works for a particular candidate, etc. Sometimes they are overtly for a candidate but most of the time it's the negative things they say/find about other candidates (usually the ones ahead of their boy) and not about their boy as opposed to rooting for their own guy. This year the most obvious one is Dana Perino who employs that tactic. She comes off all sweet but listen to her. She's deadly. When The Five comes on tonight or she's guesting on some other show, she won't shake her pom poms for Jeb. Instead she'll find something wrong with everyone else but she'll say it in her "aw shucks" way.
1. Marco Rubio - Did very well, and was the most presidental on the stage
2. Chris Christie - Defended his awful track record in a suprisingly good manner.
3. John Kasich - Responses were good, but he repeated himself too much.
4. Rand Paul - Made many good points, but he was too focused on he consitution.
5. Mike Huckabee - Said a couple of smart things, but didn't look presidental
6. Ben Carson - Not a good speaker, but ended up looking like a good guy
7. Ted Cruz - Looked like he was trying to connect to God during the whole debate.
8. Jeb Bush - Didn't sound like a winning candidate, and kind of vanished in the debate.
9. Scott Walker - His speeches were mediocore, sounded dorky.
10. Donald Trump - A joke, his responses made no sense, but without him the debate would have been boring.
My feeling is that Marco Rubio won the debate. Chris Christie and John Kasich improved their appeal. And Jeb Bush and Scott Walker lost the debate. Donald Trump didn't have anything to lose, but he was the circus freaks of the debate.
The fact that not one of the people on stage called out Trump on his treatment of Kelly, pretty much says it all. They are spineless and completely afraid of the Thumper.
In all fairness, I think the strongest performers are John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
Sen. Rand Paul did not shy away from spotlight, he had to challenge Donald Trump to compete for airtime, he did. That was a brilliant move. Fox clearly hated Paul more than they hated Donald Trump. I thought Paul's performance was decent. This is his strategy, for Trump supporters out there, don't take this personally. Paul had to stand out by going after Trump. It is what it is.
Paul vs Chris Christie, Paul said, " I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights. I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights." Although FOX ONLY gave him 5:28 minutes (the least airtime), he was brilliant. America is never ready for a Libertarian. This is the fact.
I thought Trump did well last night. He used laws to corporate advantage. What is wrong with it? I don't like Fox News' bullying tactics. I gave Trump B- for his performance.
I still don't like Marco Rubio, what a dull character. He reminds me of teacher's pet everybody hated in high school. My first choice is still Rand Paul, but he is not electable.
John Kasich is a classy politician, a moderate Republican who sounds like a Democrat a lot of times.
If that was her only beef with Trump she would have likely scored points. It was obvious that her only goal was to make Trump look bad. That's not her job.
Yes, it was her job to make Trump look bad. FOX is a tool of the Republican party. When you understand that, everything FOX does makes sense. The debate was set up to highlight the party favorites and take Trump down a peg or two. Plain and simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.