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.
Reading the replies at many different sources that has seemed to have backfired on her badly. Support him or not people did not seem pleased at the outright blatant attack.
I agree with some of your post, especially about trump, but disagree about Rand and wiretapping. Christie was very disingenuous when he pretended you have to target everybody to find the terrorists. The Israelis protect their airport by profiling and it works for them. I will never be a terrorist but if Christie was president I would be targeted.
The issue is with Paul's stance is say with Boston two years ago. Had we just had to go on facial recognition and not had the intelligence on the brothers, they may have committed more acts of terror. The one was on a terror watchlist already for crissakes. Most people don't end up on those for being a normal citizen.
Quote:
Carson was thoughtful and excellent for his first debate.
Carson looked like a fool up there at times.
Quote:
Trump really did well for being attracked by all sides, although that might backfire. Megan was a jackass and actually said that she had a plan for dealing with trump. WTF? Her questions were stupid and self serving, when we have huge issues facing America . She asked basically why did he call some girls names .really? That's the best question in a national debate when our country is struggling?WTF again.
I think the thing with Trump is one the harsh rhetoric being thrown around by him at Republicans and illegal immigrants, not having a republican background prior to 2008, the Trump Casino failures (which to be fair Atlantic City period is but Trump Casinos failed much earlier than the others) and also not willing to back a Republican nominee that isn't him. These are issues Republicans like myself have wondered about and wondered why he wasn't challenged directly by them.
it was a decent debate, and apparently the fix was in against trump. the powers that be dont want him running for president, so they are going to do what they can to tear him down. now whether they think he can win or not, is another story.
as a result of the debates, i am going to take another look at kaisch though.
FOX and Megyn Kelly were doing what they always do---being bias. The Republicans who are surprised by this just haven't noticed, before, how unbalanced and unfair they really are.
The media is always biased. Liberal media does the same thing. At least republicans have more candidates.
I watched the debate from start to finish. My take away from it seems different than many others. I think Trump did a terrible job. His responses to the questions were often covered up with sly remarks but he really didn't offer any substance. Jeb Bush started slow but towards the end his responses were better, he offered "facts" and he looked Presidential. John Kasich had the best answers and I really gained respect for him. I also liked Marco Rubio.
All in all, Trump was given tough pointed questions while the rest were thrown soft balls. Either way, Trump does not do it for me anymore. My supports behind Rubio & Kasich.
I feel there were hardballs thrown at some whether it was to clarify, deny or double down like it is Vegas, BUT I agree entirely with Trump. I may not agree on who I support vs you (though I wouldn't entirely mind either) but we both know Trump isn't the guy and I hope more wake up and realize this now.
I wasn't judging him by his positions, just by the way he came off. Shrill and combative, when it wasn't necessary to be either one of those things.
Instead of stating his positions in shouting matches, he could have waited for a question and then said what he had to say.
He was clearly trying to raise his profile by attacking Trump and Christie, and it didn't work. I think his poll numbers will bear me out on this.
His one good line -- not wanting his guns and marriage registered in Washington -- was a straight answer to a direct question.
As for the rest, I am not aware that we are sending arms to ISIS right now. Talking about what happened years ago in another context does not answer the question, "How do we defeat them now?"
There is this old saying about not learning from the past.
Quote:
As for catching terrorists who might strike in this country, you have two choices -- profiling, or collecting mass data and then looking to see if there are connections to terrorists overseas.
I support profiling, but since America has decided that that would be "racist," that leaves only mass data collection and looking for patterns. It's a difficult balancing act between national security and constitutional rights.
How well did that work in Boston? You had a guy that was traveling back and forth to known terrorist enclaves, was already a suspect in another murder but gathering billions of completely irrelevant phone calls is the way to catch terrorists?
Good points mk.....
That all depends on where you come down on the issue itself. Those who agree with Christie, who subscribes to the establishment view that a false sense of security is worth infringing on millions of Americans 4th amendment rights, will likely think Christie got the better of that exchange.
However those who agree with Raul, that freedom isn't free, nor is it always the "safest" option, will likely think that Paul got the better of Christie.
Ben Franklin had it right over 200 years ago when he said that "those who would sacrifice liberty to gain safety deserve neither"
I don't think it was what Paul said as much as how he said it. He always comes off like he's talking down to people. I think more people would listen to his message if he came off a little less dismissive.
I see everyone is falling for the best speaker as opposed to who has a record of being able to deliver.
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.
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.
