Don makes a splash; Ron fires back. Meh.
Ben Carson comes off as a flatliner.
Love me some Marco Rubio, personally.
Ben Carson comes off as a flatliner.
Love me some Marco Rubio, personally.
Soooo... Republican debate
- Thread starter gr8indoorsman
- Start date
Some of these guys are so rehearsed they come across as less genuine. Huckabee, Cruz...
Whereas a dude like Rand Paul - where I don't agree with him across the board - at least comes across better!
Looooove me some Marco Rubio. Answers the question directly and can think on his feet. Doesn't come off as rehearsed.
How so?
For one thing, the fact that there are this many differing opinions is a good thing. But some of these dudes are a little over the top.
Gotta give him the credit for saying Radical Islamic Terrorism, but then this asshat questions Gen Dempsey? Come on.
Pretty much what you've already said. Not everyone is terrible. I'm not a fan of Bush or Christie, but I think they aren't crazed morons like Trump (I actually think he's a Democrat trying to sabotage the GOP) or Cruz.
Kaisch was right IMO, the rest could learn from the Don and say what they think more instead of just spouting rehearsed lines. But yeah, Trump and Cruz... Not a fan personally.
I want to like Carson, but I think he'd get creamed in a debate with Hillary or head to head with Bush, Paul, etc.
Carson hasn't been so bad, aside from being a snoozer. Kasich has been OK. I just think it's embarrassing that some of these people are even on the stage... Ooh, they are bringing up Trump donating to Democrats.... Part of my crazy conspiracy theory.
Some of them are smart: Rubio, Walker, Carson... Who aren't sniping at each other and focusing on Hillary.
Wish I liked Walker more. I align with him quite a bit, but something about him...
Wish I liked Walker more. I align with him quite a bit, but something about him...
I'm more of a "I don't want some asshat talking to foreign governments on my behalf" kinda guy.
Something about Walker makes me think he's less intelligent than most others on the stage.... Can't put my finger on it. Ooh, and I don't trust him at all.
More than I want Cruz or Trump to lose it, yes. Sorry I'm not conservative enough for you. Hopefully I can sleep tonight!
Me too, but you don't get those things by blunt force. The Tea Party is full of idiots, and Ted Cruz is example 1A.
I'm not watching but when corporations take years to groom CEO's do you really think those same corporations that run politics today would leave an election up to the whims of voters?
Lobbyist/big gov. you honestly think you'll get anything different no matter who or what party wins?
The difference between the America we think still exists from the one that truly exists is that once government tried to strike a balance between the corporations and citizens, now it protects and enforces the will of the super citizen corporation over the "voting" citizen. It doesn't matter if it's an R or D after the name you'll get the exact same thing, this election stuff is nothing more relevant than professional wrestling, the end result has been decided, the status quo will win, R or D, at least you get to feel you had a choice.
We will never vote our way out of our current issues, the power has shifted too far one way.
Bush, Walker, Kasich, and Rubio have helped themselves IMO. Trump was Trump. Still not sure if his act wears thin or not. Liked Fiorina earlier. And I really liked Carson's answer about Obama/Syria/chemical weapons and lack of response. He basically said have to rebuild military so we have all options on table again.
Should just fast forward to inauguration day of whoever the democratic nominee will be.
She seems strong right now but there are some obvious issues. It seems as if she relaunched and tried to reintroduce herself several times, and all of a sudden she just wants to talk about her mom. Walker, Busch and one other were suddenly even or a point or two above her after being down 10+ in polls in spring/early summer. She does poll well vs Trump.
"Bob Grady, an adviser to Christie, watched from a distance and remarked, “What happens when this guy implodes? Where does that 30 percent go? That’s the game right now.”
Where indeed...assuming an implosion happened. I doubt it gets better or worse for Trump in subsequent debates after that performance so it will be interesting to see how Republican primary voters reacted to it. Does he keep his numbers, or do they start to drop?
Where indeed...assuming an implosion happened. I doubt it gets better or worse for Trump in subsequent debates after that performance so it will be interesting to see how Republican primary voters reacted to it. Does he keep his numbers, or do they start to drop?
Because it isn't. Obama was eliglible (for obvious reasons); McCain was eligible, and Cruz is eligible. He's also a horrible choice to run anything, but the eligibility bar is low.
That is a very good question, especially for those who challenged Obama's natural-born citizen status. For me, although I have never been a birther (i.e., I believe Obama was born in Hawaii), I think it's a legitimate question with respect to Cruz.
Yes, the current Immigration and Nationality Act defines Cruz as a natural-born citizen because his mother was an American citizen when he was born, in my opinion the question must be answered in terms of the meaning of "natural-born citizen" at the time of the Constitution. A later statute cannot effectively amend the Constitution--particularly with respect to something that is not legitimately open to subjective debate. And lest anyone think I am a strict constructionist, I also think this is quite different than, say, the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." Besides, we're also not talking about a limitation on a power of the government; but rather a qualification for President.
Imagine this scenario: Article II, Section 1, requires that the President must "have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." If Congress pass a law stating that anyone who is present in the United States for more than 10 days of any calendar year, could that law be used to qualify someone to be President if, although born in the U.S., is only in the U.S. for 2 weeks each year while vacationing at their beach house in Florida?
Or, what if Donald Trump was born on February 29 of a leap year and Congress, fearing that Trump might actually win, passes a law stating that a person's age is to be calculated based on the actual number of birthdays they have had (or something like that)--effectively reducing Trump's "age" by 1/4 and making him ineligible to be President? Would that pass muster?
Now, I'm not sure what "natural-born citizen" meant at the time of the Constitution, particularly to someone like Cruz who was born in a foreign country to an American mother and a foreign-citizen father. But, I do think it's a legitimate question to be asking--yet, no one seems to be doing so.
If Cruz isn't eligible, the McCain being born in Panama was arguably not. The requirements you list in Article II are clear, and pretty hard to interpret more than one way...you are either 35 or you aren't, you've been here 14 years or you haven't. Your leap year example I think would be clearly in violation of the Constitution.
NBC is not clear at all. It isn't clear what it meant back then, and thus it isn't clear what it is now. But we seem to have settled on having at least one of your parents be an American citizen. And I don't really see future courts, or at least not the Supremes weighing in on this at all...they'll leave it to the other two branches to figure it out (unless I suppose they are really really not a NBC...say Ahnold).
