Fox News Republican Debate (Top 10)

[Black Diamond]

I feel like this could make or break Trump.

Why?

Because the other nine candidates will be gunning for him.

[Perianne]

I feel like this could make or break Trump.

Why?

Because the other nine candidates will be gunning for him.

I have little interest in anyone now except Fiorina. I will be interested in seeing how Trump does.

[Perianne]

Watching the debate.

Rand Paul - jerk
Megyn Kelly showing her true colors. Tacky question to Trump.

[Perianne]

The timer sounds like a doorbell and is making my dogs bark.

Jeb continues his support of legalizing illegals.

[Perianne]

Fox News continues the attack on Trump.

[Perianne]

Chris Wallace trying to get Kasich to attack Trump. This is a bad strategy by Fox.

Now Wallace is siccing Rubio on Trump.

[Perianne]

Questions to Walker about his flip-flopping on amnesty for illegals.

[Perianne]

Rand Paul - more jerky behavior.

[Perianne]

Dr. Carson shines.

[Perianne]

Fox continues to attack Trump.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Fox continues to attack Trump.

No matter how well Trump does the Press will criticize and over-hype any error not matter how small.
They will make up false context and add to his answers, clip comments, take comments out of context--in short use every dirty trick in the book.
You know why?
The bastards fear him!!!!!! The slimy, asslicking sum biatches quake in their boots and hide under their slime filed beds whee he is concerned.. ffing maggots the entire lot of them...
They want scum like them in charge, more pure shit like the obama.. -Tyr

[LongTermGuy]

Fox continues to attack Trump.


Check Yahoo...which is very left leaning....check the comments on the `Megyn Kelly and Pigs` story...

87% of the people are pissed....with the bating of Trump by the kelly question...comment after comment....Many asking for her to be fired!!!..Dont believe me...check below...Trumps will be on hannity now...this will be good!

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/YrcY9R.9ohMQzMwaoP0fTA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Megyn_Kelly_drops_an_anvil-217dc36bd6117be6faf546125ed850a1`

MY GOD! Kely turned Into a liberal!!!


What a stupid question from Megyn....good grief!

And Trump handled it beautifully ....Rosie is a Pig!...and "political Correctness) is a cancer to this country....Trump did good...Excellent in his response `

Megyn Kelly drops an anvil on Donald Trump: You've called women you don't like, 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' and 'slobs



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/megyn-kelly-drops-anvil-donald-011942231.html?bcmt=1438916844268-00232737-804c-4907-bcec-7ded1f823b40_00002b000000000000000000000000-8a0430e1-de0c-4d54-ac86-8c02b3a8a280&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container

[LongTermGuy]

No matter how well Trump does the Press will criticize and over-hype any error not matter how small.
They will make up false context and add to his answers, clip comments, take comments out of context--in short use every dirty trick in the book.
You know why?
The bastards fear him!!!!!! The slimy, asslicking sum biatches quake in their boots and hide under their slime filed beds whee he is concerned.. ffing maggots the entire lot of them...
They want scum like them in charge, more pure shit like the obama.. -Tyr



Fox just handed Trump more poll points....right from the start with the first question it looked like a smear campaign against Trump...immediately followed up by Rand Paul's attack...Trump just scored more points...

Love it ...Trump 2016!:salute::laugh:

[Perianne]

I am neither for nor against Trump at this point. But I now view Megyn as a bitch. Fox was asking him questions to make him look bad. Where was "fair and balanced"? Fox had an agenda, no doubt.

As for my senator, Rand Paul, he showed himself to be an impudent jerk.

[Solo]

Megan kelly is interested in only one thing "RATINGS"

Debates republican or democrat are always biased one way or another. The real big conservative cash the Koch bros and Bush backers want trump to go away and they will do whatever it takes to disparage him.

Im not rooting for him bigtime

[LongTermGuy]

I am neither for nor against Trump at this point. But I now view Megyn as a bitch. Fox was asking him questions to make him look bad. Where was "fair and balanced"? Fox had an agenda, no doubt.

As for my senator, Rand Paul, he showed himself to be an impudent jerk.


​Megyn looked bad ..doing this...apparently many...Many agree on most of the comment news stories...They want blood for her stupidity...

Check this out...


~ "Donald Trump is winning the Google primary...The verdict of the first Republican presidential debate is in, and it is this: America is Googling Donald Trump. They were Googling Donald Trump before the debate, and they were definitely Googling him after the debate.

Scott Walker used to have a hometown advantage in Wisconsin (which, somewhat inexplicably, was still Googling him almost five years after he was first elected)." ~


Hope 5 seconds ago
0
1

I just lost my respect for Megan. She started off by turning the debate into a mockery. Shame on her!



More

Ralph 44 seconds ago
0
1

I feel sorry for Megyn Kelly husband. I bet as he finds his own fame, he like before him will be caught screwing the nanny like old Affleck. Nobody will blame him because it must be horrible to be married to a woman who is on steroids...


Goes on and on....

[LongTermGuy]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ELOzpvb1RiDBXBeHMjeUpg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjQwO2g9MzYw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-us/homerun/etonline.tv/ee40df04787fe9de6551f774fce00091


~ "Hey....She`s a Pig...so what" ~

[Solo]

​Megyn looked bad ..doing this...apparently many...Many agree on most of the comment news stories...They want blood for her stupidity...

Check this out...


~ "Donald Trump is winning the Google primary...The verdict of the first Republican presidential debate is in, and it is this: America is Googling Donald Trump. They were Googling Donald Trump before the debate, and they were definitely Googling him after the debate.

Scott Walker used to have a hometown advantage in Wisconsin (which, somewhat inexplicably, was still Googling him almost five years after he was first elected)." ~


Hope 5 seconds ago
0
1

I just lost my respect for Megan. She started off by turning the debate into a mockery. Shame on her!



More

Ralph 44 seconds ago
0
1

I feel sorry for Megyn Kelly husband. I bet as he finds his own fame, he like before him will be caught screwing the nanny like old Affleck. Nobody will blame him because it must be horrible to be married to a woman who is on steroids...


Goes on and on....







I used to like her alot before she got this show, now she acts like shes been spoiled and pampered all her life and was allowed to throw temper tamtrums whenever she wanted

[Perianne]

Megan kelly is interested in only one thing "RATINGS"

Debates republican or democrat are always biased one way or another. The real big conservative cash the Koch bros and Bush backers want trump to go away and they will do whatever it takes to disparage him.

Im not rooting for him bigtime

Solo, you're rooting for him or NOT rooting for him bigtime? Or did you mean "now"?

[Jeff]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ELOzpvb1RiDBXBeHMjeUpg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjQwO2g9MzYw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-us/homerun/etonline.tv/ee40df04787fe9de6551f774fce00091


~ "Hey....She`s a Pig...so what" ~




She has always been a pig and always will be, she is a liar and a Hypocrite, Kudus to Trump for telling it like it is !!! :thumb:

[Kathianne]

The fates that try to stymie my political geekiness conspired to bring difficulties. First, I knew I couldn't watch the first debates because of work. Arrrggg!

I was glad to see reports that Carly did so well.

After a year, still haven't adjusted to the time differences here in AZ. Hurried home, changed clothes, checked news on computer for a few minutes, made a sammie and settled down to watch. Arrrggg, another hour to go. Had to listen to O'Reilly and fell asleep and missed the first hour of debate.

Checked listings, going to be a repeat at 10 AZ time. Cool. Watched the end of debate, thought Carson was awesome. Rubio did very well too.

Started to listen to postgame, then figured I'd see what was up here and at news sites. Made some coffee, getting ready to watch the whole thing, power went out. Seriously out-for all but closing statements of candidates, which I'd already seen.

I was planning on watching and talking with my friend during the debates, something we've done every election in person for the past 20 years. Alas, her phone went out!

Seriously, maybe I should listen to the fates?

[bullypulpit]

I know y'all really don't care, but here's the breakdown of the first GOP 'debate' last night from FactCheck.org

FactChecking the GOP Debate, Late Edition (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/)
And not a single world from any of these poseurs about the growing wealth gap, climate change, infrastructure or any other issue if real importance to the country.

[red state]

Be careful for those who jump fences, sit on them and talk this talk or that while also changing their mind (seemingly with the wind). I'm not crazy about fiorina, but she nailed it on her comment about knowing what other things "certain candidates" may change on.......or support....or whom they support.

I like much of what has been said from a few candidates and agree that their should be less of them with more (ALL) of them attacking HELLary but I'm not falling for talk and Fox truly should be ashamed the way they seem to always support the WRONG candidate.

To my friends here, and others, just be careful.....that's all I'm saying.

[Drummond]

Not exactly surprisingly, I didn't see the debate.

BBC News gave it cursory coverage, though, by reporting their overall assessment of it. According to them, no one candidate came out as a 'winner'.

Do you agree with that ? Or, do you think one shone over the others ?

In fact .. as I type right now, a Radio 4 news report is commenting. They refer to Donald Trump as the 'outspoken' candidate, and played a clip (a couple of sentences). Switched now to a consideration of Democratic positions (rather quickly) ... and playing a Bill Clinton speech ....

.. going on to comment on Beau Biden's death, and someone commiserating ... now commenting on Hillary Clinton's 'runaway success' in her own Party .. someone saying 'Hillary Clinton cannot be beaten' in the Dem equivalent contest.

A quick comment on Biden's plagiarism of a Neil Kinnock speech ...

... and the report ends. I missed some of it.

However ... in true BBC style, when reporting on the GOP debate, the BBC managed to spend a good 80 percent of it talking about the Democratic Party ....

[Drummond]

I know y'all really don't care, but here's the breakdown of the first GOP 'debate' last night from FactCheck.org

FactChecking the GOP Debate, Late Edition (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/)


And not a single world from any of these poseurs about the growing wealth gap, climate change, infrastructure or any other issue if real importance to the country.

You seriously want to claim that candidates speaking in the GOP debate didn't discuss issues important in America today ???

I didn't see the debate. But really, Bullypulpit, if you're going to indulge in Leftie propagandising, you need to make it at least SOUND halfway likely !!!

But to be realistic, I see your difficulty. Such a task can't be at all easy .... :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

I feel like this could make or break Trump.

Why?

Because the other nine candidates will be gunning for him.

He didn't do himself any favors. Ben Carson came our on top, IMO. Rubio and Bush were next. Trump got snotty with Megyn Kelly and never had an answer. Rand Paul and Christie shot themselves in the ass bickering.

[LongTermGuy]

"The debate was utterly dominated by Trump. In an "unexpected twist"....the moderators chosen by Fox News "went after him" with everything they had, while his actual opponents seemed scared to engage him one-on-one. (Bush, trying to preserve his dignity, ultimately wilted in the glare of Trump's supernova.) Trump, unconstrained by diplomatic etiquette and human decency, proved that he is the apotheosis of the conservative tough guy, easily elbowing out the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. ("You're having a hard time tonight," he told Rand Paul, in just one instance of him flattening a rival.)
The moderators challenged him on his threat to make a third-party run (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570552/gop-debate-donald-trump-refuses-rule-outthirdparty-run), his vulgar remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570556/donald-trump-defends-sexist-remarks-by-dinging-rosie-odonnell) against women, his xenophobic remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570554/donald-trump-pledges-build-big-beautiful-door-wall-plans-build-mexican-border) about immigrants, his past support for single-payer health care, his past support for abortion, his business problems (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570562/donald-trump-gop-debate-made-lot-money-atlantic-city) — **to no avail.**
Trump responded with quips that were designed to be turned into headlines — or more aptly, tweets — and brushed off the critiques with threats ("I've been very nice to you, although I could probably not be"), boasts ("I made a lot of money in Atlantic City"), and a half-hearted soliloquy about his evolution on abortion that sounded like a parody of a pro-life conversion story. After the debate, he released the following statement (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/629491755570868224/photo/1): "I am not a debater, but I am a winner. If I am elected I will make this country a total winner."
******************************
>>>> They new call: Kelly must Go!

Trump 2016!

[Gunny]

"The debate was utterly dominated by Trump. In an "unexpected twist"....the moderators chosen by Fox News "went after him" with everything they had, while his actual opponents seemed scared to engage him one-on-one. (Bush, trying to preserve his dignity, ultimately wilted in the glare of Trump's supernova.) Trump, unconstrained by diplomatic etiquette and human decency, proved that he is the apotheosis of the conservative tough guy, easily elbowing out the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. ("You're having a hard time tonight," he told Rand Paul, in just one instance of him flattening a rival.)
The moderators challenged him on his threat to make a third-party run (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570552/gop-debate-donald-trump-refuses-rule-outthirdparty-run), his vulgar remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570556/donald-trump-defends-sexist-remarks-by-dinging-rosie-odonnell) against women, his xenophobic remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570554/donald-trump-pledges-build-big-beautiful-door-wall-plans-build-mexican-border) about immigrants, his past support for single-payer health care, his past support for abortion, his business problems (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570562/donald-trump-gop-debate-made-lot-money-atlantic-city) — **to no avail.**
Trump responded with quips that were designed to be turned into headlines — or more aptly, tweets — and brushed off the critiques with threats ("I've been very nice to you, although I could probably not be"), boasts ("I made a lot of money in Atlantic City"), and a half-hearted soliloquy about his evolution on abortion that sounded like a parody of a pro-life conversion story. After the debate, he released the following statement (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/629491755570868224/photo/1): "I am not a debater, but I am a winner. If I am elected I will make this country a total winner."
******************************
>>>> They new call: Kelly must Go!

Trump 2016!

I disagree. Trump's a dick.

There's nbo way that man and his temper needs to be President of this country.

[NightTrain]

I missed the live airing, but Trump did fairly well in the clips I've seen so far.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404595126001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[NightTrain]

Walker did a good job explaining a flip-flop, something that's pretty hard to do.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404556953001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[Drummond]

"The debate was utterly dominated by Trump. In an "unexpected twist"....the moderators chosen by Fox News "went after him" with everything they had, while his actual opponents seemed scared to engage him one-on-one. (Bush, trying to preserve his dignity, ultimately wilted in the glare of Trump's supernova.) Trump, unconstrained by diplomatic etiquette and human decency, proved that he is the apotheosis of the conservative tough guy, easily elbowing out the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. ("You're having a hard time tonight," he told Rand Paul, in just one instance of him flattening a rival.)
The moderators challenged him on his threat to make a third-party run (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570552/gop-debate-donald-trump-refuses-rule-outthirdparty-run), his vulgar remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570556/donald-trump-defends-sexist-remarks-by-dinging-rosie-odonnell) against women, his xenophobic remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570554/donald-trump-pledges-build-big-beautiful-door-wall-plans-build-mexican-border) about immigrants, his past support for single-payer health care, his past support for abortion, his business problems (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570562/donald-trump-gop-debate-made-lot-money-atlantic-city) — **to no avail.**
Trump responded with quips that were designed to be turned into headlines — or more aptly, tweets — and brushed off the critiques with threats ("I've been very nice to you, although I could probably not be"), boasts ("I made a lot of money in Atlantic City"), and a half-hearted soliloquy about his evolution on abortion that sounded like a parody of a pro-life conversion story. After the debate, he released the following statement (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/629491755570868224/photo/1): "I am not a debater, but I am a winner. If I am elected I will make this country a total winner."
******************************
>>>> They new call: Kelly must Go!

Trump 2016!

Well -- I'm dependent on reports like this one to get an idea of what happened. BUT .. Trump, to me, sounds like a welcome breath of fresh air. Also, just what the GOP, and the wider Presidential race, needs to properly galvanise opinion and make people realise what's really needed in America today.

Very good !!

If Trump got 'snotty' with Megyn Kelly, from reports I've seen, she set herself up for it.

My opinion ... I'm not sure if Trump is the ideal candidate to win, or not. But he's at least highly necessary to the process of decent choice, in my opinion. If he can get people thinking, if he can WAKE PEOPLE UP and put fire in the contest, then I welcome it.

[Gunny]

I missed the live airing, but Trump did fairly well in the clips I've seen so far.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404595126001&w=466&h=263"></script><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4404595126001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=about%3A%2F%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="263" width="466"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com (http://video.foxnews.com)</noscript>

He didn't do well. He lost his temper. And yeah, Fox was goading not just him but others as well. Rubio, Bush and Carson came off the best. IMO, Rubio stole the show.

[namvet]

http://i62.tinypic.com/30izy51.jpg

Wallace asked for it so Trump kicked his nuts. twice. the others, good script writing but i wouldn't piss on em to put out the fire

[Kathianne]

He didn't do well. He lost his temper. And yeah, Fox was goading not just him but others as well. Rubio, Bush and Carson came off the best. IMO, Rubio stole the show.

For the reasons explained, I've only seen clips too. If anyone finds a repeat of the whole thing, (I'm hoping FOX puts it up on website or repeats over the weekend), let me know.

From what I've seen and read, Rubio won, Carson a close second. Cruz had some very good moments.

[Gunny]

http://i62.tinypic.com/30izy51.jpg

Wallace asked for it so Trump kicked his nuts. twice. the others, good script writing but i wouldn't piss on em to put out the fire

How do you really feel?:laugh:

[Drummond]

I disagree. Trump's a dick.

There's nbo way that man and his temper needs to be President of this country.

A good point, undoubtedly.

That said .. if he did make it to become President, he'd not exactly be on his own. Government is a collaborative exercise. He'd have advisors, he'd have staff, he'd have his own VP .. all to rein him in.

Having a President in that position, someone who won't compromise on good, rock-solid Conservative principles .. sounds just great to me. And even if he doesn't win, he might just give the remaining race to the top enough fire, and enough to think about, to still be a great force for Conservative good !!

My opinion is that WHOEVER wins out, the chief objective is to get Obama and his mob kicked out of power. All that follows is icing on the cake. BUT, that only considers more immediate concerns. In the longer term, in my humble but Conservative view, the GOP has got to reform. If Trump can get enough heat going in this process, simultaneous to the timing of the race to power ... well, sounds ideal to me !!!

[Gunny]

For the reasons explained, I've only seen clips too. If anyone finds a repeat of the whole thing, (I'm hoping FOX puts it up on website or repeats over the weekend), let me know.

From what I've seen and read, Rubio won, Carson a close second. Cruz had some very good moments.

I was bored. I watched the whole thing. They all had one thing in common ... they hate the DC cartel. Rubio and Cruz were shit hot. Carson just made fun of everyone. Bush was okay just a tad too PC for me. And apparently Fiarino stole the early show.

Trump lost his temper at Megyn Kelly. That's no one to have his finger on a nuke.

[Gunny]

"The debate was utterly dominated by Trump. In an "unexpected twist"....the moderators chosen by Fox News "went after him" with everything they had, while his actual opponents seemed scared to engage him one-on-one. (Bush, trying to preserve his dignity, ultimately wilted in the glare of Trump's supernova.) Trump, unconstrained by diplomatic etiquette and human decency, proved that he is the apotheosis of the conservative tough guy, easily elbowing out the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. ("You're having a hard time tonight," he told Rand Paul, in just one instance of him flattening a rival.)
The moderators challenged him on his threat to make a third-party run (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570552/gop-debate-donald-trump-refuses-rule-outthirdparty-run), his vulgar remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570556/donald-trump-defends-sexist-remarks-by-dinging-rosie-odonnell) against women, his xenophobic remarks (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570554/donald-trump-pledges-build-big-beautiful-door-wall-plans-build-mexican-border) about immigrants, his past support for single-payer health care, his past support for abortion, his business problems (http://theweek.com/speedreads/570562/donald-trump-gop-debate-made-lot-money-atlantic-city) — **to no avail.**
Trump responded with quips that were designed to be turned into headlines — or more aptly, tweets — and brushed off the critiques with threats ("I've been very nice to you, although I could probably not be"), boasts ("I made a lot of money in Atlantic City"), and a half-hearted soliloquy about his evolution on abortion that sounded like a parody of a pro-life conversion story. After the debate, he released the following statement (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/629491755570868224/photo/1): "I am not a debater, but I am a winner. If I am elected I will make this country a total winner."
******************************
>>>> They new call: Kelly must Go!

Trump 2016!

He didn't dominate shit except showing his weakness.

[namvet]

For the reasons explained, I've only seen clips too. If anyone finds a repeat of the whole thing, (I'm hoping FOX puts it up on website or repeats over the weekend), let me know.

From what I've seen and read, Rubio won, Carson a close second. Cruz had some very good moments.

part 1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAaTEwkAyuQ


part 2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slmcWoL2k_A

[Gunny]

For the reasons explained, I've only seen clips too. If anyone finds a repeat of the whole thing, (I'm hoping FOX puts it up on website or repeats over the weekend), let me know.

From what I've seen and read, Rubio won, Carson a close second. Cruz had some very good moments.

I think it's on social media. Facebook or twitter?

[NightTrain]

I think Trump is now taking the race seriously.

I like what he had to say when Hannity interviewed him after the debate, particularly when they discussed why he gave money to Hellary :

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404942265001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

Anyone else noticed his more considered words instead of going for shock value? I think his impressive surge in the polls after his fiery statements changed his goals from media exposure & kickstarting hard conversations to actually running for office.

And it's a smart move on his part to refuse to commit to pledging his support, because he knows there are many in the GOP that would attempt to sideline him. By not doing so, he's making sure he's getting a fair shake in the primary or another Ross Perot goat-rodeo torpedoing of the 2016 election will happen. Everyone knows that an Independent bid has a snowball's chance in hell to win, but is devastating to the closest-aligned party which is certainly the GOP in this case.

I also like the way he explained that the millions pouring into the candidate's coffers isn't charity, and that the donors are expecting something for their money. I think John Q. Public forgets this obvious truth.

[Drummond]

Here's a thought.

Imagine that, somehow, terrorist scum have managed to perpetrate another, successful, 9/11 attack on mainland America.

Donald Trump is President.

Who, here, would think he was the right man, in the right position, at the right time ? How many of you would be cheering his reaction to the attack, and the response he ordered from it ?

[namvet]

How do you really feel?:laugh:

SOS vote for me and you'll never hear from me again

[Gunny]

I think Trump is now taking the race seriously.

I like what he had to say when Hannity interviewed him after the debate, particularly when they discussed why he gave money to Hellary :

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404942265001&w=466&h=263"></script><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4404942265001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=about%3A%2F%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="263" width="466"></iframe><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4404942265001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=about%3A%2F%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="263" width="466"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com (http://video.foxnews.com)</noscript>

Anyone else noticed his more considered words instead of going for shock value? I think his impressive surge in the polls after his fiery statements changed his goals from media exposure & kickstarting hard conversations to actually running for office.

And it's a smart move on his part to refuse to commit to pledging his support, because he knows there are many in the GOP that would attempt to sideline him. By not doing so, he's making sure he's getting a fair shake in the primary or another Ross Perot goat-rodeo torpedoing of the 2016 election will happen. Everyone knows that an Independent bid has a snowball's chance in hell to win, but is devastating to the closest-aligned party which is certainly the GOP in this case.

I also like the way he explained that the millions pouring into the candidate's coffers isn't charity, and that the donors are expecting something for their money. I think John Q. Public forgets this obvious truth.

He is another Ross Perot.

That cost us 8 years of Bill Clinton. Try having that wasteoid as your CinC.

[Kathianne]

How geeky am I? Just found a transcript of the debate:

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

[Drummond]

How geeky am I? Just found a transcript of the debate:

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/:clap::clap::clap:

Short of a recording of video, just what I needed. Grateful thanks !

[namvet]

Here's a thought.

Imagine that, somehow, terrorist scum have managed to perpetrate another, successful, 9/11 attack on mainland America.

Donald Trump is President.

Who, here, would think he was the right man, in the right position, at the right time ? How many of you would be cheering his reaction to the attack, and the response he ordered from it ?

Drummond you don't have to imagine. the bastards are already here. your Q is hypothetical but in reality the craps are NOT gonna let Bozo respond to any form of violence. if anything trump's response IMO is kill first debate later. I want a killer

[Gunny]

How geeky am I? Just found a transcript of the debate:

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

Was there any doubt you're a geek?:laugh:

[NightTrain]

He is another Ross Perot.

Not at this point. And he clearly said that as long as he's treated fairly, that won't happen. I think that's reasonable.


That cost us 8 years of Bill Clinton. Try having that wasteoid as your CinC.

Yeah, all of my military friends were not very impressed with Slick Willy.

However, I think the negative views by our military toward our current CinC is much, much worse. And deserved.

[Gunny]

Drummond you don't have to imagine. the bastards are already here. your Q is hypothetical but in reality the craps are NOT gonna let Bozo respond to any form of violence. if anything trump's response IMO is kill first debate later. I want a killer

I want someone with a brain. Trump ain't it.

[NightTrain]

http://i62.tinypic.com/30izy51.jpg

Wallace asked for it so Trump kicked his nuts. twice. the others, good script writing but i wouldn't piss on em to put out the fire

Wallace has always had an infuriatingly smug way about him, and he uses that to his advantage to get under their skin on camera. I can easily see why interviewees of his loathe him.

[Kathianne]

Not at this point. And he clearly said that as long as he's treated fairly, that won't happen. I think that's reasonable.



Yeah, all of my military friends were not very impressed with Slick Willy.

However, I think the negative views by our military toward our current CinC is much, much worse. And deserved.
Well until last night:
TRUMP: I cannot say. I have to respect the person that, if it’s not me, the person that wins, if I do win, and I’m leading by quite a bit, that’s what I want to do. I can totally make that pledge. If I’m the nominee, I will pledge I will not run as an independent. But — and I am discussing it with everybody, but I’m, you know, talking about a lot of leverage. We want to win, and we will win. But I want to win as the Republican. I want to run as the Republican nominee.

That was a change, no? That's not 'being treated with respect', which of course really was a big enough hole for him to drive through, since he was long judge of being treated with respect.

[NightTrain]

Here's a thought.

Imagine that, somehow, terrorist scum have managed to perpetrate another, successful, 9/11 attack on mainland America.

Donald Trump is President.

Who, here, would think he was the right man, in the right position, at the right time ? How many of you would be cheering his reaction to the attack, and the response he ordered from it ?


I think he'd be aggressive in taking care of business finding and killing the bastards, and that's what I want.

I also think he'd come right out and say "muslim terrorists did this" instead of the usual bullshit labeling it "workplace violence" or some other PC term.

Part of our problem here in the USA is that we don't have a leader that will call a spade a spade. Anyone who doesn't think Trump will call them like he sees them hasn't been paying attention.

[Drummond]

Drummond you don't have to imagine. the bastards are already here. your Q is hypothetical but in reality the craps are NOT gonna let Bozo respond to any form of violence. if anything trump's response IMO is kill first debate later. I want a killer:clap::clap::clap::clap:

There's no way I'm going to argue against any of this. Well said, Sir !

[NightTrain]

Well until last night:

That was a change, no? That's not 'being treated with respect', which of course really was a big enough hole for him to drive through, since he was long judge of being treated with respect.


Relevance starts at 2:00.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404942265001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[namvet]

I want someone with a brain. Trump ain't it.

me to. there were none there last night

[namvet]

BTY we have NO C-N-C and haven't going on 8 years now.

[Drummond]

I want someone with a brain. Trump ain't it.

Undoubtedly, he shoots from the hip.

Let's say your observation has validity. Even so, Trump, as President, will have his advisors. He'll have experts on hand to guide him every step of the way, in his thinking processes ! It'd be proactive, so even if Trump says something 'stupid', it can be processed in its own terms by people fully qualified to do it.

What I'd want to see in the Oval Office is someone in charge who has the right instincts, and can lead with those instincts being a force to galvanise in the right, basically correct direction. If such leadership needs fine-tuning with expert input, it'll happen.

So .. valid observation, or not ... there'll be compensations in place to correct matters.

Consider Obama. Obviously intelligent. BUT, with a treasonous agenda ! There's no way on this earth you could argue that he had the 'right instincts' ... nothing could be further from the truth.

Trump would be WAY better, even if all you think about him is completely true. A strong patriot, utterly committed to doing his utmost to make America a proud and great country, not only nominally so, but measurably so, by being true to proper principles !!!

[Max R.]

I want someone with a brain. Trump ain't it.Trump loves being the center of attention and he's in love with himself. At the moment he's very entertaining and energizing what is going to be one very loooong campaign. We're still a year away from the convention and about 15 months to the election. We could use some entertainment!

That said, I strongly doubt Trump wants to tie himself down to the Oval Office. He can't get away with have the shit he says or does if he takes an oath of office.

[Drummond]

Relevance starts at <iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4404942265001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fshowthread .php" width="466" height="263" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Wow.

As a Brit, and therefore a relative outsider, I'm probably not equipped to pick up on some of the political nuances that have their own importance in American politics. But, all I can say with certainty from this is .. that the more I see of Trump, the more impressed I become.

Yes. He DOES shoot from the hip. Yes, MAYBE, some remarks need greater depth and consideration. Even despite that .... he has fire, he totally has the right instincts. And he's uncompromisingly honest.

With advisors on hand, as and when needed .... I think he'd become one of the best Presidents you could ever wish to have. What you don't need is a wimp in Office, or an equivocator, nor yet a preening narcissist. You won't get any of that from Trump, obviously.

Very impressive. To borrow from Trump ... 'a class act'.

By comparison, David Cameron is pathetic ...

Final thought in this post: I suspect it'd be impossible to have a better President in charge, in the aftermath of any future '9/11'. What you WON'T get from Trump is anyone who'd give terrorists a millimetre of latitude, much less much-publicised troop withdrawals !!! I'd expect nothing less than a new War on Terror, this time, an UNRELENTING war. Which is exactly as it always should have been.

P.S ... these video clips keep duplicating on me !! No idea why -- sorry ---

[Kathianne]

I've tried looking for campaign advisers for Trump, only find news stories about 2 attorneys, that actually were part of corporation-supposedly not campaign. They were both fired.

What specifically has Trump put forward to dealing with the problems he so eloquently points out? He'd 'make' Mexico pay for the fence! When O'Reilly asked for some specifics, he said 'he knew how.'

When pressed for his 'proof' that Mexico was sending their worst, he said 'a border patrol worker' told him so.

I have never said I found Cruz my 'best choice' but after just a cursory skim through the transcript, I came across this answer-which demonstrates how paying attention to the issues makes one come off as at least knowledgeable.

He's not alone, all but Trump eventually put forward their ideas on at least one topic. There was evidence of prior research and understanding of the issue.

As Drummond has pointed out, presidents have many sources for information and expertise, does Trump exhibit any tendency more than Obama to listening to others? To trusting their judgement? To accepting their reports or analysis?:


QUESTION: My question is, how would the candidates stop the treacherous actions of ISIS — ISIL and its growing influence in the U.S., if they were to become president?

(END VIDEO CLIP) KELLY: Senator Cruz, I wanna talk to you about this, because many of the Facebook users and — and — the — the folks on Facebook wanted the candidates to speak to ISIS tonight.


You asked the chairman of the joint chiefs a question: “What would it take to destroy ISIS in 90 days?” He told you “IISIS will only be truly destroyed once they are rejected by the populations in which they hide.” And then you accused him of pushing Medicaid for the Iraqis.


How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?


CRUZ: Megyn, we need a commander in chief that speaks the truth. We will not defeat radical Islamic terrorism so long as we have a president unwilling to utter the words, “radical Islamic terrorism”.


(APPLAUSE)


When I asked General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, what would be required militarily to destroy ISIS, he said there is no military solution. We need to change the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization. That, with all due respect, is nonsense.


It’s the same answer the State Department gave that we need to give them jobs. What we need is a commander in chief that makes — clear, if you join ISIS, if you wage jihad on America, then you are signing your death warrant.


KELLY: You don’t see it as…


(APPLAUSE)


KELLY: …an ideological problem — an ideological problem in addition to a military one?


(APPLAUSE)


CRUZ: Megyn, of course it’s an ideological problem, that’s one of the reasons I introduce the Expatriate Terrorist Act in the Senate that said if any American travels to the Middle East and joining ISIS, that he or she forfeits their citizenship so they don’t use a passport to come back and wage jihad on Americans.


(APPLAUSE)


CRUZ: Yes, it is ideological, and let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an apologist. He said, “Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions–”


We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt’s President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.


(APPLAUSE)

[Max R.]

BTY we have NO C-N-C and haven't going on 8 years now.
We wouldn't have one with Trump either. ;)

[NightTrain]

Rand Paul delivers a vicious uppercut to Christie at 2:55 :

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4404624763001&w=466&h=263"></script><iframe src="//video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4404624763001&loc=debatepolicy.com&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fshowthread .php" width="466" height="263" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

:laugh2:

I don't like Christie because he got way too chummy with Obama for political points and helped throw the election in '12.

Then there was the bridge scandal where he punished an entire city for political retribution a la Chicago Style Politics. He'd be another Nixon or even as bad as Obama as far as using his power over Fed agencies to punish his opponents.

[Kathianne]

I saw that there was some praise for Huckabee, someone I know I wouldn't vote for. I was impressed by this exchange though:


BAIER: — broadly, the size of government is a big concern for Facebook users, Facebook persons, as well as, obviously, conservatives.

But year after year, decade after decade, there are promises from Republicans to shrink government. But year after year, decade after decade, it doesn’t happen.


In fact, it gets bigger, even under Republican politicians.


So the question is, at this point, is the government simply too big for any one person, even a Republican, to shrink?


HUCKABEE: It’s not too big to shrink. But the problem is we have a Wall Street-to-Washington access of power that has controlled the political climate. The donor class feeds the political class who does the dance that the donor class wants. And the result is federal government keeps getting bigger.


Every person on this stage who has been a governor will tell that you the biggest fight they had was not the other party. Wasn’t even the legislature. It was the federal government, who continually put mandates on the states that we had to suck up and pay for.


And the fact is there are a lot of things happening at the federal level that are absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution. This is power that should be shifted back to the states, whether it’s the EPA, there is no role at the federal level for the Department of Education.


(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)


HUCKABEE: And I’m still one who says that we can get rid of the Internal Revenue Service if we would pass the fair tax, which is a tax on consumption rather than a tax on people’s income, and move power back where the founders believed it should have been all along.

[Max R.]

I know y'all really don't care, but here's the breakdown of the first GOP 'debate' last night from FactCheck.org

FactChecking the GOP Debate, Late Edition (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/)


And not a single world from any of these poseurs about the growing wealth gap, climate change, infrastructure or any other issue if real importance to the country.
FactCheck.org is a great website and I appreciate the link.

While the comments are the debate are correct, I think a few need a fuller explanation. Specifically Rubio and Bush.

Yes, Rubio cosponsored the Pain-capable Unborn Child act and he needs to come up with a better answer to questions on this. IMO, he should be honest enough to admit that compromise isn't a bad word. That as one of 40 Republican cosponsors of Sen. Graham's bill, he doesn't have control of every phrase in the bill. If he's against rape or incest exceptions or support of those exceptions (for the record, I am), then he should man-up and say so.


Rubio said he had never advocated exceptions for rape or incest to abortion bans, but he cosponsored a bill in 2013 that contained just such exceptions.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1670/all-info#cosponsors

As for Bush's comment about student spending, a better clarification would be that we spend more than any of the other G7 nations. FactCheck's comment about how "Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway" spend more, while correct vesus Bush's comment, isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Bush should be more specific.


Bush claimed that the U.S. spends more per student than any other country, but Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway all spend more for primary and secondary education.

[Max R.]

I saw that there was some praise for Huckabee, someone I know I wouldn't vote for. I was impressed by this exchange though:

Agreed it was impressive. It also points out how candidates who probably won't win or even run all the way to the convention (this includes Trump) can influence the direction of the party and the election itself.

[red state]

Someone here said that Dr. Ben Carson was the man who came out on top and I agree :clap::clap::clap:(BUT) I would truly like to see Dr. Ben be a bit more "offensive" in more ways than one to see if he truly has the "stuff" that someone else here (MAX or NamVet) stated when referring to us needing a KILLER. I truly liked Greta's speech and believe she, not legs & lipstick, should have been the mod. In fact, Greta could have opened with her speach about Truman and Hiroshima and how the Presidential Election is NOT a popularity contest. After the short speech, she could have then asked each of them what they would do had they been in Truman's shoes. My grandfather thought so much of Truman on that one decision alone. It saved many under his command & as I've said NUMEROUS times over the past 8 years or so.......not 1,000 of THEM are worth ONE of our BEST!!!

In that regard, I truly can't get into a quiet man who has dedicated his life in SAVING LIVES. Then again, it is the one who talks softly or not at all that is usually the KICK@$$ guy in the room. You find me the guy who boasts this or that, I've done this or that or I'm "going" to do do this or that and I'm the baddest SOB in the room.................is usually full of $#!T! and the "DON" is most definitely bull of $#!T as well as himself.

I don't like him and hope that I don't have to support him, JEB, the LARD @$$ who couldn't even stand up straight and ole curly-sue. I could tolerate the rest but none of them are an Allen WEST who talks the talk and kicks @$$ when need be (never thinking of himself....always others). That's the guy we need but I'm willing to support Cruz, Walker and will "settle" for the well spoken lady and the calm/cool/collective Doctor. That's IT!!!!

[Drummond]

I've tried looking for campaign advisers for Trump, only find news stories about 2 attorneys, that actually were part of corporation-supposedly not campaign. They were both fired.

What specifically has Trump put forward to dealing with the problems he so eloquently points out? He'd 'make' Mexico pay for the fence! When O'Reilly asked for some specifics, he said 'he knew how.'

When pressed for his 'proof' that Mexico was sending their worst, he said 'a border patrol worker' told him so.

I have never said I found Cruz my 'best choice' but after just a cursory skim through the transcript, I came across this answer-which demonstrates how paying attention to the issues makes one come off as at least knowledgeable.

He's not alone, all but Trump eventually put forward their ideas on at least one topic. There was evidence of prior research and understanding of the issue.

As Drummond has pointed out, presidents have many sources for information and expertise, does Trump exhibit any tendency more than Obama to listening to others? To trusting their judgement? To accepting their reports or analysis?:

People grow into the jobs they take on. I see no reason to suppose that Trump would be any different. Saying Trump has strong views isn't the same as saying he'll never listen to any others. Experience in the job may well fix what shortcomings you feel Trump has, and still leave plenty left over for him to 'be his own man', and a strong (and therefore, certainly as a Conservative, a meritorious) leader for America. And as such ... just the sort of C in C you really need.

Consider GW Bush. His Presidency, as he originally intended it, was one where focus on international politics was going to be put on a back-burner. His emphasis was on America itself. YET .. 9/11 happened, and he not only adapted his thinking to meet the new situation, and VERY quickly, but did so in (my opinion) flawless fashion. He took EXACTLY the right attitude, and made the right and effective decisions. What's more impressive still is that he had the proper insight as to what should be expected from other world leaders as well, and tried his level best to lead them in the proper direction, as world security demanded. Simply .. his focus abruptly changed, and remained altered to meet the needs of America, AS THEY TRULY EXISTED.

So what leads you to believe that under the right circumstances, Trump wouldn't meet them, in appropriate fashion ? Bush could do it, and flawlessly, 'turning on a dime', as it were. Trump might well surprise you.

[NightTrain]

Carson did well. He's a very thoughtful & intelligent man.

Walker is still my favorite, but he's going to have to get more forceful... he came off as a bit intimidated, but hopefully that'll wear off. He needs more spark.

[Drummond]

Another set of comments on Trump and his performance, from the BBC. They absolutely refuse to say he was any sort of winner. They do say that he 'dominated' the debate (with the BBC, their propagandising is all about very careful choices of words).

They also now claim, and emphasise - despite Trump's measured, qualified, comments .. that Trump might well run as an Independent if it came to it. The qualifications he gave aren't reported at all.

Presumably they're trying to insist that he's too maverick to be viewable as any properly mainstream, therefore a 'serious', contender.

Oh, and I forgot to say (late edit) .. they did choose to replay the recording of Trump being booed.

[darin]

IAnd not a single world from any of these poseurs about the growing wealth gap, climate change, infrastructure or any other issue if real importance to the country.


People can only try to answer the questions they are asked, but.... Wealth Gap = does not exist past the willingness of the masses to give their money willingly to the wealthier.
Climate Change = Religion; does not belong in political debates.

[fj1200]

And not a single world from any of these poseurs about the growing wealth gap, climate change, infrastructure or any other issue if real importance to the country.

Would that be the wealth gap that gets larger under Democrat Presidents?

http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rich-gap.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Watching the debate.

Rand Paul - jerk
Megyn Kelly showing her true colors. Tacky question to Trump.

God, Ms. Kelly was awful the entire night.

[Abbey Marie]

I was bored. I watched the whole thing. They all had one thing in common ... they hate the DC cartel. Rubio and Cruz were shit hot. Carson just made fun of everyone. Bush was okay just a tad too PC for me. And apparently Fiarino stole the early show.

Trump lost his temper at Megyn Kelly. That's no one to have his finger on a nuke.

I'd agree, but at least he isn't putting Ali Khamenei's finger on it.

[Abbey Marie]

I have noticed favorable reviews of Trump by the left media (like HuffPo). Of course they'd like nothing more than for him to go third party, but to hedge their bets, they'll take him as the sure-to-lose and most Dem-like, Republican nominee.

He really worries me.

[Thunderknuckles]

I recorded and watched both debates.

I voiced concerns in a much earlier thread about Fiorina, but she impressed the hell out of both me and my wife. She commanded that debate and would have easily shined with the top 10 group. I hope she gets a bump and leaves the kiddy table.

As for the top 10, I would have to say Ted Cruz was the winner. Clear, concise answers and he never lost his cool. A few of you liked Ben Carson but his biggest problem is image in my opinion. He did not come off as a commanding candidate. He seemed unsure and had a hard time maintaining eye contact when speaking, a trait I've noticed in many highly intelligent people. His answers to questions were OK. Aside from his answer to the race question, nothing really shined for me.
Bush really needed to score to get out from under the "Bush Dynasty" shadow but he failed to impress at all and I'm glad for it. Trump was Trump. He's a novelty and a cult of personality and that's the sole source of his support. He doesn't stand a real chance but the prospect of him making an independent run scares the hell out of me. The rest were so-so.

As for Fox News, I think they did a great job. I liked how they went after the candidates with tough and nasty questions. The last thing I wanted to see was Fox handing them all a layup with softball questions. Even the liberal media was impressed with Fox. Hell has surely frozen over. I'm really looking forward to the next debate.

[Black Diamond]

Assuming trump loses the nomination, I wonder if he will support the nominee in exchange for a cabinet position or general political favors...

[Black Diamond]

I have noticed favorable reviews of Trump by the left media (like HuffPo). Of course they'd like nothing more than for him to go third party, but to hedge their bets, they'll take him as the sure-to-lose and most Dem-like, Republican nominee.

He really worries me.
The wheels in their heads are turning just like they are in mine. They hear about the Clinton phone call, his threat two weeks ago to go third party, and his hand raising last night. Not to mention his supporting the clintons throughout the years. He could totally give this election to Hillary (assuming she is the nominee which i have my doubts) and she won't have to do anything. They should love trump.

[Gunny]

I'd agree, but at least he isn't putting Ali Khamenei's finger on it.

I agree. And everyone's entitled to their opinion so long as they don't take their eye off the prize, or loss thereof to Billary.

[Gunny]

I agree. And everyone's entitled to their opinion so long as they don't take their eye off the prize, or loss thereof to Billary.


Carly Fiorina lit Chris Matthews up like dry tinder. :laugh:

[Elessar]

I am neither for nor against Trump at this point. But I now view Megyn as a bitch. Fox was asking him questions to make him look bad. Where was "fair and balanced"? Fox had an agenda, no doubt.

As for my senator, Rand Paul, he showed himself to be an impudent jerk.

Rand has never impressed me with his personality.

He is *not* a leader....he is a demander...much like
the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[Kathianne]

Assuming trump loses the nomination, I wonder if he will support the nominee in exchange for a cabinet position or general political favors...
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen, nor would he want such. I do believe he's there to disrupt only.

[Kathianne]

God, Ms. Kelly was awful the entire night.

I've never seen what the hype about her is. I like hard hitting questioning, but she seems like the ultimate mean girl.

[Kathianne]

Carson did well. He's a very thoughtful & intelligent man.

Walker is still my favorite, but he's going to have to get more forceful... he came off as a bit intimidated, but hopefully that'll wear off. He needs more spark.

I agree about both.

[Kathianne]

People grow into the jobs they take on. I see no reason to suppose that Trump would be any different. Saying Trump has strong views isn't the same as saying he'll never listen to any others. Experience in the job may well fix what shortcomings you feel Trump has, and still leave plenty left over for him to 'be his own man', and a strong (and therefore, certainly as a Conservative, a meritorious) leader for America. And as such ... just the sort of C in C you really need.

Consider GW Bush. His Presidency, as he originally intended it, was one where focus on international politics was going to be put on a back-burner. His emphasis was on America itself. YET .. 9/11 happened, and he not only adapted his thinking to meet the new situation, and VERY quickly, but did so in (my opinion) flawless fashion. He took EXACTLY the right attitude, and made the right and effective decisions. What's more impressive still is that he had the proper insight as to what should be expected from other world leaders as well, and tried his level best to lead them in the proper direction, as world security demanded. Simply .. his focus abruptly changed, and remained altered to meet the needs of America, AS THEY TRULY EXISTED.

So what leads you to believe that under the right circumstances, Trump wouldn't meet them, in appropriate fashion ? Bush could do it, and flawlessly, 'turning on a dime', as it were. Trump might well surprise you.

Because Trump has never shown an ability to compromise, why would he? With 4 bankruptcies, (Carly being fired by HP anyone?), he has made gazillions, then lost it all. He keeps coming back, doing the same things. He was raised by a tycoon and has done the same.

Bush did seem to learn from his mistakes, whether business or personal. Other than women, Clinton the same. Haven't seen anything from Obama in learning from mistakes, indeed haven't really heard him admit to any. One has to have some measure of self-knowledge to do so.

[Kathianne]

Want more on Carly?

http://louderwithcrowder.com/carly-fiorina-uncensored-goes-full-honey-badger-on-sjw-feminists/

[Drummond]

Because Trump has never shown an ability to compromise, why would he? With 4 bankruptcies, (Carly being fired by HP anyone?), he has made gazillions, then lost it all. He keeps coming back, doing the same things. He was raised by a tycoon and has done the same.

Bush did seem to learn from his mistakes, whether business or personal. Other than women, Clinton the same. Haven't seen anything from Obama in learning from mistakes, indeed haven't really heard him admit to any. One has to have some measure of self-knowledge to do so.

OK, admittedly I find it difficult to argue against what you've said. Maybe you're right. Even so, I'd suggest that the US Presidency is a different job from being a business entrepreneur. He might adapt to his change in circumstances. Granted, I might be wrong.

In passing .. I thought of checking to see if the BBC had any plans to broadcast any recording of the debate .. or even, a usefully-long excerpt from it. So, I did a search for that .. and found, certainly for the next week, NOTHING is scheduled for its broadcast.

But in searching, I did find something typically BBC-esque. Yep ... scheduled for no less than FIVE separate broadcasts over the next week ... a recording of a Michelle Obama speech, lasting 20 minutes. In fact, the first of these 5 would've been transmitted around an hour ago. The remaining four are all allowed for within the BBC Parliament channel's schedules (channel 131 on Freeview and present on all other transmission platforms, be it satellite or cable).

The BBC is fixated on promoting the Obamas ! They broadcasted a 25 minute interview with Obama, four times in a 24 hour period, several days ago .... and made it their lead 'news' story, for 24 hours beforehand ......

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I saw that there was some praise for Huckabee, someone I know I wouldn't vote for. I was impressed by this exchange though:

Christie and the stinking Huckster are both scum in my book.
Would I vote for either one were they the nominee?
Yes, but it would take supreme effort on my part to hold my nose that damn hard and do it!
Any Republican now running is light years better than any true dem that ever lived, at least in the last hundred years. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Entire thing was pre-rigged to torpedo Trump!!!
For Fox thats unforgivable in my opinion..
And the stinking witch that tried to stab him the hardest needs to be fired and have her sorry ass stomped by some other women and done right IMHO..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Christie and the stinking Huckster are both scum in my book.
Would I vote for either one were they the nominee?
Yes, but it would take supreme effort on my part to hold my nose that damn hard and do it!
Any Republican now running is light years better than any true dem that ever lived, at least in the last hundred years. -Tyr

We don't disagree. With that said, don't you agree that the cited response was good? For that matter, Christie was right in exposing Paul's isolation in Congress. Paul is very committed to the Bill of Rights, a good thing IMO. However, even someone like myself has to agree that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I've said repeatedly that the Patriot Act was wrong, too many ways to do away with our rights. More controls and nuances needed.

[Kathianne]

Why I lean Walker, pretty typical of his ons:


WALLACE: Governor Walker.(APPLAUSE) Governor Walker, when you ran for governor of Wisconsin back in 2010, you promised that you would create 250,000 jobs in your first term, first four years. In fact, Wisconsin added barely half that and ranked 35th in the country in job growth. Now you’re running for president, and you’re promising an economic plan in which everyone will earn a piece of the American dream.


Given your record in Wisconsin, why should voters believe you?


WALKER: Well, the voters in Wisconsin elected me last year for the third time because they wanted someone who aimed high, not aimed low.


Before I came in, the unemployment rate was over eight percent. It’s now down to 4.6 percent. We’ve more than made up for the jobs that were lost during the recession. And the rate in which people are working is almost five points higher than it is nationally.


You know, people like Hillary Clinton think you grow the economy by growing Washington. One report last year showed that six of the top 10 wealthiest counties in America were in or around Washington, D.C.. I think most of us in America understand that people, not the government creates jobs. And one of the best things we can do is get the government out of the way, repeal Obamacare, put in — reign in all the out of control regulations, put in place and all of the above energy policy, give people the education, the skills that the need to succeed, and lower the tax rate and reform the tax code. That’s what I’ll do as president, just like I did in Wisconsin.
(APPLAUSE)

[Kathianne]

They did hit Trump hard, after spending months of hyping him. The following was hard, but is something people need to know about:



WALLACE: Mr. Trump.

KELLY: (OFF MIKE) Sounds like somebody’s a little R-rated.


(APPLAUSE)


WALLACE: Mr. Trump, you talk a lot about how you are the person on this stage to grow the economy. I want to ask you about your business record. Trump corporations — Trump corporations, casinos and hotels, have declared bankruptcy four times over the last quarter-century.


In 2011, you told Forbes Magazine this: “I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage.” But at the same time, financial experts involved in those bankruptcies say that lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars.


Question sir, with that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?


TRUMP: Because I have used the laws of this country just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetera.


I have never gone bankrupt, by the way. I have never.


But out of hundreds of deals…


WALLACE: No, but the concept sir…


TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me.


WALLACE: … that’s your line, but your companies have gone bankrupt.


TRUMP: Excuse me, what am I saying? Out of hundreds of deals that I’ve done, hundreds, on four occasions I’ve taken advantage of the laws of this country, like other people. I’m not going to name their names because I’m not going to embarrass, but virtually every person that you read about on the front page of the business sections, they’ve used the law.


The difference is, when somebody else uses those laws, nobody writes about it. When I use it, they say, “Trump, Trump, Trump.” The fact is, I built a net worth of more than $10 billion. I have a great, great company. I employ thousands of people. And I’m very proud of the job I did.


Again Chris, hundreds and hundreds of deals. Four times, I’ve taken advantage of the laws. And frankly, so has everybody else in my position.


WALLACE: Well sir, let’s just talk about the latest example…


(APPLAUSE)


… which is Trump Entertainment Resorts, which went bankrupt in 2009. In that case alone, lenders to your company lost over $1 billion and more than 1,100 people were laid off.


TRUMP: Well, I…


WALLACE: Is that the way that you’d run the country?


TRUMP: Let me just tell you about the lenders. First of all, these lenders aren’t babies. These are total killers. These are not the nice, sweet little people that you think, OK?


(LAUGHTER)


(APPLAUSE)


You know, I mean you’re living in a world of the make-believe, Chris, you want to know the truth.


(APPLAUSE)


And I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City, which by the way, Caesars just went bankrupt. Every company, Chris can tell you, every company virtually in Atlantic City went bankrupt.


(LAUGHTER)


Every company.


And let me just tell you. I had the good sense, and I’ve gotten a lot of credit in the financial pages, seven years ago I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered, and I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I’m very proud of it. I want to tell you that. Very, very proud of it.


WALLACE: So…


TRUMP: And by the way, this country right now owes $19 trillion. And they need somebody like me to straighten out that mess.
(APPLAUSE)

[Max R.]

They did hit Trump hard, after spending months of hyping him. The following was hard, but is something people need to know about:
In part, I think, because they know what I and several others have said; Trump won't really run, but he'll bully, push and payoff anyone he likes to get his way.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/spgakg.jpg

[Kathianne]

I'm going to read more about:

Rubio
Carson
Cruz
Fiorina

Cruz has always rubbed me the wrong way, but the more I look at what he's saying, the more I think I need to reevaluate.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm going to read more about:

Rubio
Carson
Cruz
Fiorina

Cruz has always rubbed me the wrong way, but the more I look at what he's saying, the more I think I need to reevaluate.

Kath, we are aligning like the stars. My list exactly.

[revelarts]

sorry snarkiness to follow:


I haven't brought my self to watch it all yet just clips.
my stomach turns a bit when i think of sitting there watching these people say they will not follow the constitution and be proud of it --"Christie"--. And then watch others move their mouths that they'll fight for the constitution and know it's more than likely a lie.

I've read most of the comments here and --with the notable exceptions (including kathianne) most seemed concerned about "personality", and "electability" and "machismo".
frankly all that's BS.

what will they DO in office is the only thing I'm concerned about.
I don't care about their pets, their personalities, attitudes, quirks or ticks ...will they execute the office of president of the U.S. and fulfill their oath to the constitution.
That's the job they are interviewing for seems to me. (not captain of the H.S. football team).
More than ever we need someone serious about that job in ways that will make everyone uncomfortable.

All the rest is, as someone put it, "'politics' show show biz for ugly people".

[Abbey Marie]

sorry snarkiness to follow:


I haven't brought my self to watch it all yet just clips.
my stomach turns a bit when i think of sitting there watching these people say they will not follow the constitution and be proud of it --"Christie"--. And then watch others move their mouths that they'll fight for the constitution and know it's more than likely a lie.

I've read most of the comments here and --with the notable exceptions (including kathianne) most seemed concerned about "personality", and "electability" and "machismo".
frankly all that's BS.

what will they DO in office is the only thing I'm concerned about.
I don't care about their pets, their personalities, attitudes, quirks or ticks ...will they execute the office of president of the U.S. and fulfill their oath to the constitution.
That's the job they are interviewing for seems to me. (not captain of the H.S. football team).
More than ever we need someone serious about that job in ways that will make everyone uncomfortable.

All the rest is, as someone put it, "'politics' show show biz for ugly people".

Ahh, Rev. We expect nothing less from you. :cool:

[Max R.]

sorry snarkiness to follow:


I haven't brought my self to watch it all yet just clips.
my stomach turns a bit when i think of sitting there watching these people say they will not follow the constitution and be proud of it --"Christie"--. And then watch others move their mouths that they'll fight for the constitution and know it's more than likely a lie.

I've read most of the comments here and --with the notable exceptions (including kathianne) most seemed concerned about "personality", and "electability" and "machismo".
frankly all that's BS.

what will they DO in office is the only thing I'm concerned about.
I don't care about their pets, their personalities, attitudes, quirks or ticks ...will they execute the office of president of the U.S. and fulfill their oath to the constitution.
That's the job they are interviewing for seems to me. (not captain of the H.S. football team).
More than ever we need someone serious about that job in ways that will make everyone uncomfortable.

All the rest is, as someone put it, "'politics' show show biz for ugly people".I certainly agree it's both stupid and wrong for a politician, especially a Presidential candidate, to claim they'd violate the Constitution to make their fans happy.

The personal bits, while mostly fluff, give an indication of character. Bill Clinton's draft-dodging, womanizing and sexual harassment charges, plus his bald-faced lie of "I didn't inhale" should have been a clue to voters that he had low character and couldn't be trusted. In the end, it was his womanizing the prevented him from acting on al-Qaeda due to fear of "Wag the Dog" accusations.

I do want a President who will get the job done, but who do we trust since both a candidate with low character and high character will both promise whatever is wanted? Obvious for me is the latter candidate since I can take them at their word.

[Kathianne]

I certainly agree it's both stupid and wrong for a politician, especially a Presidential candidate, to claim they'd violate the Constitution to make their fans happy.

The personal bits, while mostly fluff, give an indication of character. Bill Clinton's draft-dodging, womanizing and sexual harassment charges, plus his bald-faced lie of "I didn't inhale" should have been a clue to voters that he had low character and couldn't be trusted. In the end, it was his womanizing the prevented him from acting on al-Qaeda due to fear of "Wag the Dog" accusations.

I do want a President who will get the job done, but who do we trust since both a candidate with low character and high character will both promise whatever is wanted? Obvious for me is the latter candidate since I can take them at their word.

The bolded is really where records matter. I'm not sold on Bush, never have been. I don't have to look 'more' at him though, he's a known quantity. He is pro-life, he is fiscally conservative, he is concerned about education and delivering it affordably (even if I don't agree with methods), he's more 'big government' than I like, he isn't making promises but setting his goals high.

I could vote for him, easily against those the democrats are putting forward. I'm not so sure that isn't true of many so called 'democrats' too.

[Kathianne]

Being off yesterday, I had some time to read commentary regarding the debate; alas having to read the text and later (thanks to Black Diamond) watch the replay of the main debate; not all. This morning read this, which encapsulates my pov regarding the performance by FOX. I ran across it at Real Clear Politics, which does have a tendency to find the best of various POV:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/07/the-gop-debate-was-awesome-we-need-more-like-it/


The GOP Debate Was Awesome. We Need More Like It (http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/07/the-gop-debate-was-awesome-we-need-more-like-it/)
By
David Harsanyi (http://thefederalist.com/author/dharsanyi/)

In the morning I’ll probably regret writing this, but right now I feel confident saying that the first top-tier Republican presidential debate of the 2016 cycle (http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/) was one of the most substantive, and certainly the most entertaining, I’ve seen in 20 years.



Now, considering how vacuous these political debates can be, this isn’t exactly saying much. But there are a number of reasons why it worked and why people should emulate it.


For one, it featured journalists willing to ask genuinely challenging questions. The performance by the moderators, a fiesty Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace, should put to the rest the notion that Fox News is any less interested in serious political journalism than competing cable news networks. Fact is, it’s difficult to imagine a panel of MSNBC or CNN anchors peppering a slate of Democratic Party candidates featuring Hillary Clinton with comparably vigorous queries.



But even tough questions can be brushed off by a competent politician. What made this debate atypical was that—unlike the GOP JV iteration (http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/06/carly-fiorina-easily-wins-early-gop-debate/) earlier in the day—moderators deliberately poked at the vulnerabilities of each candidate, bringing up their most inconvenient opinions and statements, and challenging specific contentions rather than teeing up softballs. They acted as if they were the opposition. They reminded us that Chris Christie oversaw numerous credit downgrades in New Jersey, that Scott Walker was not the job creator he claimed to be, that Ted Cruz has a serious people problem, that Ben Carson knows nothing about foreign policy, and that Rand Paul blames Republicans for the creation of ISIS. And, hey, Donald Trump, what’s with the misogyny and bankruptcies?



On and on it went.



The tailored nature of the probing was probably necessitated by the big number of participants. But it helped that Fox bypassed the counterproductive notion of “fairness” that normally dictates all candidates must answer the same exact questions within the same allotted time— as if they were participating in an Oxford debate rather than a larger-than-usual panel discussion on cable television. With this, the Fox moderators helped dial down the platitude quotient somewhat (though, naturally, it was still high) and candidates struggled to slip into their tedious resume recitations.



Even the raise-your-hand survey, typically the lowest form of gotcha journalism, transformed into an amusing argument over Donald Trump’s threat of a third-party candidacy.


The second reason it worked was that the moderators were able to pit certain candidates against each other—and then let them go at it. Sometimes these were legitimate ideological fights; most memorably, the Christie-Paul squabble over National Security Agency data collections, with Rand making idealistic libertarian case and Christie the hawkish national defense position.



“I want to collect more records from terrorists but less records from innocent Americans,” a libertarian senator from Kentucky yelled at the moderate Republican governor of New Jersey on national television.



That’s a “completely ridiculously answer,” Christie retorted. “How are you supposed to know?”



“You support the Fourth Amendment!” Paul shouts. “Get a warrant! Get a judge to sign a warrant!”



Back and forth they went. Paul seemed to get the best of the skirmish, even before topping it off with a quip about Christie hugging Obama. But then cameras caught Paul’s unsightly smirking as Christie threw a comeback about only remembering the hugs of the 9/11 widows.



And if you love politics, this, my friends, is all gold.


Thirdly, though there has been plenty to scoff at, this GOP field is actually pretty strong. No, Trump and Carson (the latter an affable man who has zero political acumen) don’t belong, but many others were surprisingly impressive. That doesn’t mean any single candidate is sure to beat Hillary, but there are probably around four who could beat her. I’ve argued that Marco Rubio is likely the most gifted and well-positioned candidate in GOP field (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/14/why-marco-rubio-is-the-gops-best-hope/), and this debate only reinforces that belief. But others acquitted themselves, well enough—including Jeb, Walker, and Cruz.



Finally, there’s Trump. I imagine it’s the beginning of the end for him—the Luntz focus group hated his shtick (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/06/luntz_focus_group_says_trump_crashed_and_burned_in _debate.html); he was “like a politician” with “no specifics” who was “sucking air out of the room” and had “crashed and burned”—because people will now be able to contrast his buffoonery with other options available to them. With that said, and I hate to admit it, he was a lot of fun to watch. I had to laugh out loud when made the absurd claim that no one had been speaking about “illegal immigration” until he hit the scene a few months ago. But there were so many absurd claims.



Seeing him like this, I’m not sure Trump is as detrimental for Republicans as everyone imagines, considering he makes anyone standing near him look like Cicero. And these debates? They’re only going to help the GOP.

[Kathianne]

I like some of the possible President/VP match ups. I'm just posting the points, read more at site:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/07/10_takeaways_from_the_prime-time_gop_debate_127696.html



10 Takeaways From the Prime-Time GOP Debate
By Carl M. Cannon - August 7, 2015


Donald Trump Is No Republican.


Neither Is Rand Paul, Really.


Other Rivalries Are Emerging:


So Are Natural Alliances.


Kasich and the Poor.


Is Jeb Getting His Groove Back?


This Wasn’t Really a Debate.


Ronald Reagan Still Casts a Long Shadow.


Hillary Clinton’s Ears Weren’t Burning.


Ben Carson Redeemed Himself Just in Time.

[Drummond]

Over here in the UK, we have a political climate where, regardless of what politician you speak to, from whatever Party, NOBODY will come out, in public, and depart from the 'politically correct' consensus that Islam 'is a religion of peace'. If a terrorist atrocity is committed (e.g in Tunisia, recently), then there'll be talk of 'was he a nutter ... was he acting on his own, or as part of a terrorist group, how was he radicalised ...'

Always, but ALWAYS, in our media, in discussion programmes, in news broadcasts ... you'll get that terrorism comes from EXTREMISTS. Always, the distinction is either made outright, or at least strongly implied, that Muslim terrorism is unrepresentative of Islam as a whole, that the core of Islam is peaceful, that 'normal' Islamists reject violence and reject the militant 'extremists' as having nothing to do with their religion.

Amongst all the Republican candidates, who buys into that, and will always assert that Islam is a religion of peace .. and that any terrorists are unrepresentative of a 'mainstream' Islam ? How about Trump .. does his plain speaking extend to a recognition of Islam ITSELF as a threat ?

A decent Republican, in the proper position of power, should be prepared to be tough not only against wrongdoers themselves, but what CAUSES it to happen. Is Trump such a candidate ? Are any of the others ?

Do we even know, as yet, where the candidates stand on such a question ? If not ... WHY not ?

[Gunny]

I like some of the possible President/VP match ups. I'm just posting the points, read more at site:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/07/10_takeaways_from_the_prime-time_gop_debate_127696.html

Yeah? I think Carly lit Billary's ears up good.

[Kathianne]

Over here in the UK, we have a political climate where, regardless of what politician you speak to, from whatever Party, NOBODY will come out, in public, and depart from the 'politically correct' consensus that Islam 'is a religion of peace'. If a terrorist atrocity is committed (e.g in Tunisia, recently), then there'll be talk of 'was he a nutter ... was he acting on his own, or as part of a terrorist group, how was he radicalised ...'

Always, but ALWAYS, in our media, in discussion programmes, in news broadcasts ... you'll get that terrorism comes from EXTREMISTS. Always, the distinction is either made outright, or at least strongly implied, that Muslim terrorism is unrepresentative of Islam as a whole, that the core of Islam is peaceful, that 'normal' Islamists reject violence and reject the militant 'extremists' as having nothing to do with their religion.

Amongst all the Republican candidates, who buys into that, and will always assert that Islam is a religion of peace .. and that any terrorists are unrepresentative of a 'mainstream' Islam ? How about Trump .. does his plain speaking extend to a recognition of Islam ITSELF as a threat ?

A decent Republican, in the proper position of power, should be prepared to be tough not only against wrongdoers themselves, but what CAUSES it to happen. Is Trump such a candidate ? Are any of the others ?

Do we even know, as yet, where the candidates stand on such a question ? If not ... WHY not ?

Cruz. He's for revoking citizenship for those that leave country for jihad. Cancelling passports to prevent reentry.

[Drummond]

Cruz. He's for revoking citizenship for those that leave country for jihad. Cancelling passports to prevent reentry.

Thanks, and that's both useful and a step in the right direction (I applaud it .. it's a way of saying that Jihadists aren't citizens deserving citizenship, that they've betrayed their country, and that's absolutely right !!).

It doesn't answer my question, though, as from this, Cruz might just regard those leaving as radicalised by extremists, extremists who in his opinion don't represent so-called 'mainstream' Islam.

I want to ideally see a President who - to quote, I think, Tony Blair - will take a 'tough on crime, TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME' approach. Just cracking down on the supposed 'militant few' and maybe making an example of them isn't, surely, enough. You don't cure a disease just by suppressing its symptoms. Who, amongst the Republican candidates, will be willing to go the extra mile and tackle the REAL cause of all this so-called 'militancy' ?

Does Trump's plain-speaking go as far as this ? Will he go that 'extra mile' ... or not ? WHO WILL ?

Could it be that the political correctness that pervades all parts of the British political spectrum does the very same in American politics ? Is that true of all the Republican candidates ?

[Kathianne]

Thanks, and that's both useful and a step in the right direction (I applaud it .. it's a way of saying that Jihadists aren't citizens deserving citizenship, that they've betrayed their country, and that's absolutely right !!).

It doesn't answer my question, though, as from this, Cruz might just regard those leaving as radicalised by extremists, extremists who in his opinion don't represent so-called 'mainstream' Islam.

I want to ideally see a President who - to quote, I think, Tony Blair - will take a 'tough on crime, TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME' approach. Just cracking down on the supposed 'militant few' and maybe making an example of them isn't, surely, enough. You don't cure a disease just by suppressing its symptoms. Who, amongst the Republican candidates, will be willing to go the extra mile and tackle the REAL cause of all this so-called 'militancy' ?

Does Trump's plain-speaking go as far as this ? Will he go that 'extra mile' ... or not ? WHO WILL ?

Could it be that the political correctness that pervades all parts of the British political spectrum does the very same in American politics ? Is that true of all the Republican candidates ?

I can see Trump condemning all Muslims, is that what you're looking for?

Other candidates? No. I don't see it as being PC, as much as adhering to first amendment.

[Drummond]

I can see Trump condemning all Muslims, is that what you're looking for?

Other candidates? No.

I'm looking for a candidate who WILL take a 'tough on the CAUSES of crime' approach. Who WILL deal with the cause of all the terrorism, and see a threat in its real terms, and its totality.

From what you've said, Trump will do that.

Certainly from my standpoint - and, I dare to say, from anyone else's who wants to do their utmost to ensure the security of America and the wider world in the future - THAT THEREFORE MAKES TRUMP THE ONLY LEGITIMATE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE, SINCE ALL THE OTHERS WOULD RENEGE ON THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

So, thanks, Kathianne. My belief that you need Trump in the White House is now a confirmed one.

[Kathianne]

I'm looking for a candidate who WILL take a 'tough on the CAUSES of crime' approach. Who WILL deal with the cause of all the terrorism, and see a threat in its real terms, and its totality.

From what you've said, Trump will do that.

Certainly from my standpoint - and, I dare to say, from anyone else's who wants to do their utmost to ensure the security of America and the wider world in the future - THAT THEREFORE MAKES TRUMP THE ONLY LEGITIMATE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE, SINCE ALL THE OTHERS WOULD RENEGE ON THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

So, thanks, Kathianne. My belief that you need Trump in the White House is now a confirmed one.

May your country/party be lucky enough to have such a one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We don't disagree. With that said, don't you agree that the cited response was good? For that matter, Christie was right in exposing Paul's isolation in Congress. Paul is very committed to the Bill of Rights, a good thing IMO. However, even someone like myself has to agree that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I've said repeatedly that the Patriot Act was wrong, too many ways to do away with our rights. More controls and nuances needed.

:beer: :beer: . I agree that had they not deliberately AND MALICIOUSLY singled out trump for destruction the debate would have been fine. That one single act of supreme bias and attempted destrcution ruined it. I am all American my friend thus fair play rules with me. When I see such unfair behavior it BOILS my blood. Makes me mad enough to stomp people's asses. Which is what I once did and was paid for doing long ago.
I guess its just built into my DNA.
I AM MAD ENOUGH NOW TO BREAK A DAMN TREE IN HALF!

I REMEMBER HOW THAT MAGGOT HUCKSTER AND MCCAIN SHAFTED ROMNEY.
Romney would have beaten the slime obama.
Now they are shafting Trump who can easily beat Hillary.
ADDITIONALLY HE COULD AND WOULD COMPLETELY REVERSE THIS ECONOMY.
THATS WHY "THEY" WANT HIM STOPPED AT ALL OR ANY COSTS!
Americans need to wake up to what is truly being done to them!
I see far, far more than the average bear-always have.. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

:beer: :beer: . I agree that had they not deliberately AND MALICIOUSLY singled out trump for destruction the debate would have been fine. That one single act of supreme bias and attempted destrcution ruined it. I am all American my friend thus fair play rules with me. When I see such unfair behavior it BOILS my blood. Makes me mad enough to stomp people's asses. Which is what I once did and was paid for doing long ago.
I guess its just built into my DNA.
I AM MAD ENOUGH NOW TO BREAK A DAMN TREE IN HALF!

I REMEMBER HOW THAT MAGGOT HUCKSTER AND MCCAIN SHAFTED ROMNEY.
Romney would have beaten the slime obama.
Now they are shafting Trump who can easily beat Hillary.
ADDITIONALLY HE COULD AND WOULD COMPLETELY REVERSE THIS ECONOMY.
THATS WHY "THEY" WANT HIM STOPPED AT ALL OR ANY COSTS!
Americans need to wake up to what is truly being done to them!
I see far, far more than the average bear-always have.. -Tyr

You're not the only person that has been proven correct in the long run. We disagree about this and time will tell who ends up correct currently. :beer:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I can see Trump condemning all Muslims, is that what you're looking for?

Other candidates? No. I don't see it as being PC, as much as adhering to first amendment.

It is what I am looking for my friend. For all TRUE muslims should be condemned as ALL TRUE MUSLIMS SUPPORT OUR EVENTUAL DEATH OR CONVERSION . The ones that do not support that are not even muslim and are killed by the other muslims! A solid gold fact my friend..

[Drummond]

May your country/party be lucky enough to have such a one.

Oh, I wish !!!

I'm the first person to not only say that we DON'T, but thanks to the suffocating weight of political correctness, truth that isn't preferred is throttled out of peoples' consciousness. All our politicians play along. Maybe because they feel they have no choice, or maybe not. Either way, the result is the same.

Tyr, I think, takes the view that unless the UK wakes up, and pronto, we're basically doomed. Trouble is, with PC imperatives being slavishly followed by EVERYONE from ALL Parties, and even with laws in place which forbid public dissemination of views detrimental to any religious faction (on the grounds that it'd be classifiable as 'hatespeech', and have potential to foment violent reaction) ... I can't fault his conclusion. We're literally locked into a total blindness towards a threat that's staring us in the face.

For all their undoubtedly good attributes otherwise, any and all candidates choosing any such path, even to only a small extent, FAIL THE US. Trump, apparently at least, will NOT.

This, therefore, confirms him as uniquely QUALIFIED to live up to ALL of his duties as President.

And all else, if even pertinent ... is just a 'fine tuning' exercise', nothing more.

[Kathianne]

It is what I am looking for my friend. For all TRUE muslims should be condemned as ALL TRUE MUSLIMS SUPPORT OUR EVENTUAL DEATH OR CONVERSION . The ones that do not support that are not even muslim and are killed by the other muslims! A solid gold fact my friend..


Oh, I wish !!!

I'm the first person to not only say that we DON'T, but thanks to the suffocating weight of political correctness, truth that isn't preferred is throttled out of peoples' consciousness. All our politicians play along. Maybe because they feel they have no choice, or maybe not. Either way, the result is the same.

Tyr, I think, takes the view that unless the UK wakes up, and pronto, we're basically doomed. Trouble is, with PC imperatives being slavishly followed by EVERYONE from ALL Parties, and even with laws in place which forbid public dissemination of views detrimental to any religious faction (on the grounds that it'd be classifiable as 'hatespeech', and have potential to foment violent reaction) ... I can't fault his conclusion. We're literally locked into a total blindness towards a threat that's staring us in the face.

For all their undoubtedly good attributes otherwise, any and all candidates choosing any such path, even to only a small extent, FAIL THE US. Trump, apparently at least, will NOT.

This, therefore, confirms him as uniquely QUALIFIED to live up to ALL of his duties as President.

And all else, if even pertinent ... is just a 'fine tuning' exercise', nothing more.

Both of you are entitled to your opinions, Tyr may vote on his. :beer: My only comment is be careful what you wish for, Hillary is the likely beneficiary of this.

[Drummond]

It is what I am looking for my friend. For all TRUE muslims should be condemned as ALL TRUE MUSLIMS SUPPORT OUR EVENTUAL DEATH OR CONVERSION . The ones that do not support that are not even muslim and are killed by the other muslims! A solid gold fact my friend..:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Typical. Just typical. You say what needs to be said in one paragraph. Me, it takes several of them to come close .... ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Both of you are entitled to your opinions, Tyr may vote on his. :beer: My only comment is be careful what you wish for, Hillary is the likely beneficiary of this.
As is your right and I respect you for it my friend. We can disagree on who we think the best nominee should be and both be ok in doing so as its our Constitutional right but also our God given right of self determination and freedom of speech. :beer: :beer:
I am never against that but these losers that hide behind one front to sabotage our side I think should be destroyed. And these PC idiots all need a damn good ass stomping. This is our nation in peril not some football game !
This is our kids survival at stake!!!
I take it very seriously. --Tyr

[Drummond]

Both of you are entitled to your opinions, Tyr may vote on his. :beer: My only comment is be careful what you wish for, Hillary is the likely beneficiary of this.

I only wish I could vote ... being a foreigner, of course I can't.

You may just have a point .. but by my reckoning, if you do, the effect would be massively unjust at minimum. But then, political correctness can do that.

Bottom line - you just can't compromise on decent principle, nor yet what's RIGHT, PROPER AND NEEDED for dealing with an evil force which, if not tackled, will continue to present a massive threat. Of course, the Dems, be it with Hillary or anyone else at the helm, will just continue on with imposing their blindness on to people, and so sell out your country and even the fate of the wider world.

It's what they do. Because it's cosy. Because it's easy. And of course, because it's TRAITOROUS.

Ultimately, you'd need to ask ... is the cost of cosy politically-correct delusion worth all of the future suffering, future deaths, even YOUR FUTURE FREEDOM, which you could have safeguarded, protected, had you ONLY dispensed with PC poison, and remained true to truth and the cause and benefits of freedom ??

[Kathianne]

I only wish I could vote ... being a foreigner, of course I can't.

You may just have a point .. but by my reckoning, if you do, the effect would be massively unjust at minimum. But then, political correctness can do that.

Bottom line - you just can't compromise on decent principle, nor yet what's RIGHT, PROPER AND NEEDED for dealing with an evil force which, if not tackled, will continue to present a massive threat. Of course, the Dems, be it with Hillary or anyone else at the helm, will just continue on with imposing their blindness on to people, and so sell out your country and even the fate of the wider world.

It's what they do. Because it's cosy. Because it's easy. And of course, because it's TRAITOROUS.

Ultimately, you'd need to ask ... is the cost of cosy politically-correct delusion worth all of the future suffering, future deaths, even YOUR FUTURE FREEDOM, which you could have safeguarded, protected, had you ONLY dispensed with it and remained true to truth and the cause and benefits of freedom ??

I find little decent about Trump.

[Gunny]

I find little decent about Trump.

There's nothing decent about him. He's an arrogant a-hole. I'd like to see Bush and the Wisconsin dude Prez and VP, and Carly secretary of state. Rubio head of Homeland Security.

Not that I have an opinion. :laugh:

[Drummond]

As is your right and I respect you for it my friend. We can disagree on who we think the best nominee should be and both be ok in doing so as its our Constitutional right but also our God given right of self determination and freedom of speech. :beer: :beer:
I am never against that but these losers that hide behind one front to sabotage our side I think should be destroyed. And these PC idiots all need a damn good ass stomping. This is our nation in peril not some football game !
This is our kids survival at stake!!!
I take it very seriously. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap ::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

I only wish I could vote ... being a foreigner, of course I can't.

You may just have a point .. but by my reckoning, if you do, the effect would be massively unjust at minimum. But then, political correctness can do that.

Bottom line - you just can't compromise on decent principle, nor yet what's RIGHT, PROPER AND NEEDED for dealing with an evil force which, if not tackled, will continue to present a massive threat. Of course, the Dems, be it with Hillary or anyone else at the helm, will just continue on with imposing their blindness on to people, and so sell out your country and even the fate of the wider world.

It's what they do. Because it's cosy. Because it's easy. And of course, because it's TRAITOROUS.

Ultimately, you'd need to ask ... is the cost of cosy politically-correct delusion worth all of the future suffering, future deaths, even YOUR FUTURE FREEDOM, which you could have safeguarded, protected, had you ONLY dispensed with PC poison, and remained true to truth and the cause and benefits of freedom ??

Being pc isn't one of my problems. I do believe in common decency though.

[Drummond]

I find little decent about Trump.

As of right now, I see him as the only hope you have to disentangle yourselves from being psychologically throttled by PC poison in your country.

He, apparently ALONE out of all other candidates, will face up to a vitally important problem IN ITS ENTIRETY, because he WON'T buy into delusion that blinds people into not seeing it.

Think on this. A President prepared to tackle terrorism in its entirety, getting people awake enough to see exactly what threat is ranged against them ... how isn't this BETTER than someone only prepared to hack away at mere symptoms, just taking actions against terrorists without doing anything useful against THE CAUSE OF IT ?

Political correctness, if it reigns supreme and unassailable, will saddle everyone with - if you're LUCKY - a never-ending problem, with death and suffering written into human existence, from terrorism, AS SOMETHING PERMANENT.

If you're unlucky ... one day you'll wake up to find an America you no longer recognise. Gone will be freedoms you hold dear, and in its place, a new intolerant tyranny in which evil brutality will be the norm. Where even your own thoughts won't be your own, but just dictated to you, by the teachings of a long-dead paedophile !!!

[Drummond]

Being pc isn't one of my problems. I do believe in common decency though.

Good. Then, you should want it to prevail.

Terrorism isn't 'decent' .. at all. Nor is its cause.

Trump will apparently deal with all of the problem, not just a part of it.

[Kathianne]

The idea of a far right or left dictatorship doesn't appeal to me.

[Drummond]

The idea of a far right or left dictatorship doesn't appeal to me.

Do you fudge problems, or, tackle them head-on ?

Terrorism, AND ITS CAUSE - as an important example, is one such example of extremism which is either given favours by being soft on it, or, it's tackled. A first step towards that objective is to properly recognise it for what it is !!

And political correctness not only won't do that, it'll ensure that perceptions remained unseen, that SHOULD be seen.

You don't wake people up from a delusional dream-state by feeding those delusions, by a display of even-handedness that does nothing to galvanise a reaction. What you do is to take a position that's hard, uncompromising, that shouts people out of their stupour and galvanises them into the proper resistance to a WHOLE threat, one they can see, one they are alerted to, one they're utterly determined to counter and defeat.

Will adherence to 'moderation' suffice ? Or, will it fail to ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There's nothing decent about him. He's an arrogant a-hole. I'd like to see Bush and the Wisconsin dude Prez and VP, and Carly secretary of state. Rubio head of Homeland Security.

Not that I have an opinion. :laugh:
You opinion is your right as is those that disagree.
Truth is, if our economy is not turned completely around we will fall as a nation, thats the disaster thats being deliberately set my friend. Nobody in the race can or would turn it around as Trump would.
Economy must be top priority first in order to reverse the deliberate disaster obama has wrecked.
I think none of the other candidates get that but Trump comes closer to understanding and far closer to being the one to head in that direction.
As to being arrogant a-holes, all politicians are my friend-- the others just hide theirs better, while Trump does not waste time playing that game. -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Both of you are entitled to your opinions, Tyr may vote on his. :beer: My only comment is be careful what you wish for, Hillary is the likely beneficiary of this.


I think this should be the banner at the top of the board. Ditto especially for voting Libertarian.

[Black Diamond]

I think this should be the banner at the top of the board. Ditto especially for voting Libertarian.

Libertarians swear up and down there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican candidates. It's maddening.

[Max R.]

Being off yesterday, I had some time to read commentary regarding the debate; alas having to read the text and later (thanks to Black Diamond) watch the replay of the main debate; not all. This morning read this, which encapsulates my pov regarding the performance by FOX. I ran across it at Real Clear Politics, which does have a tendency to find the best of various POV:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/07/the-gop-debate-was-awesome-we-need-more-like-it/
Great review. The debate technique certainly found the best way to "separate the wheat from the chaff".

[Kathianne]

Do you fudge problems, or, tackle them head-on ?

Terrorism, AND ITS CAUSE - as an important example, is one such example of extremism which is either given favours by being soft on it, or, it's tackled. A first step towards that objective is to properly recognise it for what it is !!

And political correctness not only won't do that, it'll ensure that perceptions remained unseen, that SHOULD be seen.

You don't wake people up from a delusional dream-state by feeding those delusions, by a display of even-handedness that does nothing to galvanise a reaction. What you do is to take a position that's hard, uncompromising, that shouts people out of their stupour and galvanises them into the proper resistance to a WHOLE threat, one they can see, one they are alerted to, one they're utterly determined to counter and defeat.

Will adherence to 'moderation' suffice ? Or, will it fail to ?

Oh just like obama with hobbesian choice. False for both of you.

[Drummond]

Oh just like obama with hobbesian choice. False for both of you.

So far as this goes, it suggests some middle ground exists. Is that fair comment ?

Such a belief favours the Left. You will find that your Left will do their best to demonise their opposition. THIS I GUARANTEE. They'll paint them as extreme. If this belief that looking for a middle ground is a prevailing one, the Left will seek to capitalise on it, use it as leverage to bend things THEIR way.

The BBC, being a foreign broadcaster, has no direct concerns to exercise in the matter of who governs you. But still, they are determined to put a propagandist spin on things in our media. If the British take THEIR output as the yardstick of fair reporting, they'll see Trump as an extremist .. this not only reflecting on him, and the GOP, and Conservatism in America today ... but, if he is, and remains, popular ... they'll see it as a big 'minus' for American attitudes generally.

... NOT because any of it is DESERVED, but because Leftie propaganda will decree it to be 'the truth'.

In the list of BBC reports right now, in order of importance, a supposed Trump 'gaffe' is running second (the first is a report on the Calais migrant crisis). I have the BBC's Teletext feed on my screen right now. Let me relay it to you ! As follows:


'TRUMP BACKLASH OVER BLOOD JIBE'

A major US Conservative forum has dropped Donald Trump as its speaker, saying it was unacceptable for him to suggest that a journalist was tough on him because she was menstruating.

Mr Trump said Megyn Kelly of Fox News 'had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever'

Ms Kelly challenged him on remarks he made about women during a TV debate.

Conservative group Redstate said Mr Trump was implying that she was hormonal. Mr Trump later denied that in a tweet.'

That, word-for-word, is actually the extent of reporting the BBC has done on any confrontation between Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly. In our domestic broadcasts supplied by the BBC, there's been no reporting of anything she said or did to be at all confrontational, beyond what you see in the above text.

There's been no relaying of any of the broadcast on any of our BBC channels, and all they've done to depict Ms Kelly is show a still photograph of her, taken as part of the debate's footage, showing her smiling pleasantly.

IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS FORUM, I'D BELIEVE TRUMP TO HAVE ACTED IN AN UNACCEPTABLY MISOGYNISTIC FASHION, AND THINK THAT THERE WAS NO DEFENCE FOR HIM.

The BBC is obviously unhappy that Trump is still enjoying any success at all. An interviewer 'anchor' man in the studio spoke to one of its reporters in Washington, pointing out in a question that Trump is still regarded favourably by 'some', despite 'this being deeply embarrassing for the Republican Party'. She replied that, yes, this popularity persisted 'even despite his controversial remarks'. Which puts forward the impression that he's a maverick, an extremist who no right-thinking person should support.

This is the BBC's idea of balance. Coming from it, they're trying to ensure that nobody British will have any time for him, or his politics. And -- I promise you, the BBC will do far more than this to crack down on anything they deem 'controversial', from the Right.

In the meantime ... they have a recording of a Michelle Obama speech, lasting 20 minutes. They've aired it once, so far, on the BBC Parliament channel. I thought, yesterday, that only FOUR more were scheduled.

I was wrong, it's actually FIVE MORE. Since we only have schedules that go forward one week, it's possible that yet more are in the pipeline after those total SIX airings of it .. only time will tell.

NOTHING, though, has been - or is scheduled - for any portion of the debate to be aired.

Now, I wonder why ?

[Kathianne]

BBC really holds no sway here. I know it's biased, but not a biggie here.

[Rat]

Been out of country for week so no see debate. Will find and watch it online tomorrow.

[Gunny]

You opinion is your right as is those that disagree.
Truth is, if our economy is not turned completely around we will fall as a nation, thats the disaster thats being deliberately set my friend. Nobody in the race can or would turn it around as Trump would.
Economy must be top priority first in order to reverse the deliberate disaster obama has wrecked.
I think none of the other candidates get that but Trump comes closer to understanding and far closer to being the one to head in that direction.
As to being arrogant a-holes, all politicians are my friend-- the others just hide theirs better, while Trump does not waste time playing that game. -Tyr

He's only been bankrupt 4 times. Walker, Bush, Kusinich and Rick Perry all went from deficit to surplus.

I didn't like Ross Perot and I don't like Trump. Rich [people get rich taking OUR money. I also don't like someone who likes to dish it out but whines like a kid when it gets thrown back in his face.

[SassyLady]

Undoubtedly, he shoots from the hip.

Let's say your observation has validity. Even so, Trump, as President, will have his advisors. He'll have experts on hand to guide him every step of the way, in his thinking processes ! It'd be proactive, so even if Trump says something 'stupid', it can be processed in its own terms by people fully qualified to do it.

What I'd want to see in the Oval Office is someone in charge who has the right instincts, and can lead with those instincts being a force to galvanise in the right, basically correct direction. If such leadership needs fine-tuning with expert input, it'll happen.

So .. valid observation, or not ... there'll be compensations in place to correct matters.

Consider Obama. Obviously intelligent. BUT, with a treasonous agenda ! There's no way on this earth you could argue that he had the 'right instincts' ... nothing could be further from the truth.

Trump would be WAY better, even if all you think about him is completely true. A strong patriot, utterly committed to doing his utmost to make America a proud and great country, not only nominally so, but measurably so, by being true to proper principles !!!

He is already firing people and some in his campaign are resigning. I don't think he will listen to anyone ... he is a loose cannon. At this point there are other candidates that are just as pissed as Trump and who I feel will take decisive action if needed.

From Carly:


In response to a question about what she would do on her first day in office if she were elected, Fiorina said that her first phone call would be to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.“How we treat our friends is reassuring to our other friends,” said Fiorina. “This administration has made the world a more dangerous place by the way they have treated Israel.”
Fiorina then continued, saying that her second call would be to the Supreme Leader of Iran. Remarking that she was not sure he would take her call, she said that she would want to send a message that the United States would impose strict sanctions on them to force an end to their quest for nuclear weapons:

We are going to impose sanctions, specifically making it very difficult for them to move money throughout the global financial system, which we have a fair amount of influence over, unless and until they open themselves up to full and unfettered inspections, as they agreed to do, per the unanimously passed UN resolution, and which they have never done.
Fiorina’s third call would be a domestic one, to the head of the Democratic Party, “to say that we have work to do [and] I look forward to working with both [parties] to get that work done.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/04/carly-fiorina-first-call-as-president-will-be-to-prime-minister-of-israel/

[SassyLady]

You opinion is your right as is those that disagree.
Truth is, if our economy is not turned completely around we will fall as a nation, thats the disaster thats being deliberately set my friend. Nobody in the race can or would turn it around as Trump would.
Economy must be top priority first in order to reverse the deliberate disaster obama has wrecked.
I think none of the other candidates get that but Trump comes closer to understanding and far closer to being the one to head in that direction.
As to being arrogant a-holes, all politicians are my friend-- the others just hide theirs better, while Trump does not waste time playing that game. -Tyr

I disagree. Check Carly's tenure at HP.


Mrs. Fiorina launched her campaign website with a video of herself sitting on a couch, a setting strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 announcement video—except that in her video, Mrs. Fiorina watches Mrs. Clinton’s video, then turns off the TV.
“Our founders never intended us to have a professional political class.…If you’re tired of the sound bites, the vitriol, the pettiness, the egos, the corruption...then join us,” she says.
Mrs. Fiorina’s website says that during her H-P tenure, the company “doubled revenues; more than quadrupled its growth rate; tripled the rate of innovation, with 11 patents a day.”
As CEO, Mrs. Fiorina spearheaded the 2002 takeover of Compaq Computer, which divided shareholders and directors: While it turned H-P into a market leader, it was seen as a risky bet on low-margin personal computers. The battle over whether or not to acquire Compaq pitted Mrs. Fiorina and her allies against a son of an H-P founder.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/carly-fiorina-im-running-for-president-1430739879


PS ... she restructured and downsized thousands of jobs which indicates that she will trim the fat where needed.

[SassyLady]

I'm looking for a candidate who WILL take a 'tough on the CAUSES of crime' approach. Who WILL deal with the cause of all the terrorism, and see a threat in its real terms, and its totality.

From what you've said, Trump will do that.

Certainly from my standpoint - and, I dare to say, from anyone else's who wants to do their utmost to ensure the security of America and the wider world in the future - THAT THEREFORE MAKES TRUMP THE ONLY LEGITIMATE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE, SINCE ALL THE OTHERS WOULD RENEGE ON THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

So, thanks, Kathianne. My belief that you need Trump in the White House is now a confirmed one.

Not true. Watch this interview .... I'm sure it will change your mind.

Carly Fiorina Uncensored on #SJW Feminism and Weak Leaders || Louder With Crowder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUgFG5XQiM

[SassyLady]

Thanks, and that's both useful and a step in the right direction (I applaud it .. it's a way of saying that Jihadists aren't citizens deserving citizenship, that they've betrayed their country, and that's absolutely right !!).

It doesn't answer my question, though, as from this, Cruz might just regard those leaving as radicalised by extremists, extremists who in his opinion don't represent so-called 'mainstream' Islam.

I want to ideally see a President who - to quote, I think, Tony Blair - will take a 'tough on crime, TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME' approach. Just cracking down on the supposed 'militant few' and maybe making an example of them isn't, surely, enough. You don't cure a disease just by suppressing its symptoms. Who, amongst the Republican candidates, will be willing to go the extra mile and tackle the REAL cause of all this so-called 'militancy' ?

Does Trump's plain-speaking go as far as this ? Will he go that 'extra mile' ... or not ? WHO WILL ?

Could it be that the political correctness that pervades all parts of the British political spectrum does the very same in American politics ? Is that true of all the Republican candidates ?

See Carly's foreign policy speech given at Reagan Library.


I know you are outraged. Sick of a professional political class that lectures and harangues —and never actually says anything at all. You know empty promises and bumper sticker rhetoric solve nothing. For too long we have had too many speeches and too few results.

The American people deserve an honest leader. Who will own up to the difficulties of the job in front of her—and who has a track record of leadership, accomplishment, and challenging the status quo.

As you are all aware, I am not a member of the professional political class. But I do have extensive national security and foreign policy experience. I have served as the Chairman of the CIA’s External Advisory Board and I have advised Secretaries of State and Defense as well as the NSA and Department of Homeland Security. I have done so with the highest civilian security clearances. I have led a company doing business in 170 countries. I have advised governments and done charitable work in their nations. I have met with and gotten to know many leaders around the world. They know me, respect me and, most importantly, they trust me as a woman of action and of my word.

As President, I will not wait until things have reached the crisis level. And I will not shy away from the most important challenges facing our world today. Because without American leadership, we face two choices: regional hegemons who challenge America or global chaos.

Here’s what I will do as Commander in Chief. First, we must have the strongest military on the face of the planet and everyone has to know it.

This will take both an investment in our military and a reform of the Defense Department. We must fix what’s called the tooth-to-tail ratios. Tooth-to-tail ratios are measured regularly in the Defense Department. Tooth—tip of the spear, our fighting men and women, the weapons systems and the technology they require to fight and win. Tail — bureaucracy—much too large for what we need to defend our nation. In fact, our tooth-to-tail ratios are as bad right now as they have ever been. So it’s not just throwing more money at the problem. It’s investing the money as well as our intellect and our imagination in the right places—tooth—and reducing the amount spent on a bureaucracy in need of reform— tail.

....


In order to defeat ISIS, we must be willing to call it what it is: Islamic extremism. When 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded on the beaches of Egypt, it was the President of Egypt, President Al-Sisi—a very brave and pious Muslim—who went into Cairo to visit with the most powerful imams and told them that Islam was in need of a religious revolution. He knew that they must condemn radical Islam and call it what it is: a cancer at the heart of their religion. We have to know what we're up against if we are to defeat it.

I, like President Obama, will hold a Camp David summit, but not to talk our allies into a bad deal with Iran to cement my legacy. Instead, I will discuss with our Arab allies how we can support them in their fight against ISIS. They know this is their fight but they must see leadership and resolve and support from us.

We will arm the Kurds as they have been requesting for three long years. I will provide King Abdullah, a fine man, with the bombs and materiel he has requested—instead of putting him in a position to turn to China for help. I will share intelligence with the Egyptians as they have requested. The Kurds, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Saudis are fighting ISIS on the ground as we speak.

I will make a promise to our friends in the Middle East to train their troops to fight ISIS—and I will keep that promise. President Obama told us his administration would spend $500 million to train 3,000 troops within the next year. We’ve trained 60. That’s simply unacceptable. And what do we see now? ISIS is gaining traction. The FBI now tells us they are more dangerous than al Qaeda. Secretary Clinton and President Obama declared victory in Iraq in 2011 and withdrew. They watched while ISIS grew, and a growing crisis is now spiraling out of control.







If you are interested in the rest of her foreign policy stance (especially with regard to China and Russian threats) go here.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carly-china-our-rising-adversary_998734.html

[Perianne]

Here is what concerns me of the whole issue: Trump has made it clear that he may run as a third party candidate. Considering there would be a base of support for Trump, maybe 5-10%, it would clear the way for the Democratic nominee to become president if Trump were to run third party.


Donald Trump says he wants to run for president as a Republican, not as an independent — but the latter option may depend on how well the GOP handles him.

“I do not want to do independent at all,” Trump said Friday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Now,” he added, “if I’m treated poorly, that’s one thing. If I’m treated well and with great respect and don’t win, I would not do that — but if I’m treated poorly, I will do it.”
So, if he is treated "poorly" by the Republican party he will run as an independent? Why would the Republican party, candidates, and Fox News decide to deliberately gouge at him? Why do exactly what he warned them not to do?

Is there another agenda in play that we don't know about? Why take a chance on ruining the chance for another Republican to win the White House? It seems to be smarter to simply let him do what he does and then slowly fade away. Why poke the bear this early?

Understand this: if Trump runs as an independent the Republicans will lose.


http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/24/trump-no-third-party-bid-if-im-treated-well/

[Kathianne]

Here is what concerns me of the whole issue: Trump has made it clear that he may run as a third party candidate. Considering there would be a base of support for Trump, maybe 5-10%, it would clear the way for the Democratic nominee to become president if Trump were to run third party.


So, if he is treated "poorly" by the Republican party he will run as an independent? Why would the Republican party, candidates, and Fox News decide to deliberately gouge at him? Why do exactly what he warned them not to do?

Is there another agenda in play that we don't know about? Why take a chance on ruining the chance for another Republican to win the White House? It seems to be smarter to simply let him do what he does and then slowly fade away. Why poke the bear this early?

Understand this: if Trump runs as an independent the Republicans will lose.


http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/24/trump-no-third-party-bid-if-im-treated-well/

No one seems to have zeroed in on his changing he goal posts on his blackmail attempt regarding third party. It had been as you stated. At the debate it changed to, 'Obviously if I'm the nominee, I will stay. Otherwise it would have to be someone I'd support otherwise I may have to run independent.' Who does he support? Hillary. She's not running as a Republican.

[Gunny]

No one seems to have zeroed in on his changing he goal posts on his blackmail attempt regarding third party. It had been as you stated. At the debate it changed to, 'Obviously if I'm the nominee, I will stay. Otherwise it would have to be someone I'd support otherwise I may have to run independent.' Who does he support? Hillary. She's not running as a Republican.

Some people are paying attention. But you have the "angry" crowd that likes all his bellowing and bluster. But it's ALL talk. Hell, I got a plan. Get rid of the space program. Billions wasted on nothing.

[Kathianne]

No one seems to have zeroed in on his changing he goal posts on his blackmail attempt regarding third party. It had been as you stated. At the debate it changed to, 'Obviously if I'm the nominee, I will stay. Otherwise it would have to be someone I'd support otherwise I may have to run independent.' Who does he support? Hillary. She's not running as a Republican.

Someone finally did zero in on the 'change' or flip flop if you will:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-trump-campaign-will-end_1007525.html?page=1


The Trump Goes On7:15 PM, AUG 8, 2015 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES (http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes)

In an interview on CNN last night (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/trump-megyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-her-eyes-blood-coming-out-her-wherever_1007070.html), Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.”


He refused to apologize, of course, but after widespread condemnation, Trump, who is running on candor and straight talk, sought to explain his comments in a Tweet. “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). :rolleyes: Just got on w/thought.’”


It’s a comment that might end any other presidential campaign. Trump is different, in part because this isn’t a campaign. It’s an extended media-driven ego ride.

...

Trump is right, sadly, when he boasts that he is partly responsible for the 24 million viewers who tuned into the debate Thursday night. He has convinced himself that people watch because they love him and in a limited sense, he’s probably right about that, too. While I suspect that the Trump hype is driven by curiosity more than admiration, there is no doubt some segment of the population that is properly understood now as “Trump supporters.” That segment is small and will be shrinking in the coming weeks, but it won’t disappear.


The true Trump apologists are way too far in now. They've invested too much to bail on him. So his defenders will become increasingly desperate to convince people that this is all part of the establishment's failure to understand their anger and the media's failure to appreciate Trump’s appeal.


That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs; if not his kindergarten Twitter insults, then perhaps his sad and compulsive boasting; if not his incomprehensible answers to substantive questions at the debate, then maybe, finally, his juvenile and misogynistic put-down of the female moderator.


Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame. It doesn’t matter that they’re angry about the incompetence in Washington. Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator. It’s embarrassing, but rather than embarrassment, the Trump followers will feel more anger and their pose will shift from self-righteousness to victimhood. And many of them will dig in further.

More worrisome, for conservatives and for the country, so will Trump. As he’s abandoned by more rational beings, Trump, a man of deep and evident insecurity, will need these remaining supporters as validation that it’s the world that’s gone crazy, not him. They will encourage him to march on, guided by the misapprehension that there are many more behind them, perhaps hard to see, but following in the distance nonetheless. Trump will tout this support and insist, unconstrained by reality, that he can win. (This is the man who continues to say Hispanics love him and will support him, despite polls showing his favorability among Hispanics in the mid-teens).(Drudge poll anyone?)


As Republicans scramble to distance themselves—with many candidates denouncing his remarks about Kelly, as they had his mockery of John McCain—Trump will feel the swelling pride of a man whose bluff is being called. Treat me nicely or I’ll leave, he warned repeatedly.


This is why Bret Baier’s first question Thursday was the single most important question of the debate. Although Trump had left open the possibility of running third party, in the days leading up to the debate he had backed away from those threats. “I’m pretty confident in the answers I’ve gotten from him,” Sean Hannity said Wednesday night. “I’ve asked him a few times. I’m pretty confident he’ll never run third party.”


Less than twenty-four hours later, Trump reversed himself again, raising his hand to show he wouldn't pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. When Baier asked if Trump meant to be conveying what he seemed to be saying, Trump responded, twice: “I fully understand.”


Trump threatened to leave if Republicans treated him badly. Now, because he’s a churl and a buffoon, Republicans have no choice but to treat him badly.


It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.

[Gunny]

Someone finally did zero in on the 'change' or flip flop if you will:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-trump-campaign-will-end_1007525.html?page=1

He actually said THAT? What an idiot. I think he just lost whatever of the women's vote he thought he had.

Rule #1 about women on their period ... never mention women on their period. Rule #2 about women on their period ... repeat Rule #1.:laugh:

[Kathianne]

Going through the stories on The Donald, the most thoughtful ones keep saying at 'some point' his followers are going to want specifics.

I doubt that.

They are happy with a voice of anger and 'taking it to the man.' LOL!

A billionaire that admits to cronyism, relishes in it, is the 'man.'

There's no doubt they do hate the country, want Hillary or a third Obama term, which is what Hillary or Trump promises.

If they didn't feel this way, they'd be coming out for Fiorina, who addresses the same issues, but actually articulates how to address them. She has been taking 'it' to Clinton in a way no other candidate has. Or they could support Cruz, who at least has some experience and has taken on GOP leadership time and again.

But no, they want only bombast and destruction of government-which just is not going to happen.

[Gunny]

Going through the stories on The Donald, the most thoughtful ones keep saying at 'some point' his followers are going to want specifics.

I doubt that.

They are happy with a voice of anger and 'taking it to the man.' LOL!

A billionaire that admits to cronyism, relishes in it, is the 'man.'

There's no doubt they do hate the country, want Hillary or a third Obama term, which is what Hillary or Trump promises.

I get the anger thing. I think we all do. I just wish those that are so being angry would quit losing sight of what it's ultimately about. It's a double-edged sword. Trump doesn't care who he offends. There's a time and a place, and he apparently doesn't know when and where that is. He's a loose cannon.

I wasn't impressed with Megyn Kelly at all. But Trump's tit-for-tat is making him look worse.

[Kathianne]

I get the anger thing. I think we all do. I just wish those that are so being angry would quit losing sight of what it's ultimately about. It's a double-edged sword. Trump doesn't care who he offends. There's a time and a place, and he apparently doesn't know when and where that is. He's a loose cannon.

I wasn't impressed with Megyn Kelly at all. But Trump's tit-for-tat is making him look worse.

Kelly is, as I've said several times and many agree with, 'a mean girl.' It does make interesting television and that's why she's there. She too is overly impressed with herself and her 'knowledge' which is also without any self- examination.

She was though doing her job. She, all the moderators asked uncomfortable questions and set up confrontations between the candidates. Trump handled her questions as well as possible, never losing his own brand. He should have left it there. But no, he is so obviously insecure and so determined to have the last word-no matter how bad-that he took to Twitter and later CNN. To think others have called Obama 'thin skinned.' :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

He actually said THAT? What an idiot. I think he just lost whatever of the women's vote he thought he had.

Rule #1 about women on their period ... never mention women on their period. Rule #2 about women on their period ... repeat Rule #1.:laugh:

He did, reason he was disinvited from Red State Forum.

[Gunny]

Kelly is, as I've said several times and many agree with, 'a mean girl.' It does make interesting television and that's why she's there. She too is overly impressed with herself and her 'knowledge' which is also without any self- examination.

She was though doing her job. She, all the moderators asked uncomfortable questions and set up confrontations between the candidates. Trump handled her questions as well as possible, never losing his own brand. He should have left it there. But no, he is so obviously insecure and so determined to have the last word-no matter how bad-that he took to Twitter and later CNN. To think others have called Obama 'thin skinned.' :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've noticed before she has a bit of a snarkiness about her. It's a real turn-off for me. I watch the news to get the news.

Obama IS thin-skinned. My correlation between he and Trump is not by accident. We have some serious problem in this country, a lot due to Obama, but why is that? Aside from the fact he's a political retard?

He'd rather bicker over little crap than address the big issues. Trump is the same way.

[Abbey Marie]

As of right now, I see him as the only hope you have to disentangle yourselves from being psychologically throttled by PC poison in your country.

He, apparently ALONE out of all other candidates, will face up to a vitally important problem IN ITS ENTIRETY, because he WON'T buy into delusion that blinds people into not seeing it.

Think on this. A President prepared to tackle terrorism in its entirety, getting people awake enough to see exactly what threat is ranged against them ... how isn't this BETTER than someone only prepared to hack away at mere symptoms, just taking actions against terrorists without doing anything useful against THE CAUSE OF IT ?

Political correctness, if it reigns supreme and unassailable, will saddle everyone with - if you're LUCKY - a never-ending problem, with death and suffering written into human existence, from terrorism, AS SOMETHING PERMANENT.

If you're unlucky ... one day you'll wake up to find an America you no longer recognise. Gone will be freedoms you hold dear, and in its place, a new intolerant tyranny in which evil brutality will be the norm. Where even your own thoughts won't be your own, but just dictated to you, by the teachings of a long-dead paedophile !!!

Drummond, I agree with you about the sad situation we are in. It's pathetic. But you have to keep in mind that the PC state of this country is at an all-time high. People get offended just to get offended. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't recover (if ever we do) overnight.

We need a leader who makes bold changes but does so with finesse. Not in a way that further polarizes the country. Sometimes the way in which you do things, while getting the same good result, means all the difference.

[Kathianne]

You have to keep in mind that the PC state of this country is at an all-time high. People get offended just to get offended. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't recover (if ever we do) overnight.

We need a leader who makes bold changes but does so with finesse. Not in a way that further polarizes the country. Sometimes the way in which you do things, while getting the same good result, means all the difference.

I totally agree that PC-microaggressions and such-are more than problematic, they are spears into free speech and thought.

What was being discussed at the debate wasn't PC, but common decency towards women. These are not 'one offs' this has been a pattern for decades. Kelly is mean, but mean doesn't take away from what she was addressing.

[Gunny]

I totally agree that PC-microaggressions and such-are more than problematic, they are spears into free speech and thought.

What was being discussed at the debate wasn't PC, but common decency towards women. These are not 'one offs' this has been a pattern for decades. Kelly is mean, but mean doesn't take away from what she was addressing.

I disagree about Megyn Kelly. Her attitude/demeanor totally stole from her message.

But let's back this up some. I STILL think these debates are pointless, if not counterproductive. I didn't lean anything I didn't already know. Trump, Christie and Paul are hotheads. Jeb Bush comes off looking dull even though he's probably the best overall candidate. Walker and Kucinich are broken records running on what-all they claim to have to have done in their leftwing states..

I will also add that Rick Perry was an awesome governor but he comes off really bad on TV.

So this is more about appearance than substance. Fiarino and Carson came off the best IMO because they were completely comfortable.

That's how Obama edged Hillary in 08. He was a rock star and Hillary is just not a likeable person.

I don't want a rock star/hothead or whatever. I want someone that knows what they're doing.

[Kathianne]

I disagree about Megyn Kelly. Her attitude/demeanor totally stole from her message.

But let's back this up some. I STILL think these debates are pointless, if not counterproductive. I didn't lean anything I didn't already know. Trump, Christie and Paul are hotheads. Jeb Bush comes off looking dull even though he's probably the best overall candidate. Walker and Kucinich are broken records running on what-all they claim to have to have done in their leftwing states..

I will also add that Rick Perry was an awesome governor but he comes off really bad on TV.

So this is more about appearance than substance. Fiarino and Carson came off the best IMO because they were completely comfortable.

That's how Obama edged Hillary in 08. He was a rock star and Hillary is just not a likeable person.

I don't want a rock star/hothead or whatever. I want someone that knows what they're doing.

We disagree. I think there are several in both top and lower that came across as capable. All the governors have good records.

[Gunny]

We disagree. I think there are several in both top and lower that came across as capable. All the governors have good records.

I wasn't meaning to say anyone except a few were incapable. My main point goes all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon. He/she who looks best on TV wins.

And again, nobody said anything that hasn't been on Fox for months.

[Kathianne]

I wasn't meaning to say anyone except a few were incapable. My main point goes all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon. He/she who looks best on TV wins.

And again, nobody said anything that hasn't been on Fox for months.

If this was a beauty contest, Trump wouldn't be there.

[Gunny]

If this was a beauty contest, Trump wouldn't be there.

:laugh:

I was calling him Harry the Eagle from Sesame Street.:laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

I wasn't meaning to say anyone except a few were incapable. My main point goes all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon. He/she who looks best on TV wins.

And again, nobody said anything that hasn't been on Fox for months.


I would say anyone on this board is light-years ahead in political knowledge over the masses. So, even though you feel you already knew everything about these candidates, most people have a lot to learn.

In fact, this was my initial criticism of the way the debate was handled. I wanted more actual information about what they would do to fix this mess, less "gotcha".

[revelarts]

I still haven't watched.
Did anyone ask or mention anything about the Abortion issue?
any ACTION plans proposed or outlined?

[Kathianne]

Yes, Walker, Huckabee...

[Drummond]

Not true. Watch this interview .... I'm sure it will change your mind.

Carly Fiorina Uncensored on #SJW Feminism and Weak Leaders || Louder With Crowder


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUgFG5XQiM

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sassy (something that would always be true !) ... but I must do so on this occasion.

Carly Fiorina undoubtedly talks a whole lot of sense. I've also looked at the Wikipedia account of what she's achieved, and it's impressive !

To have done so much, to have taken her various stances, she obviously has her claim to toughness in the political arena. Trouble is .. for me, that didn't come out in the interview. Diplomatic capacity in one's manner, and just appearing 'nice', may have its own importance .. but then, you could say the same for Obama's own manner. And Obama (no doubt as part of a wider agenda, though) links that with achieving WEAKNESS.

I'd want a very strong figure as President. Carly doesn't come across that way .. sorry. Margaret Thatcher had a brilliant mind, but part of what made her a great Leader is her strength, and SHOWING it, whenever it counted to do so. You want someone who can bulldoze their way through tough situations, someone who'd not only not bend, but be convincing in showing it. Margaret had that in spades. No doubt Trump also does, to put it mildly ! I just don't get that from Carly Fiorina's manner, from what the clip showed. She might say she had that in mind as a tactic ... but she'd also have to be convincing about it. She lacks the 'bullishness' in her manner to be convincing.

Imagine her facing off against Gromyko, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Gromyko would probably have emerged from his meeting thinking Carly was 'nice', but he'd hardly have been convinced to recommend a backing-off of the Soviet position to his Kremlin masters based on Carly's even-handed charm.

So, sorry, Sassy ... but my thinking on Trump remains unchanged. And besides, to pre-empt what you might say, I don't think Trump is an idiot. He hasn't ever been President, he's never done a job quite like it. I think he'd realise that he needed to grow into the job. A certain extent of adjustment WOULD happen, I'm sure. With that in place .. I think Trump will become one of the all-time 'greats' as US President.

[namvet]

We wouldn't have one with Trump either. ;)

how would we know?? he was passed over on national security

[revelarts]

Yes, Walker, Huckabee...


How geeky am I? Just found a transcript of the debate:
http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

thanks i went to transcript you posted to get the quotes,

looks like Walker is SERIOUS. Dealing with PP several years ago in some fashion in his state.

Rubio, Christie and Trump seem to be giving the usually republican lip service.
Huckabee talks big here but where the beef? hard to say. i need more details about his state record.

[Drummond]

Talking of Margaret Thatcher .. and I'd never tire of it !!! :rolleyes: ... I thought I'd relay a memory of a favourite moment of her.

It involves a clip I once saw. Not of Margaret herself, but of Ronald Reagan.

Ron and Margaret didn't disagree on much - but there were a handful of those disagreements, and this one (I can't remember specifics) was a sharp disagreement, and Margaret was determined to get her way. She phoned Ronald, and proceeded to treat him to a 'handbagging', a tirade of a statement as to why she, and not he, was right in the disagreement.

The clip showed Ronald Reagan holding the telephone receiver several inches from his ear (at that point, a comfortable distance !) .. broad grin on his face, almost laughing, and saying, with evident genuine appreciation ... 'Isn't she wonderful' ?

I liked that moment - enormously. Good humoured appreciation, that of a friend who respected his 'opponent' of the moment .. but valued the friendship nonetheless, and was unwavering in his respect.

They had a brilliant rapport.

I really wonder if Ms Fiorina has it within her to recreate any version of such a moment.

[Black Diamond]

I wanna see Fiorina on the same stage with Trump.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would say anyone on this board is light-years ahead in political knowledge over the masses. So, even though you feel you already knew everything about these candidates, most people have a lot to learn.

In fact, this was my initial criticism of the way the debate was handled. I wanted more actual information about what they would do to fix this mess, less "gotcha".
They were too busy playing Trump gotcha to do what they were supposed to do-- as in give the public a greater insight into the candidates and where they stand on issues.
Fox -claims to be unfair and unbiased but it was biased as hell by opening up with their - try to sink Trump questions. Immigration, economy, Iran nuke and national security issues played a distant 4th fiddle to get Trump agenda the debate was geared toward IMHO.
SAD AND KELLY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BE ANY PART OF FUTURE REPUBLICAN DEBATES.
SHE WAS JUST THAT BAD , BIASED AND UNPROFESSIONAL.-Tyr

[SassyLady]

Because I've been following Carly since she ran against Boxer, I probably know more about her demeanor than others here .... well, except maybe Gabs.

It always amazes me when people say they want a strong woman and yet don't understand that a strong person doesn't have to be loud and abrasive. She's made some really tough and unpopular decisions in the past and I believe she will continue to show her inner strength without having to be bombastic like Trump.

[Black Diamond]

Because I've been following Carly since she ran against Boxer, I probably know more about her demeanor than others here .... well, except maybe Gabs.

It always amazes me when people say they want a strong woman and yet don't understand that a strong person doesn't have to be loud and abrasive. She's made some really tough and unpopular decisions in the past and I believe she will continue to show her inner strength without having to be bombastic like Trump.

Any chance she makes the prime time debate next time?

[namvet]

I wanna see Fiorina on the same stage with Trump.

as long as they throw fast balls at her like they did Trump

[SassyLady]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sassy (something that would always be true !) ... but I must do so on this occasion.

Carly Fiorina undoubtedly talks a whole lot of sense. I've also looked at the Wikipedia account of what she's achieved, and it's impressive !

To have done so much, to have taken her various stances, she obviously has her claim to toughness in the political arena. Trouble is .. for me, that didn't come out in the interview. Diplomatic capacity in one's manner, and just appearing 'nice', may have its own importance .. but then, you could say the same for Obama's own manner. And Obama (no doubt as part of a wider agenda, though) links that with achieving WEAKNESS.

I'd want a very strong figure as President. Carly doesn't come across that way .. sorry. Margaret Thatcher had a brilliant mind, but part of what made her a great Leader is her strength, and SHOWING it, whenever it counted to do so. You want someone who can bulldoze their way through tough situations, someone who'd not only not bend, but be convincing in showing it. Margaret had that in spades. No doubt Trump also does, to put it mildly ! I just don't get that from Carly Fiorina's manner, from what the clip showed. She might say she had that in mind as a tactic ... but she'd also have to be convincing about it. She lacks the 'bullishness' in her manner to be convincing.

Imagine her facing off against Gromyko, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Gromyko would probably have emerged from his meeting thinking Carly was 'nice', but he'd hardly have been convinced to recommend a backing-off of the Soviet position to his Kremlin masters based on Carly's even-handed charm.

So, sorry, Sassy ... but my thinking on Trump remains unchanged. And besides, to pre-empt what you might say, I don't think Trump is an idiot. He hasn't ever been President, he's never done a job quite like it. I think he'd realise that he needed to grow into the job. A certain extent of adjustment WOULD happen, I'm sure. With that in place .. I think Trump will become one of the all-time 'greats' as US President.

Well, it will be interesting to see if either of our opinions change over the next couple of months. Both Carly and Trump have the economic experience, however, Carly has more experience in dealing with world leaders and negotiations, as well as having a very high security clearance. What type of security clearance does Trump have? There is a reason Carly has a high security clearance


The most obvious knock on Fiorina’s newly announced presidential bid is that she has never been elected to any government office. But during the Bush presidency, Fiorina walked the corridors of the CIA and other high offices of government, assembling recommendations for national-security policy and developing a close working relationship with some of the most powerful officials in the administration. She’s already begun to cite these years in an attempt to counter those critics who say she lacks the experience needed to be commander-in-chief. When Hayden moved to the CIA, Deitz became his senior counselor. He served as the CIA’s main liaison to the advisory board, although he says Hayden and Fiorina had regular private lunch meetings. “The board had a lot of egos — these were people from academia, retired three- and four-star generals, big poobahs from private industry,” Deitz remembers. “It was a challenging board to run. She would generally sit quietly, ask questions, but you never got a sense she was dominating or big-footing — but by the end of the meeting, she had gotten exactly what she wanted. . . . Polite, but you couldn’t push her around.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417938/ceo-and-cia-jim-geraghty

[SassyLady]

Any chance she makes the prime time debate next time?

I certainly hope so. She's getting name recognition and getting good polling results.

[Max R.]

Any chance she makes the prime time debate next time?
Let's hope she attracts enough public attention that she does. Who do you think she should replace in the Top Ten?

[SassyLady]

Let's hope she attracts enough public attention that she does. Who do you think she should replace in the Top Ten?

Unfortunately, it will probably be Ben Carson. I think it should be Huckabee. I want Trump to stay because I would like to see how things work out between Carly and Trump while on the same stage.

[Max R.]

Unfortunately, it will probably be Ben Carson. I think it should be Huckabee. I want Trump to stay because I would like to see how things work out between Carly and Trump while on the same stage.
Let's hope you're wrong. We all know most of those on stage have no chance of winning the nomination, but at least they'll be able to "move the ball" for the Right.

Meanwhile, we have this to look forward to in the Democratic "debate"

http://oi60.tinypic.com/w8tdlz.jpg

[Drummond]

“It was a challenging board to run. She would generally sit quietly, ask questions, but you never got a sense she was dominating or big-footing — but by the end of the meeting, she had gotten exactly what she wanted. . . . Polite, but you couldn’t push her around.”

This summary is disturbing, and maybe helps illustrate what I'm saying.

She may have been a brilliant administrator, or facilitator, figure. Maybe, when needed, she can stand her ground. But there are times when you have to convince your opponent that you're of a mind where nobody, and nothing, will force you to ever yield. You have to prove that the toughness you're capable of is immovable. That you're galvanised by fiery determination.

Margaret Thatcher not only had that, but was able to come across as a formidable and forceful personality, AND to gain a reputation for it, so that anyone wanting to pit themselves against her knew they had an extremely tough battle ahead of them. Does Fiorina have such capabilities ?

Politeness won't always 'cut it', I suggest. Greater forcefulness might be the only way to prove you'll win. Maybe Fiorina needs to cultivate that. If, indeed, she can.

As for Trump .....

[Perianne]

I'd want a very strong figure as President. Carly doesn't come across that way .. sorry.



Margaret Thatcher not only had that, but was able to come across as a formidable and forceful personality, AND to gain a reputation for it, so that anyone wanting to pit themselves against her knew they had an extremely tough battle ahead of them. Does Fiorina have such capabilities ?

Politeness won't always 'cut it', I suggest. Greater forcefulness might be the only way to prove you'll win. Maybe Fiorina needs to cultivate that. If, indeed, she can.

Drummond, my beloved friend, I strongly disagree with you. I have followed Fiorina since her days at Hewlett-Packard (1999). Though I disagreed with the way she managed HP, she is definitely a strong leader. We are able to judge Thatcher because of her many years at the helm. I do not believe Fiorina will compare to Thatcher, as Thatcher was a direct gift from God (in the same way as Reagan was). But I believe Fiorina is the same type of woman.

Only time and the opportunity to lead could tell.

[SassyLady]

This summary is disturbing, and maybe helps illustrate what I'm saying.

She may have been a brilliant administrator, or facilitator, figure. Maybe, when needed, she can stand her ground. But there are times when you have to convince your opponent that you're of a mind where nobody, and nothing, will force you to ever yield. You have to prove that the toughness you're capable of is immovable. That you're galvanised by fiery determination.

Margaret Thatcher not only had that, but was able to come across as a formidable and forceful personality, AND to gain a reputation for it, so that anyone wanting to pit themselves against her knew they had an extremely tough battle ahead of them. Does Fiorina have such capabilities ?

Politeness won't always 'cut it', I suggest. Greater forcefulness might be the only way to prove you'll win. Maybe Fiorina needs to cultivate that. If, indeed, she can.

As for Trump .....

Well, Carly reminds me a little bit of Chuck Norris. Confident, quiet, soft spoken, thoughtful but when needed can be deadly. He doesn't have to be brash and neither does a good world leader. They just have to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say and follow through on what they promise.

[Russ]

Unfortunately, it will probably be Ben Carson. I think it should be Huckabee. I want Trump to stay because I would like to see how things work out between Carly and Trump while on the same stage.

God, I hope Ben Carson remains in the top ten. I recorded that debate and watched the whole thing, and I thought he was by far the most impressive. Eloquent, well-reasoned answers every single time he talked, and I just got the strong impression that he is a genuinely good person, with not just good morals but good judgment as well.

The moderators mentioned that he is inexperienced, and that he didn't know who the official of something was in some European country, but who give a flying you-know-what about that?

The overwhelming two qualifications for a Presidential candidate are: one, they should have good judgment and know how to make a decision, and two, they should put the welfare of the country ahead of the welfare of themselves / their party / people giving them money / foreign countries giving them money / foreign countries paying them ridiculous amounts of money to make a speech / foreign countries giving them ridiculous amounts of money to their "foundation".