(08-07-2015 09:02 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  My opinion which no one will agree with.

Biggest Loser - Kasich. I'm a Kasich supporter but I knew that he had to hit a home run in this debate to get any traction. He did well but I'm afraid not enough to generate any real buzz.

Losers - Cruz for a lousy performance. Carson because he has shown he has no reason to be there.

Treading water - Paul, Huckabee, Bush, Walker

Helped themselves - Rubio and Christie

Big winner - Trump because he didn't make a fool of himself and probably hung on to his support.

The most impressive performance was Rubio. The kid is looking better every day.

Some observations on appearances. Kasich looked old and tired. Walker looked like a high school kid. Trump should learn to smile and ditch that scowl. Bush looked terribly uncomfortable. Christie's weight is not a distraction it once was. Paul looks like the kid you want to give a wedgie.

Just curious as to why you think Cruz had a lousy performance? Do you think he got tripped up somewhere, looked unknowledgable, or disagree with anything he said? The Luntz group gave him high marks and I don't see how he could have done better with the questions he got. I don't think he "won" the debate because Fox cut him out of all the exchanges and didn't give him any rebuttals, but I don't see how the performance was "lousy". In fact, he was the only one that showed any substance or knowledge (Iran gotcha question that any of the other 9 candidates would have stumbled on).

Quote:Just curious as to why you think Cruz had a lousy performance?

Fair question. And I'll admit that this was strictly my impression.

First, I had heard that Cruz was the great debater and expected a sterling performance. So expectations were high and I was disappointed.

I can't recall the specific question but I was not impressed by his first response and I think that tainted my opinion of his entire performance. I also thought his "life story" about his father was bit bit overwrought.

Finally, on a couple of the side angle shots, he "looked" like a weasel to me. Fair? Hell no.

My assessment on the main debate (didn't whach the kids table):

Trump - hurt himself majorly in the general. Probably a smaller impact on primary voters.
Bush - Hurt himself. He was awful.
Walker - Didn't didn't hurt or help himself
Huck - Helped himself. Strong performance. Not fan, but he is a very good debater.
Carson - A wash. Good closing statement erases a mediocre overall performance. Nice guy and humorous, but no substance. Was left out of the heated exchanges in the middle.
Cruz - A wash. Hit the Iran question out of the park and did well with the question where they tried to paint him as a religious nut by relating how it turned his family's life around while refusing the "I speak to God gotcha. Was left out of the heated exchanges in the middle.
Rubio - Probably helped himself, but I didn't like him. Looks and sounds like a boy. Responses were clearly memorized.
Paul - Probably hurt himself, but I liked him. The pundits say he lose the exchange with Christie. I took away the opposite.
Christie - Didn't help or hurt himself. I thought Paul took him out, but it wasn't spun that way. Then again, I just don't like him.
Kasich - Probably helped himself. Little substance, but he knows his record and touts it well. The establishment would do itself a big favor if they dumped Jeb for Kasich.

(08-07-2015 09:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:Just curious as to why you think Cruz had a lousy performance?

Fair question. And I'll admit that this was strictly my impression.

First, I had heard that Cruz was the great debater and expected a sterling performance. So expectations were high and I was disappointed.

I can't recall the specific question but I was not impressed by his first response and I think that tainted my opinion of his entire performance. I also thought his "life story" about his father was bit bit overwrought.

Finally, on a couple of the side angle shots, he "looked" like a weasel to me. Fair? Hell no.

Fair enough. Obviously, I am biased. I think he did well with the time and questions he had. I think he'd do better in a real debate where you get to speak for awhile and have exchanges that go several deep. You can't really pick someone or an idea apart in a 60 second response and some of the others had better one-liners.

Quote:Kasich - Probably helped himself. Little substance, but he knows his record and touts it well. The establishment would do itself a big favor if they dumped Jeb for Kasich.

Originally I thought Kasich overdid the record but he was really introducing himself to many. So pounding on the record was useful. No one up there has his background.

Funny thing, both Bush and Kasich worked at Lehman Bros in the early 2000s.

I am not a Trump guy, but I thought the questions he received last night were ridiculous. The first several questions to him were:

1) Would you run as an independent
2) Why do you hate fat women
3) Why do say Mexico is sending criminals here
4) What evidence do you have of that.
5) Tell us about your bankruptcies
6) why do you call people clowns and puppets
7) when did you become a republican

I would have preferred it if Donald would have channeled New Gingrich and turned the questions back on the moderators. He should have responded by saying the nation is pushing 20M in debt, Iran is getting nukes, ISIS is chopping off the heads of Americans, our gov't is paying an agency to chop up and sell body parts of aborted babies and YOU are asking a candidate for POTUS about offending women and illegals?

Overall, I find the field to be pretty weak.... sadly this is the third presidential election in a row that is the case. As the old Paula Cole song goes, "Where have all the cowboys gone?"

By the way, I was hoping someone would answer the question about two words to describe Hillary Clinton with, "Forrest Gump."

(08-07-2015 09:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 09:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:Just curious as to why you think Cruz had a lousy performance?

Fair question. And I'll admit that this was strictly my impression.

First, I had heard that Cruz was the great debater and expected a sterling performance. So expectations were high and I was disappointed.

I can't recall the specific question but I was not impressed by his first response and I think that tainted my opinion of his entire performance. I also thought his "life story" about his father was bit bit overwrought.

Finally, on a couple of the side angle shots, he "looked" like a weasel to me. Fair? Hell no.

Fair enough. Obviously, I am biased. I think he did well with the time and questions he had. I think he'd do better in a real debate where you get to speak for awhile and have exchanges that go several deep. You can't really pick someone or an idea apart in a 60 second response and some of the others had better one-liners.

I used to like Ted Cruz 5 or 6 years ago but he'll do whatever it takes to get in the limelight or TV time even if it hurts his constituents. So I just don't like the guy, he's all about himself plain and simple. He's has done nothing for the state of Texas, just TV time vying for presidency. At least some of the candidates have actually done something for their states or constituents.

Paul just came off as childish, and those zingers he threw out were lame, that's just my opinion. And I like Rand Paul

I'm surprised Cruz's closing statement isn't being brought up that much. It was pretty intense. I guess he's going to have a pretty busy first day when president? I imagine by the second day, he'll be incarcerating all gay and lesbians in the United States or maybe he'll take a day off and work on that the third or fourth day.

(08-07-2015 10:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm surprised Cruz's closing statement isn't being brought up that much. It was pretty intense. I guess he's going to have a pretty busy first day when president? I imagine by the second day, he'll be incarcerating all gay and lesbians in the United States or maybe he'll take a day off and work on that the third or fourth day.

I thought that was an interesting approach.

I have thought that in the extremely unlikely event that I were ever elected president, I would deliver the standard inauguration speech text to the media, then when it was actually my time to speak, I would instead pick up a stack of executive orders and start signing (edited to correct FBO's catch) them, basically undoing most everything bad (and there's a lot of bad) that has been done by executive order over the life of the republic. I don't agree with Cruz's choice of specific orders to abolish, or at least not the ones he featured, but I think it would make for a very interesting start. And if nothing else, I'd do it just to watch the talking heads have to scramble to come up with something relevant after they had spent all their time prepping on the text I gave them. Probably make me some enemies in the media, primarily those who ended up looking particularly stupid having to think on their feet, but my libertarian ideas would probably make enemies of most of them pretty quickly anyway, so might as well get it all out of the way in one fell swoop.

Things I'm pretty sure I'd include:
- Reversing Jimmy Carter's order not to recycle nuclear fuel;
- Reversing the Gorelick memo;
- Pardoning everyone in federal prison for a non-violent drug offense;
- Reversing any executive orders curtailing liberty and freedom in any way;
- Reversing pretty much everything Obama did by executive order;
- Reversing pretty much everything GWB did by executive order.

I'd tell congress, if you want to reinstate these things, fine, you pass legislation to do so.

I really wish people would stop basing their entire political opinions of somebody based on their view of gay folks. It's freaking ridiculous.

Just read this article by Camille Paglia and I think she does a pretty good job of analyzing the debates. At least from my perspective. (I've always liked to read Paglia's stuff. She is a ultra liberal but is generally fair.)

Paglia analysis

Well if you start singing your executive orders, you don't have my vote. Although to be fair, I've never heard you sing and you may in fact have a lovely voice.

(08-07-2015 10:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I thought that was an interesting approach.

I have thought that in the extremely unlikely event that I were ever elected president, I would deliver the standard inauguration speech text to the media, then when it was actually my time to speak, I would instead pick up a stack of executive orders and start singing them.

(08-07-2015 11:10 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Well if you start singing your executive orders, you don't have my vote. Although to be fair, I've never heard you sing and you may in fact have a lovely voice.

Damn autocorrect. I'll fix it. Although come to think of it, that would be an interesting concept.

You've really never heard me sing? As often as I break out in tune when I'm waiting or killing time, I would have thought you would have. We have spent a few hours over the years waiting in the same places for various reasons.

And I don't know about lovely, but I do have a pretty impressive bass voice. Have sung in church choirs for years.

"If this election is going to be a resume competition, then Hilary Clinton is going to win."

Thank you Mr. Rubio, please drop the mic. You have just shown why the Republican Party should not move towards Jeb Bush with the nomination.

Though Bruce Bartlett summed it up best.

Quote:This is what I wrote last night:

Since I am on record as favoring Donald Trump precisely because I think he would lose in a landslide and thus prove that ultra-right-wing candidates cannot win a general election, I am pleased by the outcome of the first Republican debate. I don't think Trump did anything to hurt himself among his apparently solid base of supporters; he's the only candidate who came across as an authentic depiction of himself; all the rest just looked for opportunities to recite well-rehearsed talking points, regardless of the question, and to crack lines that appear to have gotten the most applause in focus groups. None particularly helped or hurt themselves, except perhaps Ben Carson, who came across as amiable but even more clueless about the issues than I thought he was.

The good news, from my point of view, is that every Republican running for their party's nomination is completely and totally unelectable, in my opinion. Not one passed the minimum threshold of seriousness that I think the American people demand from their chief executive, while some, like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, came across to me as stark, raving lunatics. Scott Walker and Chris Christies were boring, but did nothing to embarrass themselves. Marco Rubio came across as earnest, but with nothing much to say. Rand Paul tried too hard and failed to impress. Jeb Bush seemed lost and clueless. I was mildly impressed by John Kasich's restraint in pandering to the GOP's base.

And the best news of all, from my point of view, is that Trump has kept alive his threat to run as an independent -- Be still my heart! -- which will absolutely guarantee a massive loss for whichever schmuck survives the humiliating process of getting the GOP nomination next year.

Good summary

(08-06-2015 11:38 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Cruz doesn't have chance either, I'm from Texas and I don't like him.

Bullcrap.

Love him. Just wait.

(08-06-2015 11:59 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 11:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Kasich is great.

we know why.....

if I was you, I would be rooting for the same thing....

go Hillary.....time for another 'nepotism elect' to happen.....bush/clinton assures it....

go fox go...

go rnc go....

go morons go....

Actually I feel sorry for them. They pander to the idiots and make themselves unelectable in the general election.

(08-06-2015 11:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 11:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  That's because the vast majority of the middle are uninformed idiots.

Look at what you've done dawgitall. You've pushed an ACC fan and in ECU fan into total agreement.

The vast majority of the middle aren't really idiots, they could just care less about politics.