Wrestling Forum banner

Republican Debates Thread

12K views 156 replies 40 participants last post by  Punkhead 
#1 ·
Anyone going to catch the debate tonight?

Also, Donald Trump is a f*king pussy. While I am a supporter of his, his response to Megyn Kelley is not show up because you feel singled out? Way to handle that like an adult Don.

Think this is bad, wait until you become the nominee should you make it that far.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

Not sure how anyone can watch the first Fox debate and think Trump has anything to gain by showing up to this debate when he's so far ahead in the polls and Fox has been openly hostile towards him.

And for the love of God, can people stop talking about how "herp de derp is he just gonna refuse to meet with Putin because he might be unfair". Not even close to similar situations, and among all the candidates Trump is the most likely to have a good relationship with Putin, so it's a laughable argument through and through.

Trump has no obligation to show up for any presidential debate. He doesn't have a job wherein showing up for debates is one of the assigned tasks. It's an event you are invited to and you have every right to decline. If he thinks Fox has been unfair (and they have been), and by showing up he's going to benefit Fox immensely via ratings while possibly only hurting himself by allowing them to treat him unfairly, why the hell should he show up?

It's also a complete joke that Trump is afraid of or intimidated by Megyn Kelly. Trump has been dealing with hostile, agenda-driven journalists longer than Megyn Kelly has been alive.

All that said, I will be watching the debate because Rand Paul is back on the stage, and has been going up in the polls. Should be interesting to see how his libertarian arguments (should he choose to make any) fare in the neoconservative climate.

Btw the time in the OP refers to the undercard debate. Not sure why anyone would want to watch that.
 
#41 ·
Apparently the Ted Cruz-Donald Trump détente is over.

BOOS FOR THE WARS AT A REPUBLICAN DEBATE. THIS IS LIKE SEEING THE WARRIORS CRUSH THE SPURS. I HAVE BEEN WAITING TOO MANY YEARS FOR THIS MOMENT! :mark:
 
#106 · (Edited)
In this battle between Fox News and Donald Trump, Trump is annihilating Fox News. This was the second-lowest-rated debate of the entire season, with untold legions of would-be viewers deciding it was not worth their time to take a look with no Trump involved.

The best article I have read detailing the conducive conditions for the rise of Trump, by Tucker Carlson: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump’s hair. I can’t now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

“It’s true you have better hair than I do,” Trump said matter-of-factly. “But I get more pussy than you do.” Click.

At the time, I’d never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he’d say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I’m not even convinced he really wants the job. He’s smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn’t mean his candidacy can’t be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here’s some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.

It turns out the GOP wasn’t simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn’t appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the “ghost of George Wallace” that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It’s Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It’s Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Washington Really Is Corrupt

Everyone beats up on Washington, but most of the people I know who live here love it. Of course they do. It’s beautiful, the people are friendly, we’ve got good restaurants, not to mention full employment and construction cranes on virtually every corner. If you work on Capitol Hill or downtown, it’s hard to walk back from lunch without seeing someone you know. It’s a warm bath. Nobody wants to leave.

But let’s pretend for a second this isn’t Washington. Let’s imagine it’s the capital of an African country, say Burkina Faso, and we are doing a study on corruption. Probably the first question we’d ask: How many government officials have close relatives who make a living by influencing government spending? A huge percentage of them? OK. Case closed. Ouagadougou is obviously a very corrupt city.

That’s how the rest of the country views D.C. Washington is probably the richest city in America because the people who live there have the closest proximity to power. That seems obvious to most voters. It’s less obvious to us, because everyone here is so cheerful and familiar, and we’re too close to it. Chairman so-and-so’s son-in-law lobbies the committee? That doesn’t seem corrupt. He’s such a good guy.

All of which explains why almost nobody in Washington caught the significance of Trump’s finest moment in the first debate. One of the moderators asked, in effect: if you’re so opposed to Hillary Clinton, why did she come to your last wedding? It seemed like a revealing, even devastating question.

Trump’s response, delivered without pause or embarrassment: Because I paid her to be there. As if she was the wedding singer, or in charge of the catering.

Even then, I’ll confess, I didn’t get it. (Why would you pay someone to come to your wedding?) But the audience did. Trump is the ideal candidate to fight Washington corruption not simply because he opposes it, but because he has personally participated in it. He’s not just a reformer; like most effective populists, he’s a whistleblower, a traitor to his class. Before he became the most ferocious enemy American business had ever known, Teddy Roosevelt was a rich guy. His privilege wasn't incidental; it was key to his appeal. Anyone can peer through the window in envy. It takes a real man to throw furniture through it from the inside.

If Trump is leading a populist movement, many of his Republican critics have joined an elitist one. Deriding Trump is an act of class solidarity, visible evidence of refinement and proof that you live nowhere near a Wal-Mart. Early last summer, in a piece that greeted Trump when he entered the race, National Review described the candidate as “a ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula.” Virtually every other critique of Trump from the right has voiced similar aesthetic concerns.

Why is the Party of Ideas suddenly so fixated on fashion and hair? Maybe all dying institutions devolve this way, from an insistence on intellectual rigor to a flabby preoccupation with appearances. It happened in the Episcopal Church, once renowned for its liturgy, now a stop on architectural and garden tours. Only tourists go there anymore.

He Could Win

Of all the dumb things that have been said about Trump by people who were too slow to get finance jobs and therefore wound up in journalism, perhaps the stupidest of all is the one you hear most: He’ll get killed in the general! This is a godsend for Democrats! Forty-state wipeout! And so it goes mindlessly on.

Actually — and this is no endorsement of Trump, just an interjection of reality — that’s a crock. Of the Republicans now running, Trump likely has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton, for two reasons:

First, he’s the only Republican who can meaningfully expand the pie. Polls show a surprisingly large number of Democrats open to Trump. In one January survey by the polling form Mercury Analytics , almost 20 percent said they’d consider crossing over to him from Hillary. Even if that’s double the actual number, it’s still stunning. Could Ted Cruz expect to draw that many Democrats? Could Jeb?

It’s an article of faith in Washington that Trump would tank the party’s prospects with minority voters. Sounds logical, especially if you’re a sensitive white liberal who considers the suggestion of a border wall a form of hate speech, but consider the baseline. In the last election, Romney got 6 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanics. Trump, who’s energetic, witty and successful, will do worse? I wouldn’t bet on it.

But the main reason Trump could win is because he’s the only candidate hard enough to call Hillary’s bluff. Republicans will say almost anything about Hillary, but almost none challenge her basic competence. She may be evil, but she’s tough and accomplished. This we know, all of us.

But do we? Or is this understanding of Hillary just another piety we repeat out of unthinking habit, the political equivalent of, “you can be whatever you want to be,” or “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”? Trump doesn’t think Hillary is impressive and strong. He sees her as brittle and afraid.

He may be right, based on his exchange with her just before Christmas. During a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump said Hillary had been “schlonged” by Obama in the 2008 race. In response, the Clinton campaign called Trump a sexist. It’s a charge Hillary has leveled against virtually every opponent she’s faced, but Trump responded differently. Instead of scrambling to donate to breast cancer research, he pointed out that Hillary spent years attacking the alleged victims of her husband’s sexual assaults. That ended the conversation almost immediately.

It was the most effective possible response, though more obvious than brilliant. Why was Trump the only Republican to use it?

Republican primary voters may be wondering the same thing. Or maybe they already know. They seem to know a lot about Trump, more than the people who run their party. They know that he isn’t a conventional ideological conservative. They seem relieved. They can see that he’s emotionally incontinent. They find it exciting.

Washington Republicans look on at this in horror, their suspicions confirmed. Beneath the thin topsoil of rural conservatism, they see the seeds of proto-fascism beginning to sprout. But that’s not quite right. Republicans in the states aren’t dangerous. They’ve just evaluated the alternatives and decided those are worse.
 
#119 ·
For our friends outside the U.S.
For Americans who didn't pay attention in class
Or for a refresher.


3 fairly short videos on the shitty system many of us Americans dislike.
Don't worry these are all pretty short and extremely well done

What Is The Electoral College?




The Trouble With The Electoral College




There is a rare chance of not only an electoral tie, if there is a tie the people's votes are completely ignored, if the representatives tie then they are completely ignored, and it can tie all the way to the top. Which would force a secretary to hold office until Congress could decide and it gets crazy. By the way a perfect tie has happened, it wound up with a republican pres, with democrat vice pres


What If The Electoral College Tied?






Bonus videos:

The U.S.A. is called "America" when you refer not to continent but All the non states territory we own. Dubbed "American Empire" similar to England's "Commonwealth", except we also directly govern the non state territories.



The American Empire




Addendum: Are US Military bases and US Embassies considered "American Soil"?








Bonus Bonus Video for American youth, Non-European, Or European that didn't listen in class, or just for the interested. Understanding what it means when these 3 terms are used, " UK, England, Great Britain "


The difference between UK, Great Britain, & England





Enjoy! Even those of us that know it, these videos are still very well done. BTW the creator of these videos is an "Ex Pat" US Citizen Teacher living in England and teaching there. Hes pretty awesome guy, and doesn't do the "pc revised history" but the way he explains subjects you can tell he's a teacher as he makes his video subjects very clear.
 
#131 ·
Republican party founder

Thomas Jefferson quotes from debate, autobiography, inaugural address, speeches against Alexander Hamilton the founder of Democrats a Federalist trying to expand government until Aaron Burr Jefferson's Vice President killed Hamilton in a legal challenged duel (the last legal duel of course with pistols then take position and fire 1 shot. After this duels went to fists).



Thomas Jefferson excerpts from various sources on Big Government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.


- Thomas Jefferson


Here is a video clip of famous argument written in Jefferson's autobiography acted out in the HBO series John Adams.

Hamilton pushes Washington to expand Government (democrat), Jefferson correctly predicts if Hamilton gets his way it would cause a Civil War with the southern states. Note it was taxes and food shortages the first began the Confederacy, and Jefferson in his autobiography predicted it would happen.

Here it is acted out
The sources for this 10 part dramatized series was Washington's friend who wrote this biography, John Adam's autobiography, Jefferson autobiography, and minutes, recorded by secretary, And letters/journals/etc all available to public.

Jefferson argues with Hamilton that a central bank and big government will lead to civil war and exactly how it'd begin.
 
#149 ·
Last night's debate turned into a free for all. I laughed and face palmed so many different times. It's a sad state of affairs that the candidates behaved in the manner in which they did. It made for good entertainment, but the issues were secondary to the vitriol and grandstanding. Rubio, for all that he has going for him, is robotic.

Donald Trump sounded more and more like a Democrat as the night wore. It was out of the Twilight zone. Although, I believe a lot of his boo's were born more out of a packed audience. The attendees seemed to be behind Rubio and Bush.

I knew the exchange went off the rails when Rubio called out Cruz for not speaking Spanish and Cruz responded to him in Spanish.



 
#2 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

Well damn you pointed it out, I was going to say "The one Donald is to hurt to show up to because of words?"

Yet liberals get made fun of all the time for that, the guy leading the Republican Polls is not showing up for a debate basically for the same reason.

I won't be watching, as I'm not even a Republican supporter, and the fact I don't ever care for debates(even the Dem ones)

But have fun watching people yell at each other about why they are the better man or women...I get enough of that on Monday Nights.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST



Donald Trump is anything but a "f*cking pussy." He's "f*cking" dumb as a fox (pardon the pun!).

First of all, he has nothing to gain by appearing in the debate. He would be the target of the other candidates as well as in the cross hairs of the biased moderators. The Donald has racked up enough political points from these debates. He could lose political points tonight.

Secondly, by telling Fox News and Megyn Kelley to f*ck off he is asserting himself and coming off as the one calling the shots, NOT the scumbag news media!

Thirdly, this was the media's last shot at derailing The Donald's campaign before Iowa and New Hampshire while getting some huge ratings. Trump has denied them both! He controls those morons in the media like a puppet master!

Lastly, tonight the Republican candidates will be busy attacking Trump's strongest opponent - Ted Cruz. Yeah, The Donald will get some lip from the asshole moderators, but the Republican candidates will destroy each other tonight while Trump sits back and laughs.

The Iowa caucus is in less than a week. I predict Trump gets 52% of the vote!

- Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: CamillePunk
#6 · (Edited)
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

^^^Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen so he can't be president. Big problem:side:


No Trump no buys.

Conspiracy guy in me says this is a work to allow Trump an out of this debate. Fox News knows Trump has to be their guy, so they fall on the sword on this one to make him look good. They lose in the ratings this time, but the next one promises even an higher payoff due to the HYPE.

I can't believe how moronic Fox News was with that statement. It's so bad it's got to be a work. I mean they had the high ground, a rarity for them lol.
 
#8 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

^^^Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen so he can't be president. Big problem:side:

That flat out just confuses the hell out of me. Last I checked, people outside the US can't come here and run for POTUS

No Trump no buys.

Conspiracy guy in me says this is a work to allow Trump an out of this debate. Fox News knows Trump has to be their guy, so they fall on the sword on this one to make him look good. They lose in the ratings this time, but the next one promises even an higher payoff due to the HYPE.

I can't believe how moronic Fox News was with that statement. It's so bad it's got to be a work. I mean they had the high ground, a rarity for them lol.

That flat out just confuses the hell out of me. Last I checked, people outside the US can't come here and run for POTUS
 
#14 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

He has never handled anything like an adult since running for president lol
No disputing that here lol.

Seriously though, if he gets singled out and not treated fairly, just wait until he becomes POTUS (Should that happen)
 
#13 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

Trump not showing up is smart. It basically tells Fox and others that he will not be bullied and that they can go fuck themselves. Fox knows Trump is going to be the winner out of all these guys so they'll have to work with him eventually on Trump's terms. This is also smart because many young voters dislike Fox even though CNN is the Democrat version of Fox, by doing this Trump will gain more support from these types as they all say, "Yea, maybe Trump isn't so bad, he told faux news to go fuck themselves!". It also gives other news sources more reason to try and meet with him. Trump isn't an idiot, this was a smart move on so many levels.
 
#16 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

Trump not showing up is smart. It basically tells Fox and others that he will not be bullied and that they can go fuck themselves. Fox knows Trump is going to be the winner out of all these guys so they'll have to work with him eventually on Trump's terms. This is also smart because many young voters dislike Fox even though CNN is the Democrat version of Fox, by doing this Trump will gain more support from these types as they all say, "Yea, maybe Trump isn't so bad, he told faux news to go fuck themselves!". It also gives other news sources more reason to try and meet with him. Trump isn't an idiot, this was a smart move on so many levels.
Bullied? LOL You mean called out on this tweets and asked about them? OH you mean they won't kiss his ass and bow down to him. Trump doesn't like it when he doesn't have his ass kicked so he tucks his tail between his legs and hides.

The young votes are mostly voting for Bernie Sanders. They won't be voting for Trump. lol

head to head polls, Bernie destroys trump.
 
#21 ·
Re: Republican Debate 7:00 pm EST

@Miss Sally and @CamillePunk are right.

Trump has nothing to gain and everything to lose by showing up in this Fox News debate, and it is quite likely that, as Miss Sally stated, his expressing of the conflict between Fox News and himself is apt to draw at least some younger voters who deeply distrust or actively detest Fox News.

Fox News, the National Review and many likewise neoconservative organs are backing Ted Cruz to the hilt. Bill Kristol appears on Fox News to "inform" the viewers that Cruz is the "libertarian successor to Ron Paul." Ted "Carpet-Bombing" Cruz is, we are told, is the figure toward whom the young should gravitate.

Fox News really is that dumb, MrMister. :lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Sally
#67 ·
Trump over Bernie or Clinton for sure, if voting was compulsory.

I thought Rand had a really strong debate, and asserted himself like never before to make the most out of his opportunities. He clearly distinguished himself as the only pro-liberty candidate, despite the National Review's laughable insistence that Ted Cruz was somehow Ron Paul's heir apparent, despite lacking any kind of libertarian foreign or social policies to speak of. There's more to libertarianism than saying you want to audit the fed (and then no-showing the vote) and talking about abolishing the IRS.

Cruz and Rubio were absolutely exposed by Fox in this debate as the Clinton-esque shapeshifters they are, and even in Cruz's post-debate interview he continued to deny that he said things that he has been directly quoted as saying. I'm really not sure how anyone can consider either of these guys trustworthy.

After seeing the type of questions Fox asked, I'm not sure how anyone can still criticize Trump for skipping the debate. They were laying in wait to ambush him, and the fact they'd devote so much time into goading all of the candidates into attacking him for not showing up perfectly validates Trump's decision.
 
#101 ·
Rand is my dude. That is why I say Fuck people.

The election should go this way: Sanders vs Trump, the result: We have a Draw!

So you split the country in two.
 
#79 · (Edited)
Bernie is a great guy. On a personal level you won't find many better guys. Just his economics don't add up. He's singing the same song that populists always sings. He promises everything, but in reality it just won't work.

You don't run a economy by threatening all the wealth creators and disrupting business confidence. You think he's the first guy to think that problems could be solved by raising taxes on the super-rich? You pull the trigger on this and they simply move to somewhere where they can do business more competitively. It will only work if the whole world implements a similar strategy.

France, a socialist government, tried something similar and it proved to be a regressive move for the economy.

Secondly, governments, irrespective of political persuasion, have generally proven to be very wasteful. More spending, More stimulus and more government led initiatives are not the answer. Government needs rolling back. Its bloated, restrictive and increasingly invasive on personal and economic liberty.

Bernie is representative of misguided student, left-wing politics. This ideology has only worked effectively in small nations.

If he becomes president I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm too negative about his proposals, but I don't see it working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genesis 1.0
#92 ·
How are the public schools going to pay for the services for all these folks that all of a sudden get a free college education? They're not going to be able to lay off tenured teachers that might deserve to be shit-canned as they don't actually teach. While the schools are not-for-profit usually, the money they get from tuition and so on help to upgrade the schools and further provide that better education. With students not having to pay, where is that money going to come from? Obviously more money from the government is going to be thrown at it, bad idea considering the fact we are $18 trillion in debt and climbing.

Margaret Thatcher said it best, "'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
 
#94 ·
Margaret Thatcher said it best, "'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher was also a monster who's economic ideals destroyed entire communities, cost many their jobs, and ruined many lives.

So let's not pretend her witticisms are somehow political gospel.
 
#93 · (Edited)
he already laid that plan about about taxing wall street

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/


HERE ARE THE SIX STEPS THAT BERNIE WILL TAKE AS PRESIDENT TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE:
MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America.

In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country.

STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS.
Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates.

SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES.
Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%.

ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY’S LOW INTEREST RATES.
It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today’s low interest rates.

ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE.
The Sanders plan would require public colleges and universities to meet 100% of the financial needs of the lowest-income students. Low-income students would be able to use federal, state and college financial aid to cover room and board, books and living expenses. And Sanders would more than triple the federal work study program to build valuable career experience that will help them after they graduate.

FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS.
The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country.
 
#100 · (Edited)
MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

...In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all...
It cost about 50 bucks a semester for books at CUNY - everything else was free. The free tuition program lasted for quite awhile, because it was selective and only the best students were taken in for free.

Every year the requirements changed slightly based on the number of openings available and number of applicants. However, in order to get in to the free city colleges the high school student had to have a certain grade point average in his/her high school and a minimum score on the College Boards.

The entire free college system in NYC collapsed when CUNY was accused of not having enough minority students and forced to institute open enrollment. In other words, ANYONE could get into the City University of New York regardless of high school grades and college board scores.

Remedial programs had to be set up because of the influx of students who were barely able to get through high school, let alone handle a college study load. Eventually, they had to end the free tuition program entirely because of open enrollment.

Free higher education in public colleges can work, but only if it is done on a selective basis taking in the brightest students who deserve it and can do college level work. Even in the Soviet Union (where all education was free) only the best students were accepted into the colleges and universities.

Higher education is NOT for everyone. I suspect Sanders thinks it is and, if that is the case, his plan is doomed before it starts.

- Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heath V
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top