Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CNN slugfest (or so they hope); kiddie table and the big event
Topic Started: Sep 16 2015, 06:27 PM (797 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
MikeZPU
Sep 16 2015, 08:56 PM
kbp
Sep 16 2015, 08:53 PM
cks
Sep 16 2015, 08:47 PM
Well, I am checking out for the evening.....walking my poodle at 5 am means an early alarm.......do not see much else of interest will happen this evening. Will be interesting to read the post partum reports tomorrow.
Thanks! :)
Ditto from me -- thanks cks! :)
.
I didn't watch - so Thank You!


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Fiorina looking strong tonight. I think Trump is looking a little dopey. I cannot stand Kasich. I am not voting for Jeb.

Getting tired. It's Member-Guest and we have house guests.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Drudge shows 61% say Trump won
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Now I think I'm not so keen on Trump.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Trump lost me tonight.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

cks
Sep 16 2015, 08:24 PM
Rubio is laying out a three point plan regarding immigration - makes a lot of sense.
Quote:
 
http://www.ontheissues.org/2014_Hopefuls.htm
Face the Nation 2014 interview: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 7, 2014

Modernize immigration to win global competition for talent
Q: The president said he was planning on taking executive action on immigration reform because the Congress wouldn't do anything.

RUBIO: I think that we have to deal with immigration. We have a broken enforcement system on immigration. We have a legal immigration system that's outdated and needs to be modernized so we can win the global competition for talent. We have millions of people living in this country illegally, many of whom have been here for a decade or longer. We need to find a reasonable but responsible way of incorporating them into American life. Last year we tried to do that through a one-size-fits-all comprehensive approach; it didn't work. We don't have the support for that. The only way we're going to be able to address it--and I believe we should--is through a sequence of bills that begins by proving to people that illegal immigration is under control, modernizing our legal immigration system and then dealing with those who are here illegally.

Quote:
 
http://www.ontheissues.org/2014_Hopefuls.htm
Fox News Sunday 2014 interview of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Aug 3, 2014

Human trafficking law & deferred action caused border crisis
Q: House Republicans passed two measures, one to make it easier to deport those unaccompanied minors on the border, the other to block the president from deferring any more deportations. Isn't the GOP giving the country the "impression that its highest policy priority is to deport children"?

RUBIO: Well, I don't think that's an accurate assessment. We have an unsustainable situation on the border. The only way to address that is to address the root causes: a combination of violence, instability & poverty in Central America. But it's also, according to the president of Honduras, ambiguities in our laws--beginning in 2008 with a very well-intentioned law to prevent human trafficking--and then it continued in 2012 with the president's deferred action program. Those two things have allowed trafficking groups to go into Central America and tell people that America has some special law that's going to allow them to come here and stay, and that's serving as a lure that's driving this crisis.

Quote:
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/01/marco-rubio-confirms-his-support-of-a-path-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants/

Marco Rubio confirms his support of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
July 1, 2015

...Asked in New Hampshire if he supported a path to citizenship, he said, “I do.” He continued that we nevertheless have to do two things — secure the border (and set up e-verify) and fix the legal immigration system. He points out, “In the 21st century it must be based on what skills you have and what you have to contribute economically.” Then, he said, Americans will be “very generous but responsible.” He would require a background check, paying a fine, paying taxes and receiving legal status; after “at least a decade,” they could apply for permanent residency, and several years thereafter apply for citizenship.
...many of whom have been here for a decade or longer ...[gain citizenship] after “at least a decade,” ... and several years

Has he changed his mind within the last 75 days or is the reward for illegal immigrants still part of his plan?

Add: I'm still sorting out how 62% get entitlements.
Edited by kbp, Sep 16 2015, 10:15 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Rubio was great on foreign policy. Jake Tapper just said that we got to hear more from Ben Carson tonight - I don't think we did. Chris Christie spoke out way more than last time, and the CNN spin is that "Christie fell all over himself to lean to the right."

Carly impressed Mr. Concerned - and he's been for Trump all the way. Walker did fine but he and Kasich still don't impress me.

I liked the questions that Jake Tapper posed, and I thought this was a much better debate that the Fox debate.

It will be interesting to see how the poll numbers go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

cks
Sep 16 2015, 08:02 PM
Chris Christie is being energetic - talking over Dana Basch. Carli Fiorina now repeating her stock comment from the last debate about the first two things she will do as president. Did have a good response about the Planned Parenthood states.
Yes, I thought she expressed herself perfectly on the Planned Parenthood issue and especially with describing what goes on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

cks
Sep 16 2015, 08:29 PM
Rand Paul grudgingly conceded that he agreed with Trump on his reading of the 14th amendment .
And Rand Paul explained the 14th amendment which Trump tried to do but didn't come across as clearly as Paul.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

I took a few notes during the debate.

First, I thought the lights were too bright and I saw a few beads of sweat on the candidates early on. It was a three hour debate which was too long.

Tapper began by asking questions designed for conflict between some of the contestants, IMO, but later there were good questions. Trump looked tense at the beginning and early on had some strange facial expressions but did fine after the first few exchanges. Carly looked nervous at first, spoke perfectly and tight as a drum. Rubio started with a joke about bottled water but it was a bust.

Rand Paul was articulate and I liked his talk about limiting war -- should be a last resort instead of first resort -- and Saudi funding of bad guys and his knowledge of the 14th amendment (anchor baby discussion).

Bush gave an excellent answer to what pretend Secret Service code word he would have which was "Ever-ready" and Trump really liked that answer. Trump extended his hand to Bush who slapped it in a friendly way. Trump's code word was "Humble". Both displayed self-deprecating humor which went over well.

I thought the most surprising exchange was about vaccines. Tapper pointed out that Trump had questions about vaccines. He got support for his position from doctors Rand Paul and Ben Carson. For this, Trump was most grateful and took the hand of Carson, who was right next to him, and shook it.

Another interesting exchange was Trump saying that he was the only one who did not agree with going into Iraq. This set up a whole exhange about the Iraq war. Rand Paul and Ben Carson said they did not agree with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 either. Others said that the problem was with the US not staying in Iraq and therefore there was a void filled by ISIS, etc. No one asked about the biillions or trillions spent on the Iraq invasion and aftermath which I believe was off budget. Might have been a good point with Christie discussing cutting back on Social Security.


At the end, Trump said he felt honored to be part of the debate and gave kind words to the candidates. I think the debate ended on a high note. He shook the hand of Carly Fiorina who seemed relaxed. I think all the candidates did well.

Rubio made some good points but he and Kasich tended to be long winded.

Trump is well versed in business, taxes, and the economy. Rand Paul and Carson helped Trump articulate the 14th amendment and vaccine schedules, respectively. Carson advised George Bush not to go into Afganistan after 9-11, something about oil which I did not understand, but intriguing.

Trump is very honest and authentic and demonstative (lots of body language). Charming, actually.

I saw only a few minutes of the CNN commentary after the debate.

*********************************************

I saw part of the first debate. Lindsey Graham was energized and gave some good one liners but at the end of the day, was pro-war. Some pundit at the end of the first debate said Graham espoused what the Republican establishment wanted to be by this time, i.e. funding Planned Parenthood.

Jindal, Santorum were good. Actually some of there ideas have some merit. Pataki was much more moderate than conservative.

Having only 4 in this debate meant more time could be taken for various issues.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

I did not think that Trump was at his finest - but then I do not think he did badly - a B performance.
Carson was a C - I think that he will fall in the polls; maybe not right away but I think that his zenith has been achieved.
Jebster had more oomph than previously displayed - and while I know that the pundits have rated him as a winner, along with Fiorina, I would say that it was a B performance as well. Better than last time but for someone who has been touted all along as the establishment favorite, he did not secure the knockout performance he needs.
Rubio, after the lame water remark actually did very well - his was a A-performance.
Cruz was also a B -C performance; Rand was in the same category.
Huckabee was a C - he is quickly becoming a one note Johnny.
Kasich tried to be the peacemaker and did not come off that strong. Definitely a low C.
Christie was combative and actually, I think, came out at the top of the scrum (barely).
Fiorina did appear wound tighter than a drum (Foxglove's great description). She is quick on the trigger with poised (almost too well-rehearsed - almost like she has a machine that she can click on and out comes the speech with the appropriate heat) remarks. She did well though I noticed that she struggled to make herself heard at times and at the beginning was too deferential to Tapper and company.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

My takeaway on Trump this AM is that, no matter his other talents, he has a poor command of the English language. I used to tell my kids that profanity is the fallback of those who can't articulate their argument. Trump's insults are actually a way to cover for his inability to debate, or sell his point of view.

I loved GW but he couldn't get a point across articulately either.

To me, Trump looked childish last night. Insults are no substitute for responding and winning with stronger ideas.

I like Fiorina. It doesn't matter to me that she has a stern demeanor...she's not running for Prom Queen. I have a little queasiness as to whether she really believes these things she articulates so well. But I hardly believe any of them these days.

Houseguests thought Bush did well, Rubio did well. Mrs Houseguest hates Cruz. Mr. F. Liked Rubio, Fiorina, not critical of Trump. None of us like Kasich. He's not the man for these times....He's like a hippy in a suit with a good haircut. I keep thinking of that old song..."I'd like to build the world a home and furnish it with LOVE...grow apple trees and honey bees and Snow White turtle doves."

We need street fighters now...not flower children. And please GOD, someone who can convey conservative ideas...someone who can SPEAK.
Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 17 2015, 06:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

On the 14th Amendment...
(from the full transcript)

http://time.com/4037239/second-republican-debate-transcript-cnn/

TAPPER: Thank you, Dr. Carson. I want to talk about the issue of birthright citizenship, which — which has emerged since the first debate as — as an a — a major issue in this campaign.

Mr. Trump, you say that babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrants should not any longer get automatic American citizenship. Ms. Fiorina says that you are pandering on this issue and acting like the politicians that you rail against. What’s your message to Ms. Fiorina on birthright citizenship?

TRUMP: Well, first of all, the — the 14th Amendment says very, very clearly to a lot of great legal scholars — not television scholars, but legal scholars — that it is wrong. It can be corrected with an act of Congress, probably doesn’t even need that.

A woman gets pregnant. She’s nine months, she walks across the border, she has the baby in the United States, and we take care of the baby for 85 years. I don’t think so.

And by the way, Mexico and almost every other country anywhere in the world doesn’t have that. We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it. And people — and by the way, this is not just with respect to Mexico. They are coming from Asia to have babies here, and all of a sudden, we have to take care of the babies for the life of the baby.

The 14th Amendment, it reads properly, you can go and — it’s probably going to be have to be check — go through a process of court, probably ends up at the Supreme Court, but there are a lot of great legal scholars that say that is not correct.

And in my opinion, it makes absolutely no — we’re the only — one of the only countries, we’re going to take care of those babies for 70, 75, 80, 90 years? I don’t think so.

TAPPER: Ms. Fiorina, the vast majority of countries do not have birthright citizenship…

(APPLAUSE)

TAPPER: …Donald Trump is right about that. Why is it pandering when he’s — he says this?

FIORINA: First let me say, We have just spent a good bit of time discussing, as Republicans, how to solve this problem. I would ask your audience at home to ask a very basic question. Why have Democrats not solved this problem?

President Obama campaigned in 2007 and 2008 on solving the immigration problem. He entered Washington with majorities in the House and the Senate. He could have chosen to do anything to solve this pro — this problem. Instead, he chose to do nothing.

Why? because the Democrats don’t want this issue solved.

TAPPER: Ms. Fiorina…

FIORINA: They want it to be an issue that they can use. As to birthright citizenship…

TAPPER: Please.

FIORINA: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the Constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court.

And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them.

[She says this conclusively, and actually inaccurately. I believe SCOTUS would interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" in the same manner the authors of the Amendment did, but even if they did not, a law enacted to define the phrase would certainly be sufficient to operate with until SCOTUS rules differently and maybe even permanently. We do NOT need a Constitutional Amendment to immediately eliminate that birthright issue.]

And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…

TAPPER : Thank you, Ms. Fiorina.

FIORINA: …mostly, apparently, leadership…

TAPPER: Thank you.

FIORINA: …the kind of leadership that understands how to get results.

TAPPER: Thank you, Ms. Fiorina. Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond…

TRUMP: I agree 100 percent, by the way, with Carly on the fact that the Democrats do not want to solve this problem, for the obvious reasons, but they do not.

But I believe that a reading of the 14th Amendment allows you to have an interpretation where this is not legal and where it can’t be done. I’ve seen both sides, but some of the greatest scholars agree with me, without having to go through Congress.

If you do go through Congress, you can absolutely solve the problem. TAPPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. Senator Paul…

FIORINA: But you — you would stipulate, Mr. Trump, but not everyone agrees with you.

TRUMP: That’s true, sure.

FIORINA: OK.

TAPPER: Senator Paul, I want to bring you in. Where — where do you stand on the issue of birthright citizenship?

PAUL: Well, I hate to say it, but Donald Trump has a bit of a point here.

The case that was decided around 1900 was, people had a green card, were here legally, and they said that their children were citizens. There’s never been a direct Supreme Court case on people who were here illegally, whether or not their kids are citizens.

So it hasn’t really been completely adjudicated. The 14th Amendment says that “those who are here and under the jurisdiction.” The original author of the — of the 14th Amendment said on the Senate floor that this was applying to slaves, and did not specifically apply to others.
Edited by kbp, Sep 17 2015, 07:12 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Fiorina on immigration...
 
...And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology… …mostly, apparently, leadership… …the kind of leadership that understands how to get results.


Enforcement of the present laws with the money and manpower we already have would be a start. What's her plan for more "money & manpower" going to be?

Fiorina on her business history...
 
TAPPER: All right. Senator Paul, thank you so much. Let’s turn to a new topic. We’ve received a lot of questions on social media about the economy and about jobs. We have two CEOs on stage right now.

Ms. Fiorina, you were CEO of Hewlett Packard. Donald Trump says you, quote, “ran HP into the ground,” you laid off tens of thousands of people, you got viciously fired.

For voters looking to somebody with private-sector experience to create American jobs, why should they pick you and not Donald Trump?

FIORINA: I led Hewlett Packard through a very difficult time, the worst technology recession in 25 years. The NASDAQ stock index fell 80 percent. It took 15 years for the stock index to recover. We had very strong competitors who literally went out of business and lost all of their jobs in the process.

Despite those difficult times, we doubled the size of the company, we quadrupled its topline growth rate, we quadrupled its cash flow, we tripled its rate of innovation. [The bottom line is profit!]

Yes, we had to make tough choices, and in doing so, we saved 80,000 jobs, went on to grow to 160,000 jobs. And now Hewlett Packard is almost 300,000 jobs. We went from lagging behind to leading in every product category and every market segment.

We must lead in this nation again, and some tough calls are going to be required. But as for the firing, I have been very honest about this from the day it happened. When you challenge the status quo, you make enemies. I made a few. Steve Jobs told me that when he called me the day I was fired to say, hey, been there, done that twice.

It’s also true that the man that led my firing, Tom Perkins, just took out a full-page ad in the New York Times to say he was wrong, I was right. I was a terrific CEO, the board was dysfunctional. And he thinks I will make a magnificent president of the United States.
That's a half-answer at best, as HP is not the only company on her resume. The merger she BOUGHT jobs/employees with (debt) did work out, but not under her command. Fiorina mixes results of her actions with results from those who followed her to come up with a profitable outcome.


Edited by kbp, Sep 17 2015, 07:09 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
longstop
longstop
cks
Sep 17 2015, 04:54 AM
I did not think that Trump was at his finest - but then I do not think he did badly - a B performance.
Carson was a C - I think that he will fall in the polls; maybe not right away but I think that his zenith has been achieved.
Jebster had more oomph than previously displayed - and while I know that the pundits have rated him as a winner, along with Fiorina, I would say that it was a B performance as well. Better than last time but for someone who has been touted all along as the establishment favorite, he did not secure the knockout performance he needs.
Rubio, after the lame water remark actually did very well - his was a A-performance.
Cruz was also a B -C performance; Rand was in the same category.
Huckabee was a C - he is quickly becoming a one note Johnny.
Kasich tried to be the peacemaker and did not come off that strong. Definitely a low C.
Christie was combative and actually, I think, came out at the top of the scrum (barely).
Fiorina did appear wound tighter than a drum (Foxglove's great description). She is quick on the trigger with poised (almost too well-rehearsed - almost like she has a machine that she can click on and out comes the speech with the appropriate heat) remarks. She did well though I noticed that she struggled to make herself heard at times and at the beginning was too deferential to Tapper and company.
Winners and Losers from the CNN/Salem Debate

http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/16/winners-losers-cnnsalem-debate/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply