| CNN slugfest (or so they hope); kiddie table and the big event | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 16 2015, 06:27 PM (797 Views) | |
| Mason | Sep 16 2015, 08:57 PM Post #31 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I didn't watch - so Thank You! . |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 16 2015, 09:09 PM Post #32 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2015, 09:28 PM Post #33 |
|
Drudge shows 61% say Trump won |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 16 2015, 09:32 PM Post #34 |
|
Now I think I'm not so keen on Trump. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Sep 16 2015, 09:53 PM Post #35 |
|
Trump lost me tonight. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2015, 10:12 PM Post #36 |
|
...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.
|
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Sep 16 2015, 10:35 PM Post #37 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 17 2015, 12:31 AM Post #38 |
|
Yes, I thought she expressed herself perfectly on the Planned Parenthood issue and especially with describing what goes on. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 17 2015, 12:34 AM Post #39 |
|
And Rand Paul explained the 14th amendment which Trump tried to do but didn't come across as clearly as Paul. |
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Sep 17 2015, 01:19 AM Post #40 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Sep 17 2015, 04:54 AM Post #41 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 17 2015, 05:58 AM Post #42 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 17 2015, 06:30 AM Post #43 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 17 2015, 06:47 AM Post #44 |
|
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? 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.
|
![]() |
|
| longstop | Sep 17 2015, 08:03 AM Post #45 |
|
longstop
|
Winners and Losers from the CNN/Salem Debate http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/16/winners-losers-cnnsalem-debate/ |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







11:55 AM Jul 13