GOP Presidential Nomination
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What I find irksome is that Fox and the RNC's method of candidate selection is based on nationwide polling months before any of the primaries.
Sure, there has to be a method of some sort, but there must be a better way.
Sure, there has to be a method of some sort, but there must be a better way.
M
Mitspa
Guest
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of the free market.
Fox, however, is your typical member of the media business in that they have figured out ratings go up when they appeal to sensationalism and tabloid-style journalism.
Sure, it's a better scheme than state-run media, but I wish someone out there would take the same unprofitable banzai charge that MSNBC takes only in support of truth and rationality.
Lol no one trusts foxes, they are sly and elusive creatures, and sometimes have rabies.
Nevertheless you can trust the fact that the first 2016 mainstream GOP sanctioned debate will be held on FOX News. That FOX News has arbitrarily decided the top 10 GOP contenders based on some polls that polled at best a few thousand people. Lol don't worry though, they'll have debates on the other networks too and they all have a different arbitration of picking their arbitrary fantasy made reality GOP debate. Even if you don't like the GOP, with this crowd and Trump I think we're all expecting a circus so should be entertaining. We'll see though.
Also to Desdichado, I get this issue its been played heavily and obviously by those left out of the first primetime debate lol. The logical FOX defense be the point of the debate is to get the best winner to put up against the Democrats, namely the looming possibility of Hillary Clinton, the person in the world they love to talk the most about, getting the nomination with no decisive opponent against her yet,
However there is merit in your point, but the next fairest be statewide for the debate is in Ohio. Lol, remember, democracy and republics are shams, monarchy is the only true form of government. It just so happens as citizen-monarch I like this case. In this special case with the debate, it is in Ohio, my little sub-kingdom in our vast and shared empire. Lol, in which case the only substantial difference in line-up be Kasich would be frontrunner instead of dark horse.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Ohio Republican Presidential Primary
Last edited:
It would be a logical defense if the debate actually accomplished the ends you speak of.
The debate accomplishes its ends, but that is not the end of it. I suppose in part my speculation and part just the pattern of the FOX to what their goals are in terms of this recent election, and also very similar as to their patterns in the 2008 election when they thought their Hillary Clinton pseudo-doomsday conspiracy theory was upon them.
The point of the political debates is to give the broader self-aware kings a chance to know the candidates, and of course in debate format, put them into the arena and refine this large pool of contenders whom want to be our servants.
J
jennymae
Guest
You can be wrong if you want.
Sorry, just kidding around.
Seriously, though, FDR was a terrible president. Unemployment when he came into office was 17%. Just before Pearl Harbor -- the war ended the depression -- unemployment was at ...
17%. And it never dropped below 14% before that.
He attempted to pack the Supreme Court with six more justices so he'd start winning some court cases for his socialist agenda. The Court kept ruling that his "recovery programs" were unconstitutional based on the fact they demanded wealth redistribution, "training camps" for workers that he wanted to make mandatory, and a tax program that was “based on the philosophy that big fortunes are created by collective rather than individual effort.” Remember Obama's "You didn't build that!" comment? Roosevelt believed the same thing.
Frankly, if you want to understand the battle between left and right that is raging today, if you want to understand the rise of the Tea Party, if you want to understand the agenda of President Obama, then you examine history, putting the language of Roosevelt’s New Deal side-by-side with the language of socialism and the language of the Democratic Party.
A "Rosetta Stone" of sorts that helps with the translation exists in the contemporaneous newspaper accounts of the 1930s. All you have to do is read the words: “share the wealth,” “collectivism” and “wider distribution (read ‘redistribution’) of wealth,” in those news stories to see that Roosevelt was using the same language as Lenin and Marx.
Collectivism, the notion that the group is more important than the individual, is the backbone of socialism, communism and fascism. Little wonder then that FDR and his backers admired Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, as acknowledged by John Franklin Carter in his sympathetic 1934 book “The New Dealers.” I'm sure it broke FDR's heart to have to go to war with men he actually admired. Few people realize that Fascism as made famous by the Nazis is the just the other side of the same socialist coin as communism. Both are socialist ideologies, rendered in the real world differently.
FDR nearly ruined this country with his socialist idealism. Truman killed it, returning us to capitalism. But Carter, Clinton, and Obama have brought it back. If you liked FDR, then these are his direct heirs, and you shouldn't complain about what they have done.
I, on the other hand, despise them all.
I'm not sure I can agree fully on this, but I'm for sure gonna do some more reasearching after reading your response, mr VW. It was very interesting reading this
Research a little on Teddy while you're at it 
..."In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919.
..."In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919.
The 2016 Presidential Race is officially underway.
Earlier today they had the JV Debate of the lower 7 GOP candidates (Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Jindal, and Gilmore).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0h1jOVqZs
[video=youtube;qH0h1jOVqZs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0h1jOVqZs[/video]
My own analysis is that it was a pretty good debate even though it was the lower tier. Very friendly debate it seemed. In my opinion the winner of the JV Debate is a tie between Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry. I don't particularly like either one of them, but they did the best in the debate. Lindsey Graham though his position is unpopular there is much truth to it, and he showed the best understanding of foreign policy, but a lack of domestic policy. Rick Perry showed fairly strong domestic policy positions, but little understanding of foreign policy. So therefore I'd say they tied and that one of them should be bumped up from the JV circle to the Varsity circle.
What do you all think? Who won the debate? Who should move up from the JV squad to the Varsity circle?
The Top 10 GOP primary debate will be on in about an hour. I will watch it and try to find the full video and post it here when it becomes available later tonight.
Earlier today they had the JV Debate of the lower 7 GOP candidates (Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Jindal, and Gilmore).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0h1jOVqZs
[video=youtube;qH0h1jOVqZs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0h1jOVqZs[/video]
My own analysis is that it was a pretty good debate even though it was the lower tier. Very friendly debate it seemed. In my opinion the winner of the JV Debate is a tie between Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry. I don't particularly like either one of them, but they did the best in the debate. Lindsey Graham though his position is unpopular there is much truth to it, and he showed the best understanding of foreign policy, but a lack of domestic policy. Rick Perry showed fairly strong domestic policy positions, but little understanding of foreign policy. So therefore I'd say they tied and that one of them should be bumped up from the JV circle to the Varsity circle.
What do you all think? Who won the debate? Who should move up from the JV squad to the Varsity circle?
The Top 10 GOP primary debate will be on in about an hour. I will watch it and try to find the full video and post it here when it becomes available later tonight.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
???
What were you, out of the room every time Carly Fiorina took a question? She blew them away, dude!
Articulate, informed, prepared, witty, and loaded for bear. The others were no-shows by comparison. Eighty-three percent of the viewers thought Fiorina won. She moved herself into the top tier with that presentation.
???
What were you, out of the room every time Carly Fiorina took a question? She blew them away, dude!
Articulate, informed, prepared, witty, and loaded for bear. The others were no-shows by comparison. Eighty-three percent of the viewers thought Fiorina won. She moved herself into the top tier with that presentation.
Lol I watched the entire debate. Remember polls are faked, and polls are how you got Trump as the frontrunner. I don't think Fiorina did all that well, she kinda stumbled around there a lot. As per the usual she offers up her experience in the private sector without really saying what the achievements from that experience are (for little wonder, there's not many.) I think FOX is merely casting her as the winner of the JV debate as she is their token woman candidate and they want to keep her in the race as counter card to the Democrats' War on Women strategy.
Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham presented the most clear and concise views and were able to describe in brevity their records which support their views. For this reason I tie them for winning the JV debate.
EDIT: Anyways, the Prime Time event is coming on, so I will be back in a few hours.
Last edited:
After much waiting, the main event:
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46sdVMreNg
[video=youtube;d46sdVMreNg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46sdVMreNg[/video]
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiObbt-29cs
This probably has to be one of the best primary debates I've seen frankly. So much one could go through. I'll just be brief about it for now. I think it is quite obvious that sly lil Fox set up Trump, but nevertheless Trump did the worst in that debate easily.
In terms of a winner, that's not so clear cut, but all the candidates did well given the needs of their immediate campaigns. Showmanship wise I think Rubio probably would be the winner. By strategy I'd say Bush won it since he was able to play a good defense game which will keep him in his top position at least in the short term until the next debate. Of course I am most partial to Kasich and was well pleased by his performance. As you can see from the crowd reaction, Kasich is one that deserves some more spotlight. While Kasich didn't really steal the show I think he did a good job demonstrating why he at the least deserves his place in the top tier and should be given a more serious look as the alternative to the Bush-Hillary paradigm.
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46sdVMreNg
[video=youtube;d46sdVMreNg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46sdVMreNg[/video]
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiObbt-29cs
This probably has to be one of the best primary debates I've seen frankly. So much one could go through. I'll just be brief about it for now. I think it is quite obvious that sly lil Fox set up Trump, but nevertheless Trump did the worst in that debate easily.
In terms of a winner, that's not so clear cut, but all the candidates did well given the needs of their immediate campaigns. Showmanship wise I think Rubio probably would be the winner. By strategy I'd say Bush won it since he was able to play a good defense game which will keep him in his top position at least in the short term until the next debate. Of course I am most partial to Kasich and was well pleased by his performance. As you can see from the crowd reaction, Kasich is one that deserves some more spotlight. While Kasich didn't really steal the show I think he did a good job demonstrating why he at the least deserves his place in the top tier and should be given a more serious look as the alternative to the Bush-Hillary paradigm.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
You must have been watching a debate in another dimension.
Now I know you didn't watch it at all.
They aren't the only ones. Even the liberal media has expressed surprise at her demeanor, her control, and her grasp of the issues. I don't know what you were doing at 5:00 p.m. EDT yesterday, but "watching the debate" is not a correct answer.
I'm guessing you think Trump did well last night, too. huh?
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
You cannot have a long-term successful economy without a free market. How that free market manifests and operates; however, is just as important to a long-term successful economy.
For example, the socio-economic results of this "free trade free market corporativism" have and continue to result in ever increasingly negative socio-economic consequences to most Americans as well as the long-term interest of the U.S..
For example, the socio-economic results of this "free trade free market corporativism" have and continue to result in ever increasingly negative socio-economic consequences to most Americans as well as the long-term interest of the U.S..
In regards to Fiorina and the JV team debate, I watched it twice. I stand by my judgment. Fiorina brought no substance. It is true many are easily placated with superficial answers and attacks though. After all Trump is the GOP frontrunner. So if one is judging the debates by the circus sideshow attraction appeal then sure, Fiorina did fine.
My judgment of the debates is not based off superficial punch lines though, it is based off whom displays the most substantive record and defense and display of their record and the merit of their policy ideas pertaining to foreign and domestic policy. For this reason I felt like Rick Perry for domestic policy and Lindsey Graham displaying the most knowledge of foreign policy tied the JV debate.
My judgment of the debates is not based off superficial punch lines though, it is based off whom displays the most substantive record and defense and display of their record and the merit of their policy ideas pertaining to foreign and domestic policy. For this reason I felt like Rick Perry for domestic policy and Lindsey Graham displaying the most knowledge of foreign policy tied the JV debate.
S
Sirk
Guest
Kinda like Obama did? Man...he was so full of substance that his cup has spillethed over into baby parts for sale, the supreme court redefining marriage and 4 dead hero's in Bengazi who were killed by people who were mad about a you tube video. Whatever man. Your brain has been sabotaged by Hillary fever.