Forum Thread

First Republican Debate Recap

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 5 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Of the 10 Republican candidates on the stage for the first debate, I'm curious how everyone here thought it went? Who impressed you the most? Least? Did anyone actually manage to change your opinion on them and what they stand for, and how well they could (or could not) handle the presidency, if elected?

    For me, 3 guys stood out, for very different reasons.

    Donald Trump. He actually surprised me. I mean, I would never vote for the guy in a million bazillion years. I think that man being the face of our foreign diplomacy efforts would be a disaster. But, I did actually enjoy his answers. And he came through as more even minded and readied with answers than I ever thought him capable.

    John Kasich. I knew little of this man before tonight. But I am glad he made the main stage debate. He deserves a chance for the American public to hear his voice. Of the 10, I believe he 'won' that debate.

    Ben Carson. Now here's a man I was interested in, just because of his neuroscience background. Knowing very little else about this candidate, I was curious on how he would come across. Would he stand out from the pack, clearly more intelligent than everyone else?? Unfortunately, no. Not at all. I think he shrunk to the occasion. And frankly I am surprised he has made it this far.

    How do you think the first debate went?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    YellowSubmarine Wrote: John Kasich. I knew little of this man before tonight. But I am glad he made the main stage debate. He deserves a chance for the American public to hear his voice. Of the 10, I believe he 'won' that debate.

    Trump is getting all of the airtime right now, but if anyone is a dark horse it's Kasich. He may be a little too moderate for the Republican base's liking, but he's the governor of a swing state that President Obama won twice.

    Other than that, I wasn't terribly impressed with the debate. That has more to do with my belief that a debate this early on in the process has more to do with it being a show than actually having a legitimate debate about big ideas. And sadly, this belief was only reinforced last night.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ben Carson is an interesting prospect and is obviously not a politician, but unfortunately in an election system controlled by corporate funding and control of the media, in the end, the money will go to the establishment candidates as always. So you can literally Guarantee it will be Bush vs. Clinton since the corporate money people have already made their choice of who will represent both wings of the same corporate run bird. So enjoy the charade of television debates, but when it comes to crush time, the establishment has already voted for Bush vs. Clinton and that's the end of the story.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Mr Wonderful Wrote: Ben Carson is an interesting prospect and is obviously not a politician,

    That's one way to describe him. I've been following him for a long time now and I think he would be a terrible President. That's just my two cents though...

    Mr Wonderful Wrote: but unfortunately in an election system controlled by corporate funding and control of the media, in the end, the money will go to the establishment candidates as always. So you can literally Guarantee it will be Bush vs. Clinton since the corporate money people have already made their choice of who will represent both wings of the same corporate run bird. So enjoy the charade of television debates, but when it comes to crush time, the establishment has already voted for Bush vs. Clinton and that's the end of the story.

    I hate to say that I agree with you here. You would have thought that we could find more than two families to lead our country, but it looks like President Obama was the exception and not the new rule.

    If Bush or Clinton is elected then that means a Bush or Clinton will have been President or Vice President for 32 out of the last 40 years (1981-2009 & 2017-2021). If that person wins reelection then it would be 36 out of the past 44 years.

    I'm not trying to start a political discussion by pointing that out; I'm just wondering if it's wise to allow two families to hand the Presidency back and forth between each other for decades.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I hate to say that I agree with you here. You would have thought that we could find more than two families to lead our country, but it looks like President Obama was the exception and not the new rule.

    If Bush or Clinton is elected then that means a Bush or Clinton will have been President or Vice President for 32 out of the last 40 years (1981-2009 & 2017-2021). If that person wins reelection then it would be 36 out of the past 44 years.

    I'm not trying to start a political discussion by pointing that out; I'm just wondering if it's wise to allow two families to hand the Presidency back and forth between each other for decades.

    I don't think it is wise at all. Reminds me of an 'Americanized' version of NK - Jong Un saga.