GOP Debate

[donner]

2015

Huckabee just nailed the cross gender military issue.

The military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Its not to transform the culture by trying out some idea that some people think would make us a different country and more diverse.

BRAVO!!

1948

In reference to desegregating the military:

"Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."'

Trumanlibrary.org

He's not saying keep things that way forever... just that the military isn't the place to make early implementation of things in the hope it will help change society. They don't need distractions keeping them from doing their jobs, or the wrong people die.

This^^^ and a whole bunch of other things related to the current social experiments going on right now. I've expressed my opinion before, and have no problem doing it again.

As i quoted above, the idea of desegregation was called 'social evolution' by some. I'm sure there were arguments about how it'd affect performance etc, as well. Yet Truman still ordered the military to change long before the rest of society accepted desegregation.

So the notion that the military isn't a place for 'social experiments' isn't supported by history.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Best line of the night was Walker's when he said that at this point the Russians know more about Hilliary's email server than we do.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I think the real winner was Hillary. It is obvious that Trump is not going to be the nominee, and his feelings will be so hurt that he will run as a third party. That will give it to Hillary (or Biden or Kerry).

 

[Glocktogo]

As i quoted above, the idea of desegregation was called 'social evolution' by some. I'm sure there were arguments about how it'd affect performance etc, as well. Yet Truman still ordered the military to change long before the rest of society accepted desegregation.

So the notion that the military isn't a place for 'social experiments' isn't supported by history.

Irrelevant to this discussion and off topic. Start a thread about military social experiments if you want to keep debating that single point, please?

 

[donner]

Irrelevant to this discussion and off topic. Start a thread about military social experiments if you want to keep debating that single point, please?

not at all. Dennis said he thought the point made during the debate was important and i'm pointing out that the point is, in fact, wrong.

 

[CHenry]

I LOL when Carson said he was the first to remove half a brain but when you look at DC it appears someone beat him to it.

 

[ronny]

On 5/4/2015, I started a thread with this statement, "I am very easily swayed by good arguments. Accordingly, I vote for a Kasich/Carson or Carson/Kasich ticket." I was generally castigated for it by most of ya'll.

Last night, I didn't see anything that drastically changed my opinion. Someone said "Carson seemed lost". I viewed it as Carson was using his brain to formulate his thoughts. Some of the others could learn from his lesson. Carson's answers were gold. As of today, the four I favor are Kasich, Carson, Fiorina and Cruz (not exactly peas in a pod, but there is some serious potential there.

The comments about Megyn Kelly were interesting. My take was that she, as well as the other two moderators, posed challenging questions (for the most part) designed to point out the candidates weakness and give them a chance to refute the contentions or correct the misrepresentations. Any debater should welcome questions like that if he/she is innocent of the "charges". Trump's responses were those of a spoiled brat gifted with the straw-man defense.

My criticism of the moderators is that they too often allowed many of the candidates to totally ignore the questions put to them, as they went off on their rehearsed tangent. Kudos to those candidates who resisted the urge to do that. Boos to the candidates who themselves did not challenge the other candidates when they failed to directly answer the questions.

That's my answer and I'm sticking with it.

 

[tntrex]

Rubio, Walker, trump, and Cruz are the ones that made good comments i think.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Seems they had it out for Trump from the gitgo. The bit about supporting whichever candidate wins the nomination and pledging not to run as an independent was obviously aimed at Trump. I was hoping they would ask Trump how he's going to force Mexico to pay for the wall he's going to build.

 

[Glocktogo]

I disagree with a few observations here, but agree with most. I'll be honest, I fast forwarded through all but Fiorina and Jindal on the first debate. Listening to Graham, Santorum, Pataki, etc. would be a complete waste of my time. I told my wife before we watched that I really just wanted to see how Fiorina would do, because I felt she should've been in the top 10 all along. I'm glad to see she did so well.

On to the rest:

Christie: Conservative? Please! Half of what he had to say was either RINO or outright liberal. Sadly, he did better than I expected and it really pissed me off that he came out on top of Paul over government surveillance. Paul was completely correct that Christie doesn't understand the BoR and would be another Statist with a capital "S". I wouldn't vote for him if he got the nomination.

Paul: How can you be so right and come off so wrong? I think the chemicals from his perm have leeched into his brain. He cooked his own goose. Seriously, I was embarrassed for him. One point, he got the least talk time of all the candidates, which considering his poor performance might be good luck for him.

Huckabee: His time in broadcasting has polished his presentation. He came off better than I expected, but his talk on women's issues further cemented his position as yet another evangelical white male who has a penchant for telling women what to do with their own bodies. He is unelectable in the general election and quite frankly, doesn't bring anything to the table that half the other candidates haven’t got.

Walker: I got to see a little more of him and while I don’t think he won anything, he didn’t lose either. That’s half the battle. I could vote for him if he make the cut to the ballot. However, just like some of the other governors, he doesn’t bring anything extra to the table. Well, his epic battles in his own state prove he can fight and survive, which are admirable traits. On the other side of that coin, he can create a lot of heat where perhaps there’s a better way.

Trump: I 100% called it before the debate. Megyn Kelly was assigned to damage Trump by Ailes and she did not disappoint. Sadly, Trump completely obliged her. IMO, it’s the first tactical error he’s made. He came off as combative and in a VERY politician-like manner, evaded answering most questions, preferring instead to provide sound bites. Oh he scored a few good hits, but was the least “presidential” of the bunch. That said, I hope he sticks around for a while to keep the rest of the field from slipping into their RINO bathrobes and dismissing the palpable anger in this country as unworthy of their attention.

Bush: Milquetoast Jeb should be his nickname. I feel like he hurt himself, but not enough to derail his run. One point that would only stand out to the informed was his board position with Bloomberg. I had no idea and it flat pissed me off when they revealed it. Jeb didn’t even bat an eye at defending it, though he tried to deflect the hit by claiming he didn’t know what it did on Planned Parenthood. If he didn’t, he should have. Between that and his position as a financial advisor for Barclay’s, he would be nothing but a moderate to RINO Wall Street POTUS who would further damage our economy in favor of the oligarchs.

Carson: Man he’s smart. Short of Trump, he’s taken more bold risks in his life as a preeminent neurosurgeon than the rest of the field combined. That’s the problem, he’s too cerebral. He’s also a bit of a political rube. I was quite impressed with his performance and loved his military comments, but I get the impression that the domestic political wolves and international ones like Putin would eat him for lunch.

Cruz: I thought he also did well and increased his stock. His hawkish positions on international affairs worry me, but I think he could do good things domestically. Sadly, the mere sound of his voice grates on my brain and as much as I hate to say this, I think it would turn off many voters. He’s not as sour as Paul, but he’s just a bit too negative.

Rubio: Rubio rose in my eyes more than the rest of the field. He came off as thoughtful without being too cerebral. He came off as firm where he needed to be and understanding where that was needed. Sadly, he revealed the same Achilles’ heel that Huckabee has, women’s issues. Half the women in this country aren’t going to vote for him as a result and that’s too much ground to lose.

Kasich: I’ve been asking about him for months with nothing more than drips of information to show for it. It’s been like pulling teeth to get the goods on him and there’s so much unknown that may ultimately result in an Achilles’ heel for him as well. That being said and for the time being, I think he won more for the night than the rest. He’s smart but with heart. His record in improving his state can’t be matched by the other governors and unlike Walker, he managed to do it without creating a ton of enemies. His favorability rating in Ohio is the envy of governors everywhere. He could be the single nominee on that stage that could shrink the ever widening political divide in this country. He seems the most “Reagan-like” of the bunch. If I had to vote for a single one of them tomorrow, I’d have to vote for optimism and pick him. On the flip side, I watched him as he received his questions and he was the most nervous person on the stage. I’m concerned about his chops on international issues and he could be a bit too much glass is half full. I’m not sure he’s ready for the big chair, but he’s on the way.

Conclusions (subject to change as things progress): I’d go for a Walker/Rubio or Walker/Fiorina ticket. I’m more solid on Rubio or Fiorina as VP than Walker as POTUS. Whoever wins, I’d put Kasich in Valerie Jarrett’s office and he wouldn’t stay sealed up in there. I’d give him carte blanc on domestic economic policy and make sure everyone knew that he had real power on that front. I’d let him choose the Fed Chairman as a matter of fact. It’s a no brainer. Speaking of no-brainers, Carson has more chops to be Surgeon General in his little finger than Murthy has in his entire body. Cruz should be in charge of DHS and told to make hardening the border happen (I don’t think it can be sealed, but it can be hardened to significantly reduce the flow). I’d put Rubio in charge of overhauling the immigration system concurrently. Fiorina would be Sec. of State if not VP.

I’d put Huckabee in charge of Social Security and Bush as Sec. of Labor. His business connections could be put to good use in determining how to create jobs, but you don’t want him holding the purse strings.

In a cruel twist of fate, I’d make Paul the Director of National Intelligence, but he’s be on a VERY short leash. Fix the excesses without appreciably degrading our counterintelligence capabilities. I’d make Christie AG, but he’d come with a handler that reported directly to the President. He’d also have a short leash on civil rights.

Thoughts?