Official debate thread

#427
#427
southgatevol said:
How can you characterize one as comedy and the other as not? Which politician, in your opinion, does not pander to the people they know they need to win???
Click to expand...

Well I think there's a big difference in words. I think thug is a funny word in the right context; so is gangbager and hick. Really depends on context. But there are some words that are never appropriate to be said, whether by a black, white. or hispanic person. I don't think any of the words you listed really identifies as that.

All politicians pander and sell their souls for the office they seek. Let's not think it's different just because someone is a republican and another is a democrat. That's my point. Cruz is at the same level as HRC, imo: pathetic, egotistical maniac.
 
#428
#428
mrorange211 said:
Well I think there's a big difference in words. I think thug is a funny word in the right context; so is gangbager and hick. Really depends on context. But there are some words that are never appropriate to be said, whether by a black, white. or hispanic person. I don't think any of the words you listed really identifies as that.

All politicians pander and sell their souls for the office they seek. Let's not think it's different just because someone is a republican and another is a democrat. That's my point. Cruz is at the same level as HRC, imo: pathetic, egotistical maniac.
Click to expand...

Will agree with you on the words. Not sure who I will vote for as of now but will disagree on Cruz and Clinton, there is a big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#429
#429
lawgator1 said:
Trump won the debate overall because of the smack down of Cruz on New York. That's the media take away.
Click to expand...

I still think there wasn't a clear cut winner so to speak. Trump got hammered on the birther question as well as the banning of Muslims.

The answer to the New York question was damn good though.
 
#430
#430
Some of the analysis I've heard today points out that Trump scored well because he was calm, spoke slowly and seriously, etc. Interesting point and does show that he's not the loose cannon he's portrayed to be. It's performance rather than pure instinct.

I'll say again what I said last night. My concern of a Trump presidency is not that he'll say the wrong thing in International affairs - it's that I have no idea what he really stands for other than making deals.
 
#431
#431
volinbham said:
I think it's more than that. The whole notion of winning again is a big deal. Look at sentiment in the country - it is pessimistic and the current admin continues to come across as weak and overly PC.

Trump comes across as someone who won't put up with BS and will get things done.

The immigration thing is just an example - he's not *****footing around an issue EVERYONE knows is an issue (though preferred solutions vary widely).

He is projecting strength in an era of a mom-jeans POTUS that appears completely delusional to the issues people care about.

Whether there is substance behind the show I don't know but it's not just about hating Muslims.
Click to expand...

Yep. He's saying exactly what people want to hear in a time they aren't hearing it.
 
#432
#432
Gramps said:
If the framers intent for the president to be born on American soil, that would exclude those being born in any foreign country to become president with the exception of those born at an US military base located in a foreign county which is considered American soil.
Click to expand...
I believe that their intent was to not have foreign influence, not to keep a U.S. citizen from birth from holding the office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#433
#433
1972 Grad said:
I believe that their intent was to not have foreign influence, not to keep a U.S. citizen from birth from holding the office.
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me. It is a matter the court needs to settle one way or the other.

My personal opinion is if someone has lived in the USA most of their lives, the spot on earth they were born on should not exclude them from becoming POTUS.
 
#435
#435
Gramps said:
That makes sense to me. It is a matter the court needs to settle one way or the other.

My personal opinion is if someone has lived in the USA most of their lives, the spot on earth they were born on should not exclude them from becoming POTUS.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree at all, and its kind of silly to gauge a person's allegiance to the geography of where they popped out of a uterus rather than where their heart really is, but the Constitutional phraseology is centered on the word "born."

One could make the argument that at the time, as young as the country was, there was an emphasis placed on being tied to the actual land. And that over time the context of that has dwindled.

But then one would run into all sorts of "context of the times" problems when it comes to other parts of the Constitution. Say, the Second Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#436
#436
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree at all, and its kind of silly to gauge a person's allegiance to the geography of where they popped out of a uterus rather than where their heart really is, but the Constitutional phraseology is centered on the word "born."

One could make the argument that at the time, as young as the country was, there was an emphasis placed on being tied to the actual land. And that over time the context of that has dwindled.

But then one would run into all sorts of "context of the times" problems when it comes to other parts of the Constitution. Say, the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

So LG...

As of right now, if you had to pick anyone from the GOP side, who would you pick and why?

And in not limiting that to the front runners either.
 
#437
#437
southgatevol said:
Do you view the term "hick" as a racist term? What about "thug" or "gangbanger"?
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned, it is the same as hillbilly. Black people using it is offensive and out of line because it is NEVER used as a term of endearment.
 
Last edited:
#439
#439
Grand Vol said:
So LG...

As of right now, if you had to pick anyone from the GOP side, who would you pick and why?

And in not limiting that to the front runners either.
Click to expand...


Its hard to pick one, because its more an amalgamation that works for me. I would say this:

I like what I perceive to be the "let's not get bogged down in gay marriage or abortion" approaches of Christie, Kasich, and I am guessing Rubio. Even Trump would be dismissive of all of that nonsense.

I am actually more of a hardliner than you think when it comes to military confrontations, and think we should be more aggressive with ISIS, and even more tolerant of collateral damage than we have been. On the other hand, the notion of 100,000 troops on the ground a la Graham makes me want to vomit. And we need someone steady at the helm, not likely to fly off the handle, and that worries me when it comes to Trump or Rubio.

I think Trump is capable.... but not in a setting that moves at glacial speed, like big change in US policy or governance. We all complain about how slow it is to react. But most of the time I feel like that might not be a bad thing.

I think Rubio and Cruz are both very smart. They'd both be okay I'm sure like 90 % of the time. I worry that Cruz would go all religious on things, and even when he doesn't his intransigence and antagonism is worrisome to me, when we have a government that has been at loggerheads for 6 years.

Kasich I of course view as non threatening. He's amiable. Smart. Not an ideologue. But damnit, every time they have one of these debates and I get my hopes up that he'll get it together and get over the fray and make some sense, he just can't seem to make a coherent point.

He's much more likely in my opinion to end up someone's VP pick, if for no other reason than Ohio.

I've given up predicting who actually wins it. Seems like what is happening is that Cruz wants to win Iowa, straight up, and so he took on Trump. And Trump has nuked him with eligibility and New York, New York.

The rest of them in contention recognize that after Iowa and New Hampshire, if they can be the clear second place guy, then ALL of the establishment money is coming their way to take on Trump. So that's why Rubio and Cruz are really going at it, and Kasich and Christie are drafting in behind them, hoping those two tangle up and they can shoot right by them to go heads up with Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#440
#440
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree at all, and its kind of silly to gauge a person's allegiance to the geography of where they popped out of a uterus rather than where their heart really is, but the Constitutional phraseology is centered on the word "born."

One could make the argument that at the time, as young as the country was, there was an emphasis placed on being tied to the actual land. And that over time the context of that has dwindled.

But then one would run into all sorts of "context of the times" problems when it comes to other parts of the Constitution. Say, the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that if you are born to an American citizen parent you are automatically a citizen. Wouldn't that cover the "natural born" qualification?
 
#441
#441
Oh, and on Muslim immigration, I think Rubio has a reasonable approach, though he is not explaining the way he should.

Instead of a blanket ban like Trump, even "temporarily," what he should say is that the law ought to be changed to make it clear that if you want to come to the US, Muslim or not, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that you do not represent a risk. If you show up in the intelligence gathering on ISIS or others, or if you have been to radicalized places, or show signs of radicalization in your travels, or cannot demonstrate that you are a student or a tourist, or something benign on the front end, then your admission is going to be much slower and examined much more thoroughly.

Basically, put in place hurdles. Reasonable, surmountable hurdles. But ones that make sense to screen out the bad guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#442
#442
hog88 said:
It's my understanding that if you are born to an American citizen parent you are automatically a citizen. Wouldn't that cover the "natural born" qualification?
Click to expand...


That is Cruz's contention, yes.

Some scholars maintain that natural-born means on US soil because, at the time, it was a question of having actually come from the US land. You had to be "born here."

No definitive rulings are out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#443
#443
lawgator1 said:
Its hard to pick one, because its more an amalgamation that works for me. I would say this:

I like what I perceive to be the "let's not get bogged down in gay marriage or abortion" approaches of Christie, Kasich, and I am guessing Rubio. Even Trump would be dismissive of all of that nonsense.

I am actually more of a hardliner than you think when it comes to military confrontations, and think we should be more aggressive with ISIS, and even more tolerant of collateral damage than we have been. On the other hand, the notion of 100,000 troops on the ground a la Graham makes me want to vomit. And we need someone steady at the helm, not likely to fly off the handle, and that worries me when it comes to Trump or Rubio.

I think Trump is capable.... but not in a setting that moves at glacial speed, like big change in US policy or governance. We all complain about how slow it is to react. But most of the time I feel like that might not be a bad thing.

I think Rubio and Cruz are both very smart. They'd both be okay I'm sure like 90 % of the time. I worry that Cruz would go all religious on things, and even when he doesn't his intransigence and antagonism is worrisome to me, when we have a government that has been at loggerheads for 6 years.

Kasich I of course view as non threatening. He's amiable. Smart. Not an ideologue. But damnit, every time they have one of these debates and I get my hopes up that he'll get it together and get over the fray and make some sense, he just can't seem to make a coherent point.

He's much more likely in my opinion to end up someone's VP pick, if for no other reason than Ohio.

I've given up predicting who actually wins it. Seems like what is happening is that Cruz wants to win Iowa, straight up, and so he took on Trump. And Trump has nuked him with eligibility and New York, New York.

The rest of them in contention recognize that after Iowa and New Hampshire, if they can be the clear second place guy, then ALL of the establishment money is coming their way to take on Trump. So that's why Rubio and Cruz are really going at it, and Kasich and Christie are drafting in behind them, hoping those two tangle up and they can shoot right by them to go heads up with Trump.
Click to expand...

Well thought out and non-partisan.

Though I tend to think your fears of Trump and Rubio starting WWIII are not as solidly founded as you think they are. They may play hawkish on TV, but in reality I don't think either of them are ready to start blastin fools over a dropped hat. However, a hawkish stance is somewhat of an advantage in the international stage as one can be unpredictable (a la Reagan) and keep opponents guessing and leaving no option off the table.

I disagree on the Kasich for VP concept though. I think there was a real good reason Nikki Haley was put on the SOTU response the other night. Trump may very well get the nomination over the desires of the mainstream GOP, but it certainly doesn't mean they can't push a running mate.
 
#448
#448
Kindergarten Cop Arnold approves.

Kindergarten-Cop-1-DI.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#449
#449
Grand Vol said:
Except Kenya and Indonesia, right?
Click to expand...

Those that thinks Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to serve as POTUS would have to think Cruz does not meet the requirements . If not they are big Ole hypocrites.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top