619 replies to this topic

[Hawk]

Who's ready for the debate tonight?!  I AM!

 

I'm, uh... warming up, by drinking beer.  I'll be playing the game from www.debatedrinking.com, candidate currently undecided (Leaning towards Scooter / Scott Walker.  Home state bias, y'know?).

 

Friday is going to be a bitch.  I'm curious how this'll play out...  I should probably get something to eat before the debate.

[HiMyNameIsNick]

Who's ready for the debate tonight?!  I AM!

 

I'm, uh... warming up, by drinking beer.  I'll be playing the game from www.debatedrinking.com, candidate currently undecided (Leaning towards Scooter / Scott Walker.  Home state bias, y'know?).

 

Friday is going to be a bitch.  I'm curious how this'll play out...  I should probably get something to eat before the debate.

 

 

OMG, I so want to see this. Is there any way to see it online?

That debate will be funnier than Seinfeld.

[DonValentino]

Got my 6 pack ready

 

Edited by DonValentino, 06 August 2015 - 04:20 PM.

[Hawk]

Got my 6 pack ready

Bum.

 

I'm almost six deep already.  I stocked up on el-cheapo beer just for this.

OMG, I so want to see this. Is there any way to see it online?

That debate will be funnier than Seinfeld.

It won't be that humorous.  It'll be interesting, but I'd watch Seinfeld if I wanted a laugh.

 

I'm sure it'll be streamed.  It's on FOX, but you already mentioned you're not in the US.  I'd check the FOX news website (Why wouldn't they try to capitalize on that?), or find some other re-stream online.

Don- Your "Who is John Kasich?" shot would lead to a destructive feedback loop.  

[DonValentino]

Trump is a boss Lmao

[Hawk]

My notes on the debate:

• I thoroughly enjoyed the opening question targeting Donald Trump.  I love how Rand Paul was the only one that took the bait and ripped on Trump.
• Trump had a good joke in there at the expense or Rosie O'Donnell.
• Chris Christie looks like a fuck.
• Kasich warrants further research.  His opening statement was solid, and he impressed me several times during the debate.
• Rand Paul didn't fall far from the tree.  He loves the Bill of Rights, he ripped on someone hard regarding the 4th Amendment. 
• Cruz is a fuck.  (Please, everyone, differentiate between Christie looking like a fuck and Cruz actually being a fuck.)
• Jeb is very well spoken.  I wish he'd have been running over his brother in 2000.
• Of all my notes, this one is most odd - Chris Christie sounded reasonable with respect to social security.  I believe his plan was to bump retirement age back (1) month per year.  So, in essence, it would take 24 years (so until 2040) to have the retirement age moved back 2 years.

[talbs]

Jeb is very well spoken.  I wish he'd have been running over his brother in 2000.

 

I agree. It's weird because before the debate I read that one of the "5 things to watch for" is how well he would speak, because it wasn't his strong suit, but he did a good job. I don't necessarily think anyone bombed it. I thought the debate would shake things up a bit, but I think the numbers will hold steady for now. I can definitely see why Trump has the support he does and I wish some of the other candidates would take a page out of his book. I am disappointed in the distribution of speaking time though. Maybe things will be a little better next time around.

 

[Cass]

I tried to stay away from American politics because, well, it's just none of my European business. I don't delve into US politics enough to have a well-voiced opinion about it. But all the posts on Facebook about the GOP debate tickled my interest. And wow.

 

Is that an accurate representation of republicans, or is it a practical joke? Who is this Trump guy? Why is dissing Rosie O'Donnell a thing? Why are women's rights even a debate anno 2015? I can just hear Aletta Jacobs and Jane Addams turn in their grave. Why does this debate make running for presidency look like a highschool popularity contest instead of something of actual political signifigance? Why the pointy fingers? Aren't these gentlemen supposed to be on the same team? They sure don't make it seem like they are. Why on earth would Bush get boo'ed for promoting higher quality education? Why is everyone so repulsed by Common Core?

 

This is only a fraction of things that gave me furrowed brows. I'm just in quite the cultural shock right now and full of questions. Forgive me for not knowing the complete details on everything and I am really, really curious for the answers.

[talbs]

I tried to stay away from American politics because, well, it's just none of my European business. I don't delve into US politics enough to have a well-voiced opinion about it. But all the posts on Facebook about the GOP debate tickled my interest. And wow.

 

Is that an accurate representation of republicans, or is it a practical joke? Who is this Trump guy? Why is dissing Rosie O'Donnell a thing? Why are women's rights even a debate anno 2015? I can just hear Aletta Jacobs and Jane Addams turn in their grave. Why does this debate make running for presidency look like a highschool popularity contest instead of something of actual political signifigance? Why the pointy fingers? Aren't these gentlemen supposed to be on the same team? They sure don't make it seem like they are. Why on earth would Bush get boo'ed for promoting higher quality education? Why is everyone so repulsed by Common Core?

 

This is only a fraction of things that gave me furrowed brows. I'm just in quite the cultural shock right now and full of questions. Forgive me for not knowing the complete details on everything and I am really, really curious for the answers.

 

Trump is a billionaire real estate mogul with an estimated net worth of over 10 billion USD, not a politician like the other "serious" contenders, sans Carson who's a neurosurgeon. They are on the same team to an extent (as they all want to defeat the Democrats), but as they are competing for the party nomination, they have to show they're more competent than the others. In the end, all candidates minus Trump will probably support the eventual nominee (unless it happens to be him obviously). The Republican Party prides itself on limited government and that's the problem with Common Core. They feel decisions regarding education are best made at home in the localities and bureaucrats in DC with zero classroom experience have no business "setting the standards." Bush gets thrown in with common core supporters because he said he wants to raise the standards of education (even if it takes common core to do so), but in reality so does everyone else, just by a means that doesn't require takeover of the education system by the government. Around 10 states so far have rejected the common core standards or are in the process of doing so.

 

Hopefully that answers some of your questions.

[Cass]

Trump is a billionaire real estate mogul, not a politician like the other "serious" contenders, minus Carson who's a neurosurgeon. They are on the same team to an extent (defeating the Democrats), but as they are competing for the party nomination, they have to show they're more competent than the others, but in the end, all candidates minus Trump will probably support the nominee. The Republican Party prides itself on limited government and that's the problem with Common Core. They feel decisions regarding education are best made at home in the localities and bureaucrats in DC with zero classroom experience have no business "setting the standards."

Thanks for clearing some things up for me! However, what DO they want the government to support? To what is it limited? Army... and...?

[talbs]

Thanks for clearing some things up for me! However, what DO they want the government to support? To what is it limited? Army... and...?

 

I edited it a bit to provide additional info and hopefully some clarity. Some people fear eventually it (common core) will become a mandate and that all states will have to subscribe to common core standards or forfeit any federal funding. The Republican party relies on "support" especially financially on basically the same things as any other party, there just some things they feel would operate best without government interference. The Republican party however are notoriously big spenders in the defense/military department.

[Emily]

I am so over this already and it's not even 2016. 

[DonValentino]

I thought Trump was hilarious. The guy was refreshingly honest and just does not give a fuck, and I love it. Rand Paul went up in my book, and the governor from Ohio seems like he means well. Everyone else is a piece of shit, especially Cruz.

[Cass]

I edited it a bit to provide additional info and hopefully some clarity. Some people fear eventually it (common core) will become a mandate and that all states will have to subscribe to common core standards or forfeit any federal funding. The Republican party relies on "support" especially financially on basically the same things as any other party, there just some things they feel would operate best without government interference. The Republican party however are notoriously big spenders in the defense/military department.

Sorry, I somehow missed the notification for this :0 Thanks again for the clarifications Still baffled by the mindset of the Republicans. If you don't want the government to do anything than why have a government, lol. It's pretty clear they're only in it to profit from it and not for the good of the whole country.

[redlion]

Sorry, I somehow missed the notification for this :0 Thanks again for the clarifications Still baffled by the mindset of the Republicans. If you don't want the government to do anything than why have a government, lol. It's pretty clear they're only in it to profit from it and not for the good of the whole country.

That's clear to Europeans and about half of the United States. The other half thinks the mexicans will take their jobs, their guns, and their freedom.

Democrats now are just as fiscally conservative as the Republicans of the last thirty years. The Democrats have moved to the right, while the Republicans have moved to the far right. They may not attend neo-nazi rallies, but they'll hold up Ayn Rand as the model on which to build a nation. Gross.

[Karla]

Sorry, I somehow missed the notification for this :0 Thanks again for the clarifications Still baffled by the mindset of the Republicans. If you don't want the government to do anything than why have a government, lol. It's pretty clear they're only in it to profit from it and not for the good of the whole country.

 

What redlion said. It's ironic that Republicans want government to be less involved in people's lives, yet they use government to take away a woman's rights to her body and to eliminate a gay's right to marry.

[jinq]

Donald Trump should become a comedian seriously. This guy never fails to make me laugh.

[Padme]

I caught a bunch of 'highlights' and all I saw was a bunch of men not giving two craps about females and healthcare.

 

Everyone fighting about who is going to defund planned parenthood first, and bragging about defunding it first in their state. Noting that after Planned Parenthood was defunded, Florida is now the worst for healthcare. 

 

Donald Trump isn't a joke, he's a sexist & a racist. Also worth noting that he is accused to sexually assaulting his ex-wife. 

[talbs]

What redlion said. It's ironic that Republicans want government to be less involved in people's lives, yet they use government to take away a woman's rights to her body and to eliminate a gay's right to marry.

 

This is where there's a gray area. The right for gays to marry wasn't eliminated; it was never there to begin with. In Republican ideology, the government doesn't establish "rights," as they come from God (all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights). In suggesting the "right to a woman's body" you neglect the "right to life" for the child in the womb. I am just trying to explain the rationale behind the thinking, regardless of my own opinions on the matter.

 

I do agree with redlion. The democrats swinging toward the right and taking Republican votes is what is hurting the GOP in elections. The GOP continues to only appeal to a very small group of the electorate, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. People like Cruz and Paul were put into office by a dedicated following, and to remain employed you need to see to it that their needs are met. I have no issues with Trump's behavior or his opinions. It's refreshing to see someone that'll stick to their guns and doesn't care if they piss off a few people along the way. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I am glad he's around to pester the GOP for the time being.

[Padme]

This is where there's a gray area. The right for gays to marry wasn't eliminated; it was never there to begin with. In Republican ideology, the government doesn't establish "rights," as they come from God (all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights). In suggesting the "right to a woman's body" you neglect the "right to life" for the child in the womb. I am just trying to explain the rationale behind the thinking, regardless of my own opinions on the matter.

 

I do agree with redlion. The democrats swinging toward the right and taking Republican votes is what is hurting the GOP in elections. The GOP continues to only appeal to a very small group of the electorate, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. People like Cruz and Paul were put into office by a dedicated following, and to remain employed you need to see to it that their needs are met. I have no issues with Trump's behavior or his opinions. It's refreshing to see someone that'll stick to their guns and doesn't care if they piss off a few people along the way. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I am glad he's around to pester the GOP for the time being.

 

The real issue is that peoples religious definition of 'life' and the legal definition of 'life' are vastly different.

When life starts, is a contentious and widely debated issue. On the same line of thinking, people are also not supposed to masturbate, use contraception or have sex for any reason besides procreation.  

 

I would love for any of those candidates to tell me they have never played hide the pickle besides making more babies and I'd certainly love to hear that none of them tickled that pickle by themselves. 

 

To hear someone say that they have no issue with Trump's 'opinions' is honestly sort of scary. This is a man who would be the figurehead of your nation, who is the face of the reserve currency for the world and openly lies about his net worth. For someone to say they don't take issue with a man who clearly thinks there are levels of citizenship and that he is of more worth not just because of his money but also because he has a penis is vile. For people to not stand against him, they may as well stand with him. Those who take the side of 'no side' in a time of moral conflict, may well be as guilty as those committing the crime. To stand by and watch a man belittle, degrade and demean many factions of the populations lives and believe it to be 'funny' is scary. He isn't saying it comedically, though to us it is so hyperbolic that is how we take it. He isn't being satirical. The things he says are alarming and shouldn't be taken as comedic relief in such a serious matter. 

[talbs]

The real issue is that peoples religious definition of 'life' and the legal definition of 'life' are vastly different.

When life starts, is a contentious and widely debated issue. On the same line of thinking, people are also not supposed to masturbate, use contraception or have sex for any reason besides procreation.  

 

I would love for any of those candidates to tell me they have never played hide the pickle besides making more babies and I'd certainly love to hear that none of them tickled that pickle by themselves. 

 

To hear someone say that they have no issue with Trump's 'opinions' is honestly sort of scary. This is a man who would be the figurehead of your nation, who is the face of the reserve currency for the world and openly lies about his net worth. For someone to say they don't take issue with a man who clearly thinks there are levels of citizenship and that he is of more worth not just because of his money but also because he has a penis is vile. For people to not stand against him, they may as well stand with him. Those who take the side of 'no side' in a time of moral conflict, may well be as guilty as those committing the crime. To stand by and watch a man belittle, degrade and demean many factions of the populations lives and believe it to be 'funny' is scary. He isn't saying it comedically, though to us it is so hyperbolic that is how we take it. He isn't being satirical. The things he says are alarming and shouldn't be taken as comedic relief in such a serious matter. 

 

I never said it was funny, I said it was refreshing, and I stand by that. He has a substantial lead in the polls, and it sends a message to the party that if they don't get their act together, he may very well be the nominee. Trump has people paying attention for once, and that's a wonderful thing. Will he be the eventual president? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it is "scary" that his hateful rhetoric doesn't bother me, but I feel the same toward the other nominees. They are entitled to their opinion. If you/anyone doesn't like it, don't support them. The whole PC epidemic is wreaking havoc on this country. "I'm offended" is the battle cry and instead of "getting over it" the offended just aim to silence those with a different viewpoint. It's like Newspeak in 1984.

 

What's scary is that we somehow find ourselves in these predicaments where someone is a front runner simply because of their wealth, because they've lived in the White House before, or because they had a relative who previously occupied the office. The people don't care enough to participate, yet the instant the President wants to fight illegal wars and wiretap civilians, or sponsor government takeover of the healthcare industry, everyone gets up in arms. Apathy is as much to blame as the elected officials for our current environment in the US.

[Padme]

I never said it was funny, I said it was refreshing, and I stand by that. He has a substantial lead in the polls, and it sends a message to the party that if they don't get their act together, he may very well be the nominee. Does that mean he will be the eventual president? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it is "scary" that his hateful rhetoric doesn't bother me, but I feel the same toward the other nominees. They are entitled to their opinion. If you/anyone doesn't like it, don't support them. That is the beauty of this whole system. The ugly truth however is that most people don't care enough to participate, so we find ourselves in these predicaments where someone is a front runner simply because of their wealth, or because they've happened to live in the White House before, or had a relative who previously occupied it.

 

I wasn't just saying yourself, there are other people who have commented on his 'comedic relief' and how he's so funny. 

As a Canadian, I have no way of supporting or not supporting these nominee's.

One might say that I should not mind politics of another country but when that country interacts with mine on every level and dictates how the world behaves in a lot of ways, I have no choice.

People too easily get away with saying something is an 'opinion' on theirs or of others.

Opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be inappropriate in certain rhetorics.

I agree with certain points you make on a micro level but on the macro level it is just terrifying to apply those imo. 

[talbs]

I wasn't just saying yourself, there are other people who have commented on his 'comedic relief' and how he's so funny. 

As a Canadian, I have no way of supporting or not supporting these nominee's.

One might say that I should not mind politics of another country but when that country interacts with mine on every level and dictates how the world behaves in a lot of ways, I have no choice.

People too easily get away with saying something is an 'opinion' on theirs or of others.

Opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be inappropriate in certain rhetorics.

I agree with certain points you make on a micro level but on the macro level it is just terrifying to apply those imo. 

 

I understand. It may have came across that way, but I didn't mean to respond as if you were attacking me versus simply speaking in general. I am pleased that people outside of the US pay attention and have an opinion on our political climate, as many of those who live here sadly couldn't care less. Trump is a sideshow and I feel like as long as he is occupying the airwaves, the Democrats will continue to make progress towards securing the Presidency.

[Cass]

A surprisingly useful post from 9Gag on the elections today. It actually gave a foreign layman like me a good insight. So for those who missed it:

 

Spoiler

[Hawk]

That's clear to Europeans and about half of the United States. The other half thinks the mexicans will take their jobs, their guns, and their freedom.

Democrats now are just as fiscally conservative as the Republicans of the last thirty years. The Democrats have moved to the right, while the Republicans have moved to the far right. They may not attend neo-nazi rallies, but they'll hold up Ayn Rand as the model on which to build a nation. Gross.

Why the hell can't there be a centrist party that:

• Supports social welfare.
• Building off that, supports single-payer universal healthcare.
• Supports the right to a living wage.
• Supports good unions and is anti-inefficient/bad unions.  (Admittedly very tough.  I have a biased view of unions from my industry, mostly negative due to my experiences.  I get their point, but there are certain individuals which should not be given the shelter of a union.  On the other hand, I feel some non-unionized work forces get the shit end of the stick.  It's a massive gray area.)
• Can tell the Republicans to shut the fuck up about women's rights (abortion), and gay rights (marriage), and transgender rights (Whatever the fuck they're after, I'm not well versed).
• Can tell the Democrats to shut the fuck up about gun control with respect to long guns (Small Arms, not cannons).  (Within reason; True assault weapons, with fully automatic capabilities, or toggle-able auto/burst fire are weapons I would consider assault weapons, should be banned.  The guy that wants to own a .22 for plinking, 12GA for bird season or sporting clays or whatever, and a 30-06 for deer season?  No big deal.  The guy that wants to own his AR-15 for range time / home defense?  Cool.)
• Can meet in the middle with Dems and Reps on handgun regulations.  (Namely better background checks and whatever other restrictions they have going right now.  I support the CCW.)

Basically hit on domestic issues that matter to me.  A wish l list, if you will.