The first debate

[Yamato]

Trump doesn't drink alcohol.

So we can't blame the alcohol for the hundred times Trump has acted like a ninny.

[Yamato]

We pause for a commercial break: Just a little piece I like to call "Spreading Democracy"

[mbrn30000]

Ahhhh well then i will leave this up to you and Frank,didn't know you two had a history

he is kind of like a cab driver or a barber. he has all the solutions to the world problems. he just seems to fixate on america. maybe he is saigon rose.

i use to say there are people who can solve all the world issues, but they are too busy driving cabs and cutting hair.

[mbrn30000]

So we can't blame the alcohol for the hundred times Trump has acted like a ninny.

Reagan use to grab a beer with Tip O'neal. today's republicans have to pretend they don't drink, and go to church three times a day. Reagan, as much as he is quoted, would never make the cut today. He was way too liberal.

Edited August 8, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Yamato]

Yeah the Gipper and the Tipper used to get drunk together after work, just chew the cud or maybe play and sing on the piano.

Pays homage to the classic conservative line that aspires to "be more like Ronald Reagan".

Reagan, although some of his policies were horrific, was at least a gentleman. Which doesn't go very far anymore, seems like.

[Yamato]

Taxing marijuana is "blood money". Who said that? Chris Christie! (Pfizer, Merck, Eli, Glaxo, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, Budweiser, Kimberly Clark, etc etc etc). Show me the blood in Washington and Colorado, Mister Christie.

[Frank Merton]

Ahhhh well then i will leave this up to you and Frank,didn't know you two had a history

His particular brand of American chauvinism is not uncommon, but I don't know him. I think he is lying about dealing with me before, or at least he didn't pay much attention at the time. I have to say I would rather abandon responding to him, so you go ahead if you want.

[F3SS]

AND, not or. Maybe the compound question confused you? There was one show of hands asked for, not two. Two conditions, one answer.

"Is there anyone on stage who is unwilling to pledge your support to the eventual nominee and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person?" The thrust of the question was to root out the people who wouldn't support the winner and run against that winner in an independent campaign (an obvious barb fired directly at Donald Trump), and of all the people up on that stage, Donald Trump is the one person who couldn't answer in the negative.

I get it man, it isn't rocket science but it was a bad question that should have actually been two separate questions in which more than one guy could have raised their hand for the first part of the question.

Do I fault Rand Paul for fairing and balancing up the talk time? Absolutely not. Especially if anyone on UM besides me would pay attention to what he actually said, but that doesn't matter we're not too big on substance. Style is so much more fun.

Why do you think you're the only one who understands things? Paul was absolutely right against Christie though Christie made a good argument on his own behalf but Paul definitely channels the founders with his stance. Aside from that, you don't need to go off on a tangent every time Paul is scrutinized for something. I know you're going to but you seem to take it too personally as if he's your own brother.

[2-B]

Breaking teacher's unions is all anyone needs to know about Walker. The repellant religious nonsense they pretty much all spoutet confirms none of are fit to be President, in addition to their own individual awful policies.

I guess you think this country was founded on freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

[2-B]

satire is substance. I know I should be praising them. ok. Christie and Kasich are tolerable. the rest are religious pervs, except for Bush, he is a war mongering thieving Saudi slave, and of course there is his side kick boat boy Rubio,and of course, trump, he is your drunk uncle at Christmas. somebody tell him to go sleep it off. but the rest, self righteous, bible thumping, never leave them alone with children weirdos. well maybe rand paul fakes his religion, like he fakes his libertarianism. I think that pretty much covers it. between walker, hickabee and cruz, we should take bets which one is eventually caught in park with a male prostitute.

oh wait sorry, I forgot the black dude. well you republicans will too, when you start voting. never mind. maybe there will be ads running...look we got one too.

Wow, this is just thoroughly disrespectful to some very good men.

You aren't taking issue with policies in this post. You aren't decrying specific actions or inactions. You're showing an intolerance the left claims it won't tolerate in others.

How dare you call Marco Rubio "boat boy" or refer to an esteemed neurosurgeon like Dr. Ben Carson as "that black dude." Your progressive pals would never tolerate those kind of labels thrown at anyone, much less at candidates for US President.

I won't even touch the crap you threw at Walker, Huckabee, and Cruz.

[2-B]

When Bush is the guy who gets eight questions including seven softballs, plus setting him up with one question so he could spike it down on Trump, it looks like the party (and their news channel) have picked their champion.

Respectfully snipped. As I understand it, the number of questions per candidate was based on standing in the poll average; hence, The Donald at number 1 position got the most, Jeb at number two the next, and so on.

I can't comment on the content/quality of the questions except to say 1. some of that may be individual viewer perception and 2. Baer, Wallace, and Kelly said the questions were designed to challenge each candidate on potential areas of weakness. (As for #2 in my list, I am merely reporting, not endorsing, as I haven't done a candidate-by-candidate analysis of all questions.)

[Jack Skellington]

I agree that Fox took their best shot at Trump while trying their best not to put Bush in a bad light. Sad state, but not entirely unexpected... All you have to do is listen to any commentary from Britt Hume to know where Fox stands as a corporation-- yes, they picked their guy. So what?

Everyone is going to pick their guy-- I even know ONE person who favors Rand Paul, so yeah-- there's no accounting for taste.

Now I read that some Red State conservative group has disinvited Trump, for being mean to Megyn Kelly. Good grief. Big mistake. People want and deserve to hear from all the top candidates on all the issues. The more forums, the more debates, the more questions, the better. This is how we get to make informed decisions, rather than the Dems who would rather NOT know anymore about Hillary before they throw their vote for her. The less they learn about her, the better.... kind of a twist on the Nancy Pelosi strategy of not knowing anything about the bills she supports (except for Bill Clinton-- the womanizer she can love).

Compared with the days when Romney or McCain (really?) were the best we could put forward, I LOVE the field of seventeen.

It put new and credible Republican faces in front of a huge audience (more than 24 million watched Fox be mean to most of them).

That will give Democrats, who are already very nervous about Clinton, plenty to worry about.

[2-B]

I get it man, it isn't rocket science but it was a bad question that should have actually been two separate questions in which more than one guy could have raised their hand for the first part of the question.

Respectfully snipped.

As soon as Bret asked the question, I saw that it's bifurcated nature was problematic. A more seasoned debater like Cruz or a more cerebral man who deliberates before speaking like Carson could have handled it.

But Trump's problems often occur because he is simply so inartful when he speaks. His mind races, he blurts things out emotionally before he thinks, he doesn't finish thoughts before he finishes, etc. that's one reason the press can claim, "Trump said X" by taking a snippet of what he said and not the entire context of unfinished half thoughts that create the whole. I honestly believe that's how the "Mexican rapist" thing got out of control.

Trump was so inartful in dealing with the "will you pledge X AND Y" question that I'm still not certain what he said he would not agree to. I know he won't pledge to support anyone without knowing who it is, and I'm not sure that's a terrible position.

But I heard a pundit claim Trump said on stage he wouldn't mount a third party run. Not sure I got that in Trump's circuitous answer.

[skliss]

How dare you call Marco Rubio "boat boy" or refer to an esteemed neurosurgeon like Dr. Ben Carson as "that black dude." Your progressive pals would never tolerate those kind of labels thrown at anyone, much less at candidates for US President.

Actually.....I believe his progressive friends would cheer him on....for them "tolerance" is in the eye of the beholder.

[mbrn30000]

feign your offense and disgust all you want. we know what you really think. Black dude has more chance being elected president of france than he does nominated by the republicans. where do you think all the southern white racists democrats went when they left the dems due to civil rights support by Johnson? That's right, straight to the GOP, dragging their knuckles and clenching their bibles, such as mr. helms, mr. thurmon...you guys only talk about diversity, and your freedom of religion, is about belonging to the Baptist church of your choice. The GOP could get elected to the presidency of the confederacy every election. that's not by chance. southern white men vote against their own economic interests just because they are ignorant and gullible. like I said you ain't fooling nobody. And the only reason boat boy is a republican is the Cubans are one dimensional in south florida on their politics. It is not about immigration for them, since they have the dry land doctrine in their favor. they are obsessed with Mr. Castro. And the dems of florida are tired of the politics of the 1950's. We tried that, it didn't work. Now lets unleash, apple, and macdonalds on the Cubans, and in a few years they will be fat American indoctrinated technophiles, begging for more. Consumerism will kill the commies.

Edited August 8, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Yamato]

I get it man, it isn't rocket science but it was a bad question that should have actually been two separate questions in which more than one guy could have raised their hand for the first part of the question.

Why do you think you're the only one who understands things? Paul was absolutely right against Christie though Christie made a good argument on his own behalf but Paul definitely channels the founders with his stance. Aside from that, you don't need to go off on a tangent every time Paul is scrutinized for something. I know you're going to but you seem to take it too personally as if he's your own brother.

Well I would love to actually engage in a substantial discussion about an argument yet every single point of substance I've made about Rand Paul's argument on any of these threads so far has been abjectly ignored. You want to talk about me instead, very classy.

I take the Bill of Rights seriously, dude. I don't know what you think is "good" about Chris Christie's argument but perhaps you can elaborate so we can find out, in the wake of all those discussions about the 4th Amendment, what you really think about the 4th. We have a powerful legal foundation for our civil liberty in this country. The stupidest thing we can do as Americans is ignore it.

[mbrn30000]

Well I would love to actually engage in a substantial discussion about an argument yet every single point of substance I've made about Rand Paul's argument on any of these threads so far has been abjectly ignored. You want to talk about me instead, very classy.

I take the Bill of Rights seriously, dude. I don't know what you think is "good" about Chris Christie's argument but perhaps you can elaborate so we can find out, in the wake of all those discussions about the 4th Amendment, what you really think about the 4th. We have a powerful legal foundation for our civil liberty in this country. The stupidest thing we can do as Americans is ignore it.

Neither Rand Paul and no current republican is a true libertarian and certainly not entitled to support from members of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is pro choice and support equal rights for gays, not to mention the elimination of social security. I cannot say I could support the Libertarian Party, but Paul is not even a libertarian with a little "L". he is right wing republican lite. Christie, is a ole style republican, liberal by today standards, trying to fit in to a totally out of control evangelical party. Once there was a republican party led by Lincoln and Eisenhower, but now the inmates kicked out of the southern democratic party have turned the big tent in a group of single wides.

Edited August 8, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Yamato]

Nobody needs to be a Libertarian to defend the Bill of Rights. The difference is in whether they actually do, not what party letter they have on their name tags.

[mbrn30000]

Nobody needs to be a Libertarian to defend the Bill of Rights. The difference is in whether they actually do, not what party letter they have on their name tags.

I think that is not what rand is doing. he is grandstanding. I don't think the mining of phone numbers is even a violation of our rights. I don't think americans even understand what the NSA was doing. It has nothing to do with who you are talking to, unless you are talking to terrorists or to someone who is talking to a terrorist. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it violates the 4th amendment. but the republicans trying to jamb jesus down our throats is in violation of our first amendment, despite how popular it is. It's called tyranny of the majority. I kind of tune out when one of the republicans starts testifying and witnessing when they should focus on running the country that people of many and no faith are all citizens. I am not much for myth and silliness.

My point is, rand and his father have always been labelled libertarian, and the label does not fit. Not saying they claim the label loudly...but they are no libertarian by any definition. I would say more like state's rights, kind of George Wallace in 1972

Edited August 8, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Jack Skellington]

“Like the disciples of Jesus, we cannot look away, we cannot let those in need fend for themselves and live with ourselves, -We are all in this together.”

“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, ‘No. You feed them,’ “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”

“The miracle of loaves and fish was the first great potluck supper. It is what women do every day: we feed the multitudes.”

~Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Women's Assembly, April 2014

[mbrn30000]

“Like the disciples of Jesus, we cannot look away, we cannot let those in need fend for themselves and live with ourselves, -We are all in this together.”

“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, ‘No. You feed them,’ “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”

“The miracle of loaves and fish was the first great potluck supper. It is what women do every day: we feed the multitudes.”

~Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Women's Assembly, April 2014

is there a point?

[F3SS]

Respectfully snipped.

As soon as Bret asked the question, I saw that it's bifurcated nature was problematic. A more seasoned debater like Cruz or a more cerebral man who deliberates before speaking like Carson could have handled it.

But Trump's problems often occur because he is simply so inartful when he speaks. His mind races, he blurts things out emotionally before he thinks, he doesn't finish thoughts before he finishes, etc. that's one reason the press can claim, "Trump said X" by taking a snippet of what he said and not the entire context of unfinished half thoughts that create the whole. I honestly believe that's how the "Mexican rapist" thing got out of control.

Trump was so inartful in dealing with the "will you pledge X AND Y" question that I'm still not certain what he said he would not agree to. I know he won't pledge to support anyone without knowing who it is, and I'm not sure that's a terrible position.

But I heard a pundit claim Trump said on stage he wouldn't mount a third party run. Not sure I got that in Trump's circuitous answer.

What he said was no he would not agree to support just anybody and that he had been kicking around the thought of an independent run with, his team I presume, but that he really has all intentions to stick with a republican run.

Well I would love to actually engage in a substantial discussion about an argument yet every single point of substance I've made about Rand Paul's argument on any of these threads so far has been abjectly ignored. You want to talk about me instead, very classy.

I take the Bill of Rights seriously, dude. I don't know what you think is "good" about Chris Christie's argument but perhaps you can elaborate so we can find out, in the wake of all those discussions about the 4th Amendment, what you really think about the 4th. We have a powerful legal foundation for our civil liberty in this country. The stupidest thing we can do as Americans is ignore it.

Man it's tiring explaining the same things to you multiple times. Head back a few pages and find where I addressed the matter.

[Jack Skellington]

Nobody needs to be a Libertarian to defend the Bill of Rights. The difference is in whether they actually do, not what party letter they have on their name tags.

True, nor does being Pro-Life preclude one from being a Libertarian. Rand Paul is both Libertarian and Pro-Life. Extending the right to life to an unborn person is the most Libertarian perspective possible. It's inclusive.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment made this portion of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the states by explicitly affirming, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The only rational way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” Doing this, he quoted William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.” As Wade noted, in this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.”

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/abortion-and-the-constitution/

Don't believe me-- take it from Dr Seuss:

"A person is a person, no matter how small."

[mbrn30000]

True, nor does being Pro-Life preclude one from being a Libertarian. Rand Paul is both Libertarian and Pro-Life. Extending the right to life to an unborn person is the most Libertarian perspective possible. It's inclusive.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment made this portion of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the states by explicitly affirming, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The only rational way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” Doing this, he quoted William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.” As Wade noted, in this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.”

http://www.justfacts...e-constitution/

Don't believe me-- take it from Dr Seuss:

"A person is a person, no matter how small."

a Libertarian is for government out of our lives including whether to have an abortion. you can't be a libertarian only part of the time. And there are no pro lifers they are solely pro birth. They try to impress each other on how loud they can be, but these same people could care less once that baby need clothes, food and healthcare. then they turn on the personal responsibility message. the evangelical right is the same crowd who wanted segregation now, tomorrow and forever. there is nothing nice about these people. Walker, Hickabee and Cruz are dangerous people who want to gut the first amendment and make us a theocracy.

Edited August 8, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Jack Skellington]

a Libertarian is for government out of our lives including whether to have an abortion. you can't be a libertarian only part of the time.

How extremely narrow minded of you.

A libertarian believes in the principle of liberty at all times, for all. This would include freedom from government imposing it's will on individuals.