GOP DEBATES

[boyst]

I fear that Trump continues to win these debates by not appearing and garnering more attention to win the GOP ticket facing Hillary whilst Rubio or another Republican go rogue and run as independent pulling votes.

 

I'm all about 3rd parties and 4th parties and more but Trump doesn't seem viable at all and his answers are just marketing, grandstanding and chest thumping.

[Juror#8]

Donald Trump is going to win the republican nomination because everyone else follows the "politician" template - carefully manicured personalities, platitudinous talking points and rampant disingenuousness. The majority of Americans feel that that hasn't worked for them or their lot in life. They recognize the formula now and the accompanying trends as it relates to their individual circumstance.

 

Donald Trump is a grand-stander and a bloviator and megalomaniacal ... but he is brutally lucid. And I think that people feel that, everything else notwithstanding, at least they know where they stand with him and what they'll get with him as an executive. And that's more that they can say for any other candidate who typically has the obligatory "candidate" voice, only to be followed by the omnipresent post-election reality (incidentally it reminds me of a conversation that I once had with Mike Dukakis in La in 2000 when he discussed a conversation that he had post-election with H.w. Bush about his "no new taxes" promise; but I digress). So if they've been largely dissatisfied with the direction of the country anyway (country dissatisfied 31 of the last 35 years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx ) and that modal dissatisfaction has been historically applicable equally to Dems and repubs, then why not take the chances with someone who defies the traditional political template - figuring that the disadvangeous results are likely the outcome of following the same candidate formula. Why keep putting the personification of the same political diagram in office - distinguished by only a handful of [comparatively] marginally meaningful socio-political issues - and hoping for some appreciable level of change, all the while complaining about politicians every 4 years when that sense of existential change hasn't materialized for you in the way once envisioned ...

 

If the results don't change when you start changing people and parties every few years, then maybe it's the process with how they've all been selected that is the problem. So then the question becomes, who is the least willing to adapt/conform to that process/formula? Who is the most resistant to the normal institutional selection protocols and mores?

 

And that's so Trump.

 

And I get that. I !@#$in get that. The country is exhausted after a really bad Bush presidency and a really underwhelming and unfulfilling current presidency and they want something that works.

 

And to be fair to Trump we have no clue what he will do or how he will govern the country. He is not "on script." And there is a something about that that's refreshing, mostly because every other candidate, as interesting and diverse as they've been individually, have followed the established political formula, and eventually governed similar to their predecessor - party notwithstanding. All of them for the better part of the last 5 decades. They're beholden to the same factions, agents, and monied interests, as every one else has been, to a meaningful degree, for nearly 50 years.

 

That has been the common denominator - conformity - saying the same **** in debates, the same **** in interviews, the same **** during the campaigns, promising the same ****, and complaining about the same ****.

 

So for everything else that Trump may be, I don't think that he is a puppet. He does his ****, his way, unapologetically ... and he has been globally successful with that formula. And though he is bombastic as ****, I believe that his "way" is translatable as a political tool now, in this current atmosphere. If he can be similar to the last president considered to be a bombastic, uncompromising bully who was a "my way or the highway" type executive (Lyndon Johnson) then methinks this country may be in good shape under Trump's watch.

 

So that's where I find myself during this election year.

 

And while you mo!@#$ers are sleeping, I'm spittin fire on this keyboard. You lazy mo!@#$ers.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Juror#8

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Welcome back

[Keukasmallies]

Juror#8, you scare me, but you convince me; much like the Donald scares me....

[Juror#8]

Welcome back

Thanks bro. I've been here every day. Just reading people's thoughts and occasionally with the urge to opine.

Juror#8, you scare me, but you convince me; much like the Donald scares me....

I think that's a good thing. Right? *cheers*

[Azalin]

Donald Trump is going to win the republican nomination because everyone else follows the "politician" template - carefully manicured personalities, platitudinous talking points and rampant disingenuousness. The majority of Americans feel that that hasn't worked for them or their lot in life. They recognize the formula now and the accompanying trends as it relates to their individual circumstance.

 

Donald Trump is a grand-stander and a bloviator and megalomaniacal ... but he is brutally lucid. And I think that people feel that, everything else notwithstanding, at least they know where they stand with him and what they'll get with him as an executive. And that's more that they can say for any other candidate who typically has the obligatory "candidate" voice, only to be followed by the omnipresent post-election reality (incidentally it reminds me of a conversation that I once had with Mike Dukakis in La in 2000 when he discussed a conversation that he had post-election with H.w. Bush about his "no new taxes" promise; but I digress). So if they've been largely dissatisfied with the direction of the country anyway (country dissatisfied 31 of the last 35 years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx ) and that modal dissatisfaction has been historically applicable equally to Dems and repubs, then why not take the chances with someone who defies the traditional political template - figuring that the disadvangeous results are likely the outcome of following the same candidate formula. Why keep putting the personification of the same political diagram in office - distinguished by only a handful of [comparatively] marginally meaningful socio-political issues - and hoping for some appreciable level of change, all the while complaining about politicians every 4 years when that sense of existential change hasn't materialized for you in the way once envisioned ...

 

If the results don't change when you start changing people and parties every few years, then maybe it's the process with how they've all been selected that is the problem. So then the question becomes, who is the least willing to adapt/conform to that process/formula? Who is the most resistant to the normal institutional selection protocols and mores?

 

And that's so Trump.

 

And I get that. I !@#$in get that. The country is exhausted after a really bad Bush presidency and a really underwhelming and unfulfilling current presidency and they want something that works.

 

And to be fair to Trump we have no clue what he will do or how he will govern the country. He is not "on script." And there is a something about that that's refreshing, mostly because every other candidate, as interesting and diverse as they've been individually, have followed the established political formula, and eventually governed similar to their predecessor - party notwithstanding. All of them for the better part of the last 5 decades. They're beholden to the same factions, agents, and monied interests, as every one else has been, to a meaningful degree, for nearly 50 years.

 

That has been the common denominator - conformity - saying the same **** in debates, the same **** in interviews, the same **** during the campaigns, promising the same ****, and complaining about the same ****.

 

So for everything else that Trump may be, I don't think that he is a puppet. He does his ****, his way, unapologetically ... and he has been globally successful with that formula. And though he is bombastic as ****, I believe that his "way" is translatable as a political tool now, in this current atmosphere. If he can be similar to the last president considered to be a bombastic, uncompromising bully who was a "my way or the highway" type executive (Lyndon Johnson) then methinks this country may be in good shape under Trump's watch.

 

So that's where I find myself during this election year.

 

And while you mo!@#$ers are sleeping, I'm spittin fire on this keyboard. You lazy mo!@#$ers.

 

Well said!

[keepthefaith]

 

If the results don't change when you start changing people and parties every few years, then maybe it's the process with how they've all been selected that is the problem. So then the question becomes, who is the least willing to adapt/conform to that process/formula? Who is the most resistant to the normal institutional selection protocols and mores?

 

 

 

 

The American electorate ultimately is 100% to blame. We are such a poorly informed bunch of idiots (overall as a country) and if more were informed we wouldn't have such a great political divide in this country. There should be outrage on the part of the people over the really big issues we face and that outrage should be directed squarely and loudly at those in Washington and state and local governments. Until we the people get our **** together, we will have mostly mediocrity and deceit among our elected officials because that's who we elect and even worse, re-elect.

.

[GG]

Donald Trump is going to win the republican nomination because everyone else follows the "politician" template - carefully manicured personalities, platitudinous talking points and rampant disingenuousness. The majority of Americans feel that that hasn't worked for them or their lot in life. They recognize the formula now and the accompanying trends as it relates to their individual circumstance.

 

Donald Trump is a grand-stander and a bloviator and megalomaniacal ... but he is brutally lucid. And I think that people feel that, everything else notwithstanding, at least they know where they stand with him and what they'll get with him as an executive.

 

In other words, the electorate is going to double down on another four years of Obama, because they are inferring what they want to hear from Trump's largely empty speeches.

 

It's not a coincidence that Trump is a failure in businesses other than marketing his brand name.

[/dev/null]

Rand Paul on Meet the Press was asked by Tom Brokaw about the Middle East, and on the topic Syria

 

There are people who want to bomb both sides. Let's just call them John McCain

[FireChan]

 

In other words, the electorate is going to double down on another four years of Obama, because they are inferring what they want to hear from Trump's largely empty speeches.

 

It's not a coincidence that Trump is a failure in businesses other than marketing his brand name.

The key difference is who is Trump in the pocket of?

[DC Tom]

The key difference is who is Trump in the pocket of?

 

Trump.

[GG]

 

Trump.

 

Of course there are many who think that's a good thing.

[Juror#8]

In other words, the electorate is going to double down on another four years of Obama, because they are inferring what they want to hear from Trump's largely empty speeches.

 

It's not a coincidence that Trump is a failure in businesses other than marketing his brand name.

His speeches haven't been empty; you just don't like the content or his delivery. And that's fine. What I do feel is that they have been replete with very matter of fact ideas for the direction of the country. He tells it narratively and familiarly. And most folks don't dig that. He is also a narcissist and that imbrues his prescriptions with an unmistakable tinge of "insincerity." But that notwithstanding, he talks in a way that relates to the listener. He rarely equivocates. He is plain-spoken and direct. The trend has been to vote for a candidate because the candidate *appears* versed rather than because the voter truly understands the issue and the nuances around making resolution to the issue materialize a certain way. For example, Cruz and Rubio have been fighting for months about their stances and their various level of equivocation around "immigration." To some the depth of that debate appears erudite and consequential. And the voter will ultimately make a decision on a combination of 1. what their website's open-ended platitude is around that issue and 2. how well they explained their myriad inconsistencies around that issue in a 30 second window during the debate.

 

Seriously, that's how most folks vote: what the website says and how well can you explain your stance that existed before some strategist said that that stance won't play well in a national context.

 

In contrast, Donald Trump put a perspective around it at the outset that people understood. He plans to do ______. If you don't like _____ then don't vote for him. But that's his very emphatic plan for it. It leaves the equivocation and the "if this, then that" out of the discussion and focuses on what he intends to do.

 

The voter understands that transparency. They don't care how it gets done, they just want ______ to be handled like _____. Because the "hows" are an uncertainty. Too dependent on legislative meat-grinding. And that's why Obama hasn't been able to move through promises and initiatives. Trump could sit there and get into the minutia of policies that will never happen or aspirational initiatives that will get gridlocked - incidentally like every other politician over the last 50 years. But what has that accomplished? How satisfied has the country been with the traditional political template - party notwithstanding?

 

You may not like it and you may not think that his confidence is justified; but he is at least he is saying something that doesn't hang on some !@#$ing "if." He is putting himself out there and making himself accountable to a stance. And he has been since day 1. Not since the debate started or the caucuses were nigh. Day !@#$ing 1.

 

I dig that ****. Damn the torpedoes type ****. And politics hasn't seen that type of personality in 50-60 years.

 

At the end of the day that is my opinion on his candidacy. You feel differently. Cool. I respect that. I just don't agree with your assessment.

 

And the whole thing about him being bad at business except that he effectively built his brand is similar to saying that *if* your aunt had a dickkkk she would be your uncle. What does that even mean? He built his business and became very successful doing it. Part of business is marketing, negotiation, image, and understanding an audience and what they want. And then satisfying that market. In fact, I would say that that's the largest part of effectiveness in business. And those skills are translatable to politics.

 

So your statement was a non-statement.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Juror#8

[GG]

His speeches haven't been empty; you just don't like the content or his delivery. And that's fine. What I do feel is that they have been replete with very matter of fact ideas for the direction of the country. He tells it narratively and familiarly. And most folks don't dig that. He is also a narcissist and that imbrues his prescriptions with an unmistakable tinge of "insincerity." But that notwithstanding, he talks in a way that relates to the listener. He rarely equivocates. He is plain-spoken and direct.

 

 

...

 

So your statement was a non-statement.

 

Sorry that you are missing it. His speeches are vacuous. If you listen to the actual words, there is very little substance.

 

You are also wrong on my opinion about the delivery. His delivery is precisely what drives the appeal. He's the classic carnival barker/oil salesman in American history. He doesn't sell a product, he sells a story that appeals to his listeners, and they buy the product no matter the quality.

 

It's a classic sales routine perfected by pyramid schemes, door to door marketing, affinity clubs, and online shopping. He connects with the buyer's sense of belonging and inferring his empty platitudes.

 

He's tapped into an angry and confused portion of the electorate who feel that America is sliding down with an empty promise that he will make America great again. That simple slogan resonates, even though his prescriptions stand to do the opposite.

 

But good luck telling people who are emotionally invested in the early stages of a ponzi scheme that they will lose their shirts. The realization usually comes a few layers later.

 

As for his failures in business, read what I write. He was a failure in a business that most people credit him for - real estate & gambling. Any time he's had to negotiate with serious people across the table, he got taken to the woodshed. He's a far greater marketer of his name, and rightly realized that he should stick to selling pyramid schemes and reality TV shows.

[Juror#8]

Sorry that you are missing it. His speeches are vacuous. If you listen to the actual words, there is very little substance.

 

You are also wrong on my opinion about the delivery. His delivery is precisely what drives the appeal. He's the classic carnival barker/oil salesman in American history. He doesn't sell a product, he sells a story that appeals to his listeners, and they buy the product no matter the quality.

 

It's a classic sales routine perfected by pyramid schemes, door to door marketing, affinity clubs, and online shopping. He connects with the buyer's sense of belonging and inferring his empty platitudes.

 

He's tapped into an angry and confused portion of the electorate who feel that America is sliding down with an empty promise that he will make America great again. That simple slogan resonates, even though his prescriptions stand to do the opposite.

 

But good luck telling people who are emotionally invested in the early stages of a ponzi scheme that they will lose their shirts. The realization usually comes a few layers later.

 

As for his failures in business, read what I write. He was a failure in a business that most people credit him for - real estate & gambling. Any time he's had to negotiate with serious people across the table, he got taken to the woodshed. He's a far greater marketer of his name, and rightly realized that he should stick to selling pyramid schemes and reality TV shows.

So what you're saying is that you don't believe what he is saying that he is going to do and you think that he is a liar. You also think that he is only effective because he is selling youth elixir to the geriatric and wisdom juice to the young and inexperienced.

 

Ok.

 

You don't like him personally or stylistically and feel that he is a blowhard.

 

Ok.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I saying that he is going to save the country. But what I am saying is that his brand and candidacy is an original one and the rest of the field are carbon copies of each other and caricatures of their own selves. For kicks watch the 2008 republican gop debates (I have two recorded on dvd that I would be willing to send to you). The candidates say the exact same things. Exactly. It's like playing pink Floyd over "Wizard of Oz" at the second roar of the lion. It's uncannily familiar and repetitive. It's the same ****. They say the same ****. Their about the same **** ... every year, cyclically and ad infinitum.

 

Trump may not bring anything that he claims. But at least the **** that he says is offered genuinely and without the type of background noise, distortion, prevarication, and hedging that every other candidacy, every other year, seems to offer in spades. Every other candidate is saying what he is saying. They're just indirect, and offer allusions, and express their "sales tactic" with more political adroitness. They are all trying to tap into the central nerve of the country's dissatisfaction. That's why theyre all complaining about "Washington" (even though they're mostly in congress) and distancing themselves from anyone who looks "establishment" ... unless they need money. Trump is just doing it better. And I believe "better," in this context, relates to his comfortability being himself and expressing his unadulterated beliefs rather than the other candidates who filter themselves through some instrumentality of risk-averse political correctness that is designed to sustain their political efficacy and sustainability past this election cycle. Cruz, Rubio, and Christie are thinking as much about being viable in 2020-2024 as they are about winning now. So much calculation and hedging in the **** they say. They are professional political candidates and the country is over that ****. I believe that the country can detect Trump's sincerity even as its articulated maniacally and indelicately. In contrast, it seems that you believe that he is saying whatever he needs to and there is no substance behind his words.

 

I guess we will see which one is correct - your incredulousness or the country's embracing of a sui generis political type.

 

For the record, I may be willing to see if that level of 'whatever you want to call it' will translate into a different direction that the country hasn't experienced during the last 50 years of carbon copy politicians.

 

And maybe, just maybe, Trumps "tapping into blah blah ..." just honesty reflects how he feels about ****.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Juror#8

[4merper4mer]

 

Sorry that you are missing it. His speeches are vacuous. If you listen to the actual words, there is very little substance.

 

You are also wrong on my opinion about the delivery. His delivery is precisely what drives the appeal. He's the classic carnival barker/oil salesman in American history. He doesn't sell a product, he sells a story that appeals to his listeners, and they buy the product no matter the quality.

 

It's a classic sales routine perfected by pyramid schemes, door to door marketing, affinity clubs, and online shopping. He connects with the buyer's sense of belonging and inferring his empty platitudes.

 

He's tapped into an angry and confused portion of the electorate who feel that America is sliding down with an empty promise that he will make America great again. That simple slogan resonates, even though his prescriptions stand to do the opposite.

 

But good luck telling people who are emotionally invested in the early stages of a ponzi scheme that they will lose their shirts. The realization usually comes a few layers later.

 

As for his failures in business, read what I write. He was a failure in a business that most people credit him for - real estate & gambling. Any time he's had to negotiate with serious people across the table, he got taken to the woodshed. He's a far greater marketer of his name, and rightly realized that he should stick to selling pyramid schemes and reality TV shows.

 

 

All of this stuff is true or is something I'm willing to take your word for such as the bad negotiating.

 

Which leaves us with what?

 

Bernie - Commie

 

O'Malley, Kasich, Christie, Bush et al. - pile of crap saying the same things who will do the same ineffective things and doom future generations even more than they're already doomed.

 

Paul - A guy who looked a little different who looks more and more the same as the other guys every day.

 

Rubio - A Republican who must remind a lot a people of Obama in style, even if he has different views.

 

Fiorina - A seemingly sharp intellect who did a crap job running HP

 

Carson - A very likable guy who is clearly smart but who is so soft spoken that he will leave people with the impression that he won't be able to win any election or negotiate effectively.

 

Cruz - Very smart, very articulate and painted as some sort of evil person by people in both parties. Why? Doesn't matter if people feel he can't get elected.

 

Hillary - Someone who is willing to call the parents of fallen soldiers liars after she spat in their face while their caskets were being wheeled off a plane.

 

 

Given the above, a very famous person whose speeches are vacuous but loud, is going to have a lot of appeal. If you listen to the actual words, there is very little substance and yet it still resonates to a large percentage of people. Is that because they are all stupid? Perhaps. But maybe the parties should look inwardly, just a little, before calling everyone stupid. Maybe they should realize the whole idea behind this country is that the individual person matters and conglomerated piles of bad ideas on how to control things wrapped up in slick marketing eventually wear thin. And when they wear thin it opens the door wide for a vacuous knit wit like Trump.

 

I'd say Trump definitely has support of a lot of stupid people who like shiny objects. I'd say he also has support of many people who know the alternatives and wonder how anyone could be any worse in the long run for their children or grandchildren. This is not a normal political coalition, but it is one now. Reagan won by beating the Republican establishment with the help of evangelicals and beating the Democrats because they had failed. Swap in the shiny objects crowd where the evangelicals were and you have Trump.

[Nanker]

Except Regan had some core conservative values, e.g., the government should butt out instead of trying to "help" every need that floats in the miasma that perfumes the American political consciousness.

[keepthefaith]

 

 

 

I'd say Trump definitely has support of a lot of stupid people who like shiny objects.

Every politician is elected by people many of which are poorly informed. That is the basis of the problem. Mushrooms vote. Fungus kept in the dark with **** thrown on it from time to time.

[Juror#8]

Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama ...

 

They were all careful and skilled politicians. None were even marginally "Trump-like." They were all politicians in the very traditional sense of the word. Even former governor and actor Reagan.

 

But yet they all presided over presidencies within which the majority of the country, for a preponderance of their time in office, were dissatisfied with the direction of the country.

 

Is some of that dissatisfaction environmental and circumstantial? Sure: wars, international ****, blow and pusssssy.

 

But tell me what about Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich that's appreciably different stylistically, policy-wise, experientially, or with regard to their articulated vision for the direction of the country that is fundamentally and principally different than Obama, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, or Clinton? (query #1)

 

I challenge you to do that. And if you can't identify fundamental and meaningful differences, then answer what difference then do you anticipate for the next 8 years ... (query #2)

 

But now answer query #1 for Trump instead.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Juror#8

[FireChan]

 

Trump.

 

 

Of course there are many who think that's a good thing.

When the difference between candidates is a guy beholden to only himself vs. one beholden to special interests, who do you take?