2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by wustin

Of course nobody wants to talk about how the candidates answered those questions because it would actually look like something productive happened.

Especially the candidates. They must feel they'll get more mileage out of the "woe is me" angle.

[molson]

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

It should be a mix. I want to see the candidates differentiate themselves, but I also want to see how they think and react on the fly.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

Also, though, for a debate like that you can't have it just be 2 hours long as demanded by some on the dais. You need a 3 hour debate to have substantive discussion on the issues along with clarifying follow ups. A 2 hour long debate with 10 people on the stage is going to be a clusterfuck regardless.

I wouldn't be averse to future debates culling the numbers, almost American Idol like - next week, the Top 9! .

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

We also learned how much CNBC moderators are willing to demean themselves in order to make the GOP candidates look bad.

This is a network that employs Jim Cramer. I'm astonished that anyone thought something else was going to happen.

Originally Posted by molson

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

Well shit. A molson post with which I completely agree.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear

Originally Posted by wustin

How do you know Oliver and HBO aren't lying? Unless there's some sort of evidence from either side, who cares?

I just noticed this online. wustin, have you seen Oliver's show? I'm pretty sure that at no point has a politician actually been on the show. This isn't the Daily Show where there is an interview portion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I just noticed this online. wustin, have you seen Oliver's show? I'm pretty sure that at no point has a politician actually been on the show. This isn't the Daily Show where there is an interview portion.

I assumed it would have been for some kind of celebrity cameo, whith the show does have, and which is right in Trump's wheelhouse. Seems like a random thing for Trump to make up. I'm guessing there was some communication between the two sides, short of an "invitation", but that the talks didn't go well.

[ISiddiqui]

The cameos though are totally just celebrities. He's never invited a politician for that.

Also Oliver is on record multiple times that he doesn't care about Trump at all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It should be a mix. I want to see the candidates differentiate themselves, but I also want to see how they think and react on the fly.

When do Presidents really need those skills though?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

When do Presidents really need those skills though?

[sabotai]

[sabotai]

The debates would be much more interesting if they involved shoe throwing...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not a lot of notable stuff in the off year elections but theoretically perhaps the Matt Bevin win in KY bodes well for Trump and/or Carson.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The debates would be much more interesting if they involved shoe throwing...

+1

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not a lot of notable stuff in the off year elections but theoretically perhaps the Matt Bevin win in KY bodes well for Trump and/or Carson.

Why? Kentucky hasn't went Democrat for President since 1996.

[PilotMan]

Ah, you know that this state goes ga-ga for Rand. Any of those outsiders would storm this state regardless. Clinton doesn't stand a chance here.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Until 1916 (and until WWII it wasn't applied to anyone but the absolute richest of the rich), it was only temporarily in place for wartime funding in a handful of years.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that only 0.12% of estates are expected to be liable for the estate tax in 2015. Is that not "the richest of the rich" under just about any definition?

[Solecismic]

I thought the exemption was $1 million today and the top bracket (55%) kicked in at $3 million. That's definitely the end of many small businesses - especially farms.

In 1916, when it was first enacted, the exemption was about $11 million in today's dollars. And the tax was 1%. The top bracket kicked in at about $1 billion in today's dollars - at 10%.

Quinnipiac's new poll - the first post-debate national poll:

Trump 24, Carson 23, Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Bush 4, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie 3.

It seems like Fiorina and Bush wound up taking the biggest hits from the debate, and Rubio and Cruz had the largest increases.

We're still a long way out.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I thought the exemption was $1 million today and the top bracket (55%) kicked in at $3 million. That's definitely the end of many small businesses - especially farms.

Exemption is $5.43 million per person, $10.86 million for a couple. Estate tax is an overblown issue by the farm lobby.

[Marmel]

Estate tax is an overblown issue, and I really believe the only reason we have it is to appease the insurance lobby. Nobody ever has to pay an estate tax if they plan it correctly with life insurance.

[Grover]

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*

[Dutch]

What is a malala?

[Kodos]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/10/world/...sey/index.html

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Grover

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*

I can be a pretty literal person, but I'm not sure I'd take the term "have a beer with" literally. Meh.

[digamma]

Eh, it's a gaffe, but not a big deal.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Estate tax is an overblown issue, and I really believe the only reason we have it is to appease the insurance lobby. Nobody ever has to pay an estate tax if they plan it correctly with life insurance.

I've heard that's not quite correct. And very difficult to pull off (of course, they can probably afford a team of lawyers).

I thought there were some baseball teams, in particular, that were being run rather badly because of estate tax issues.

If it's already earned and taxed money, why should the government get involved, anyway?

People are very, very generous with other people's money.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Grover

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*

That's just too funny. I suppose there are still some countries where that would be legal. But she's still Islamic, so that's a double face-plant.

Did he at least correct himself to coke or lemonade?

I hope they get rid of the lightning round in future debates, but if someone promises this level of humor, maybe it's worth it.

[GrantDawg]

That won't kill Rubio. but this crap about the GOP credit card might hurt him: Marco Rubio spent lavishly on a GOP credit card, but some transactions are still secret | Tampa Bay Times

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If it's already earned and taxed money, why should the government get involved, anyway?

It wasn't earned by the individual inheriting it.

I think some of the reasoning behind it is so that money isn't hoarded until death if it'll be taxed heavily. Individuals may put it back into the economy or as we are seeing with some of the wealthy, invest in philanthropy. Also it provides equal opportunity and more competition instead of relying on individuals to simply win the genetic lottery to be successful.

As mentioned though, it is a rather minor issue.

[RainMaker]

I also don't get why we put so much emphasis on minor gaffes like that. I highly doubt he meant to insult her Islamic heritage or force alcohol on a child. The question isn't meant to be taken literally.

Everyone seems to want candidates to be real and then jump on them over the most minor of things. That's why campaigns are so heavily scripted nowadays.

[Dutch]

Rubio is starting to get the attention.

[JPhillips]

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain,” Carson said. “Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.”

And then there are candidates saying really dumb stuff.

[Dutch]

Adds to the Rubio momentum swing.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also don't get why we put so much emphasis on minor gaffes like that. I highly doubt he meant to insult her Islamic heritage or force alcohol on a child. The question isn't meant to be taken literally.

Everyone seems to want candidates to be real and then jump on them over the most minor of things. That's why campaigns are so heavily scripted nowadays.

I agree with it being a very minor gaffe that means nothing I will however disagree with this being him being real. It is about as fake of an answer as you can give. Tom Brady or Brad Pitt would be a politician giving a real answer not a Middle Eastern woman's suffrage movement leader. That's him trying too hard to appear genuine.

[flere-imsaho]

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

No doubt. It is what happens when you ask dumb questions though. I forget what the question was in one debate but they all copped out with "My wife" for it. I think like most inspirational or something. The problem though is if you say Brett Favre or something you get crucified as well so it leads to lame answers.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

No doubt. It is what happens when you ask dumb questions though. I forget what the question was in one debate but they all copped out with "My wife" for it. I think like most inspirational or something. The problem though is if you say Brett Favre or something you get crucified as well so it leads to lame answers.

Was it the "woman you want on the $10 bill" question?

[molson]

I'm trying to think of an answer to the "who do you want to have a beer with" question that wouldn't be mocked.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm trying to think of an answer to the "who do you want to have a beer with" question that wouldn't be mocked.

Ha! Though, I think I'd enjoy having a beer with Marco Rubio among the Republicans running (I mean Rubio can't answer his self - but what about another candidate). Maybe even Jeb Bush as well.

[Kodos]

I'd like to have a beer with the Budweiser lizards.

[molson]

I wonder how the answer changes if the question is "who do you want to have 8 beers with".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder how the answer changes if the question is "who do you want to have 8 beers with".

At that level, I think it'd be awesome to go out on the town with Trump .

[Kodos]

"Natalie Portman."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

"Natalie Portman."

I was thinking that direction initially and then I was like... that's way too rapey an answer to say out loud .

[Kodos]

It wasn't said aloud. Only typed.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

Someone has to try to convert her to Jesus.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Someone has to try to convert her to Jesus.

Jesus approves of beer and bacon, unlike some other religions.

[JPhillips]

If it's living or dead, do you pick Jesus or Reagan?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

[Dutch]

Why *do* oil companies get subsidized? Is it to keep them in business? Lower gas prices? Line the pockets of the rich?