If there are any holdovers from the day when it was unseemly for women to work, and they weren't allowed to vote, it is that -- the very things that are seen as strength in a male candidate are perceived as bitchiness in a female candidate, and I do that myself, although I try not to. It's hard to tell which is a genuine assessment of her and which might be a matter of bias, but she annoys me.
Fiorina is about the one candidate that I totally dislike, with Jeb Bush running a close second behind her. She just has the most obnoxious attitude, interrupts anyone else who is talking, and talks over top of them if they don't stop talking. Being assertive is one thing, being rude and nasty in her remarks is totally uncalled for, in my opinion. I still like Rand Paul the very best; but I do not see any chance of him becoming the nominee, although I think he would make an excellent president. Of the ones who are doing well, and are politically acceptable, I would probably choose Ted Cruz, although I still think that Donald Trump might have a better chance of actually changing this country for the better. You can see that he thinks for himself, and not just parroting what he has been told he should say, and is not controlled by the rich backers like the other candidates are. Carson is still a nice guy, but not someone that I can see as the leader of this country, although he might do well as the Vice-President along with one of the more dynamic candidates as president. My guess as to who we will actually end up with as the Republican candidate would be Marco Rubio . They seem to really be pushing him, and he has a lot of ads out.
I think Jeb Bush was the elite's first choice but when he proved to be such a horrible candidate, Marco Rubio is their backup.
I was shocked at how badly Carson answered questions. One moderator said the public was afraid that he wouldnt be tough enough so he asked Carson if he would be afraid to order bombing when children would be killed. Carson said, "Well, first I want to have a moment of silence for the victims of the San Bernadino murders". He bowed his head in silence and then said "Thank you". Then he launched into an incoherent allegory of doing brain surgery on a child and would he just do half the job but no he would finish and then the child would be happy about it. Yikes. He did end up saying he would order bombing but never really said it in connection with children I don't think. It was a tough question and maybe even unfair but like I said, Yikes. Please note: The moment of silence was his choice and only lasted 5 seconds. The media is laughing at it. It was an odd time to be doing it but it certainly wasn't laughable. Shame on the media. Then he was questioned as to whether he thought Rubio was right or Cruz was right after their lengthy debate against each other. Carson said, "well first I want to say that I haven't had any questions until now and you need to watch that". Then Carson said, "I don't know you'll have to ask them because I'm not going to get into the disagreement". What? That's what a debate IS. I don't think he had been paying attention to Rubio and Cruz and had no idea about the issue. There was a third question which I don't remember now but, again, he answered it with some off-topic child-like allegory about taking a plane ride or something. He had lost my attention at this point. He's a really nice guy but there's something not quite right about him. I would never want him for my president much less my brain surgeon.
Ben Shapiro, writing in Breitbart.com, doesn't think Trump did as badly as I thought he had, or that Fiorina did as well as I thought she had. He ranks them, as follows:
Wow…Rubio surprises me. I think of him as a strong "B" with Cruz, and Paul a "C" with Christie. The rest are good. Interesting to see Shapiro's opinion. I agree that Trump didn't seem like an A at all.
Shapiro reminded me that Kasich was there. I guess his was that whining voice that I heard from time to time.
haha @ Kasich. You know, I think Trump was so low key because he didn't want to rock the boat. He was advised (or he figured it out himself) that… 1. He went into the debate with a poll number of 40% 2. This was the last debate 3. He never does as well in debates as he does in one-on-one interviews 4. Best strategy is to quietly maintain the 40% while rubio and cruz spar
I think there will be more debates. The media tried to encourage people watch by billing it as the last debate of 2015, with the emphasis on "last debate." I would love to see the field pared down to only two, or a few, and let them actually debate one another, perhaps in the style of the Lincoln-Douglas debate: By a flip of a coin, one candidate begins with a half-hour introduction. The other candidate gets one hour to make his own introduction and to counter points made by the first candidate The first candidate gets one half hour for rebuttal. As it is, the moderators, most all of whom are biased or owned wholly by the same corporate interests that control the political parties, have far too much power. They can favored candidates questions that play upon their strengths, while putting attack questions to unfavored candidates, and ignoring others almost altogether. They do this all the time.
It's that time when grading a debate performance has little effect. Most hardcore voters already have their minds made up. But, only one can be the eventual candidate. So, the debates are more important to get a look at the entire slate so you can be familiar with who the eventual front-runner is... and your candidate is gone. I really believe there are four potentials at this time. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Christie. The "minor league" debaters need to just give it up. Graham, Pataki, Huckabee, etc.... quite spending money and stroking your egos. You will NOT be the Republican candidate in 2016. Trump has enamored the redneck Facebook crowd with his "tough talk". A large segment of those who proclaim to be Trump voters have zero knowledge of Constitutional Law, civil law, etc. Trump says "Shoot 'em all!" and they are immediately in his camp. If and when Trump is knocked out, I don't see a large percent of these voters going to the polls to pull the lever for another candidate. Cruz has the evangelical vote. He will gain even more of that segment when Huckabee and Santorum drop out. Cruz was attacking Rubio last night. Cruz feels Rubio is his real competition when Trump is toast. I appreciate the comments about Fiorina. Early on, I thought she seemed intelligent and quite knowledgeable of the foreign affairs arena. This past few weeks, she has become an angry, grouchy person. I can't imagine anyone wanting someone of this demeanor representing the United States of America. She is quite free with stretching the truth on social and domestic issues. Ms. Clinton would clean her clock in a head to head debate and eventual election. Carson is toast. Last night no one really stood out as winning. OTOH, Carson committed political suicide. He whined about air time. He stumbled when he was asked questions. Just didn't seem well prepared. Carson keeps bringing up his experience as a neurosurgeon. Seeing him perform in the most recent debates would have me questioning my judgment if he were prepping to perform brain surgery on anyone I knew. Kasich also needs to go home. I like Rand Paul but he is not electable. So, send the "minor leaguers" home. Send Kasich and Paul home. Give us the "quartet" of Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Christie in future debates. Let the time be spent with those who are actually going to be possible eventual candidates.
Two Republican debates in January. One in South Carolina and one in Des Moines... just before the Iowa primary. Then a third in early February just before New Hampshire's primary. The Democratic Party is "hiding" their debates. There is one this Saturday night... opposite NFL football and the Saturday night when many folks will either be celebrating early family Christmas or having office Christmas parties. The next Democratic debate is the Sunday before MLK day... opposite the NFL playoff games just previous to the Super Bowl. Oh, the very last Presidential debate will be held in late October two weeks before the November 2016 election... in Las Vegas.
The Constitution does not apply to foreign nationals who are not on American soil and, in only a limited manner to those who are, so most questions of constitutional law are irrelevant to such discussions. As far as laws pertaining to war are concerned, since our only declared war is a rather general war against terror, it would be difficult to apply the Geneva Convention since our enemy is largely civilian. However, I don't disagree with your assessments of the debate. I didn't see everything the same way, but that's to be expected since we're likely looking for different things, and there are differences between listening to it, as I did, and watching it as you probably did. Like many of Ron Paul's supporters in 2012, they will be either writing in Donald Trump or voting for a third-party candidate. If Cruz were to be the nominee, since he and Trump have played well together, he might pick up a large portion of them, though. I agree with Rand Paul on most issues but I don't trust Rand Paul.
Of the close to 20 running for President from both sides of the political spectrum, I trust..................... Zip! Zero!! NaDa!!! None of them!!!!!!!! Watching the debates this year tell us 1.) why so many Americans sit at home and don't bother going to the polls, and 2.) How far we have fallen to have these as our choices for President.
I give them all credit for being willing to sacrifice everything for our country. I'm certainly not brave enough or selfless enough to let the media destroy my family and sabotage my character, take on all of the inherited blunders of the previous administrations knowing that any failure not to fix those blunders and repercussions would leave me with a stained legacy exaggerated by the media, take up all my precious time, kill my health with stress, and not pay me enough for all that. Sure, there is a part that feeds the ego but the candidates are all well aware from the get-go that the negative effects and risks far outweigh the positives. But worth it all if they can make a positive and lasting difference for their country.
Although stress surely does exist, I don't know that it is all sacrifices. Despite the fact that someone has to be pretty wealthy to even be considered for the presidency, they all come out of it far wealthier than they were when they went in, and the income stream doesn't end there. They and their families are set for life. In fact, just running for the nomination of one of the two major political parties can set someone up for life, with paid spots on television, speeches, books, and pretty much anything else they might want to do. Unlike some past presidents, like Ulysses S. Grant, who found themselves out of work and strapped for cash after leaving the presidency, no one serving in that position today ever has to think about paying bills for the rest of his life.