|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 07 2015 15:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 07 2015 14:03 cLutZ wrote:On August 07 2015 13:52 Mercy13 wrote:
Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions. Its the Supreme Court's definition for "funding" religions. Which religion has the text "thou shalt abort"? I dont know? The point is that if you funded the education part of a Catholic school the way PP is funded, SCOTUS would say you have violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Yes, shockingly, giving money to Catholic schools shows favouritism to Catholics.
Which religion does PP represent?
|
|
|
On August 07 2015 15:16 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 15:10 cLutZ wrote:On August 07 2015 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 07 2015 14:03 cLutZ wrote:On August 07 2015 13:52 Mercy13 wrote:
Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions. Its the Supreme Court's definition for "funding" religions. Which religion has the text "thou shalt abort"? I dont know? The point is that if you funded the education part of a Catholic school the way PP is funded, SCOTUS would say you have violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. What is the argument again that the government funding PP is in violation of the establishment clause? Not sure I follow the logic there if that is what you are saying. For the sake of argument lets say the government does fund something that goes against peoples religious beliefs; if that is the case that doesn't mean the establishment clause has been violated.
No. I am just saying that if you fund Planned Parenthood activities you are funding abortion (and technically in violation of the Hyde Amendment). This is based not only on basic economics, but also Supreme Court decisions in an analogous situation.
On August 07 2015 15:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 15:10 cLutZ wrote:On August 07 2015 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 07 2015 14:03 cLutZ wrote:On August 07 2015 13:52 Mercy13 wrote:
Maybe you think that they just shift money around, so that non-government funds are used for abortions that would otherwise have been used for other things? Still, that's a pretty lose definition for "funding" abortions. Its the Supreme Court's definition for "funding" religions. Which religion has the text "thou shalt abort"? I dont know? The point is that if you funded the education part of a Catholic school the way PP is funded, SCOTUS would say you have violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Yes, shockingly, giving money to Catholic schools shows favouritism to Catholics. Which religion does PP represent?
^^
|
I thought that Kasich really shone through the debate. His economic record in Ohio is very impressive and he came across as a perfectly reasonable and level-headed man. He won serious points on the gay marriage answer and had no gaffes throughout the night.
Trump was Trump. He resonates with people when he talks about buying politicians and getting things done. Pretty skillfully dodged clearly intentionally barbed questions. Was weak when pressed for examples of things that he had done. Still I think a net gain, more people will take him seriously now.
Bush had a relatively low key debate. I personally absolutely love his pushing new energy and using immigration to grow the workforce without amnesty. He was made to look kind of weak on education, however. The same old question about his brother's war was handled just fine, but it was nothing we hadn't heard before.
Walker seemed like a generic candidate, and really didn't have anything to stand out except for his beating up the unions in Wisconsin, and even that he only got to harp on for about 15 seconds.
Rubio articulates well and built up his everyman image with a callback to his heritage and some attacks on Hillary. Showed himself as a fairly strict conservative.
Huckabee, Carson, and Cruz all are competing for the same votes thumping the Bible around. All come across as genuine, however I don't think the far right will have as much power in this round of primaries and this field should be narrowed down soon. Carson had a few nice moments and I liked his tax plan but never had the chance to explain why he'd be a good politician.
Paul is just there to make points to the nation. Some of his libertarian points were well received, others weren't. The entire battle between him and Christie probably won each points with different demographics, but to those without an opinion both came out of it looking terrible.
Christie took a unique approach. His track record with Jersey isn't as good as Kasich's in Ohio or Bush's in Florida, so he just came out, cited 9/11, and looked like an absolute hawk on national security. I think this will appeal to a specific niche of voter, but probably won't gain him significant ground.
I wouldn't be surprised to see moderate to large gains for the relatively unknown Kasich and a small bump for Trump. Bush should remain steady as he tries to ride the Trump storm out. I think the GOP has a slate of good candidates this year, and they're looking much stronger than the Hillary-centralized Dems.
|
On August 07 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
He also got ~13k-20k new followers. Just by tweeting about the debate. Imagine if he was actually in one.
I would love to see a debate with Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton. (I'd like it better with Biden, who is a superb debater...)
Of course, as you're pointing out, Clinton is terrified of going toe-to-toe with him. He's smarter than her, better informed, more earnest, more passionate... all the things that get rewarded by debates. Nevermind that she has more money and name recognition. She has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose. And that's why she'll try as hard as possible to not get in any debates with him.
|
On August 07 2015 15:46 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
He also got ~13k-20k new followers. Just by tweeting about the debate. Imagine if he was actually in one. I would love to see a debate with Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton. (I'd like it better with Biden, who is a superb debater...) Of course, as you're pointing out, Clinton is terrified of going toe-to-toe with him. He's smarter than her, better informed, more earnest, more passionate... all the things that get rewarded by debates. Nevermind that she has more money and name recognition. She has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose. And that's why she'll try as hard as possible to not get in any debates with him.
As far as they had DWS delay the debates, not sure O'Malley will even still be around. If Biden was in or out they could just all have a debate and let Hillary debate herself in Oct.
|
On August 07 2015 15:36 ampson wrote:
I thought that Kasich really shone through the debate. His economic record in Ohio is very impressive and he came across as a perfectly reasonable and level-headed man. He won serious points on the gay marriage answer and had no gaffes throughout the night.
...
Huckabee, Carson, and Cruz all are competing for the same votes thumping the Bible around. All come across as genuine, however I don't think the far right will have as much power in this round of primaries and this field should be narrowed down soon. Carson had a few nice moments and I liked his tax plan but never had the chance to explain why he'd be a good politician.
...
I wouldn't be surprised to see moderate to large gains for the relatively unknown Kasich and a small bump for Trump. Bush should remain steady as he tries to ride the Trump storm out. I think the GOP has a slate of good candidates this year, and they're looking much stronger than the Hillary-centralized Dems.
I wish the average Republican thought as you do. I really do. But the conservative places I checked out after all seemed high on fucking Ted Cruz.
For whatever it's worth, as a person of faith myself, I actually found Kasich to be the only person who really shone through as a genuinely faithful person not just putting on a pretense. If that guy stands half a chance, I'd register as a Republican to vote for him. Guessing I'll be using my primary vote against Hillary tho.
|
On August 07 2015 15:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 15:46 Yoav wrote:On August 07 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
He also got ~13k-20k new followers. Just by tweeting about the debate. Imagine if he was actually in one. I would love to see a debate with Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton. (I'd like it better with Biden, who is a superb debater...) Of course, as you're pointing out, Clinton is terrified of going toe-to-toe with him. He's smarter than her, better informed, more earnest, more passionate... all the things that get rewarded by debates. Nevermind that she has more money and name recognition. She has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose. And that's why she'll try as hard as possible to not get in any debates with him. As far as they had DWS delay the debates, not sure O'Malley will even still be around. If Biden was in or out they could just all have a debate and let Hillary debate herself in Oct.
New plan: if Hillary keeps weenieing out of debates, I think we should just have 2v10s with the entire Rep field against Joe/Bernie. I think they'd do great.
|
If Biden ends up running for president hopefully he remembers not to plagiarize this time.
|
The functions of having many candidates on stage for a Presidential debate are to provide the illusion of a range of options while limiting the capacity for deep discussion and also to protect the preferred corporate candidate while narrowing the face-time of the least preferred candidate.
What this means for the Democratic Party is that they will refrain from debates for as long as possible (October is now the confirmed date) because the last thing they want is to put Hillary Clinton on a stage with a small group of candidates clearly to her left. To protect the corporate candidate, he/she must appear beside a wide range of nearly indistinguishable lesser candidates, not one or two strong foils. Preferably, that range will include a few candidates with similar policy positions as the preferred candidate but less appeal and experience and even zero chance of winning. This will soften the contrast of the preferred candidate from the field except in the depoliticized context of leadership, electability, career resume, and so on, while providing more legitimacy to the agreed upon policies by virtue of parrot candidates. It will also sharpen the contrast of the least preferred candidate in preferably the depoliticized contexts aforementioned, but if not, then through actual policies as a last resort.
The Democratic Party knows this, and also knows they must now hedge their bets a bit on what seemed only a few months ago to be an inevitable victory for Clinton. This is why, over the next few months until October, some strong and some weaker candidates will join the field at the behest of the DNC, which previously wished to keep things as simple and quiet as possible for their preferred corporate candidate.
I have no doubt if the DNC and RNC could decide these matters internally, with the billionaire class holding veto authority, they would. But televised debates are an exploitable tradition for the construction and protection of personal and democratic narratives.
|
On August 07 2015 15:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
If Biden ends up running for president hopefully he remembers not to plagiarize this time.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist. I'd still vote for him if he were running.
|
On August 07 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Is it just me, or has the GOP gone way more right wing than 2012? We're so far from the actual election and planned parenthood is already a test of who hates it most. So bizarre.
This particular candidate pool is significantly more "conservative" than the previous two, mostly due to the rising influence of the 2010 Tea Party class (Rubio, Paul, Walker, Cruz*, etc.) As much as political analysts have tried to downplay the influence of that specific election, it remains a fact that the youngest Republican candidates are all from that class. The next generation of conservative politicians seem to be a couple points to the right of the older generation, and their influence is seen in how many are legitimate contenders for the nomination.
As for why Planned Parenthood was the subject of debate, it's because they were in the news recently and conservatives everywhere are smelling blood in the water. Defunding PP has been a goal of the conservatives and the GOP for a very long time, and the organization is on the back foot with these videos. Expect to see more hammering away at how much they all hate it, and promises to lead the charge against continued funding. It might not be a winning strategy for the general, but the party-faithful will largely be eating it up, especially the religious/traditional wings of the party. That in itself is not a marker of the general leaning of the electorate as much as it is candidates jumping on a hot issue.
Carly Fiorina won tonight. Everyone else either lost a little or stayed the same. Expect to see some minor bumps, but nothing major. The influence of this debate will be overblown for a while. As far as I can tell, no one suffered any major defeats (except, arguably Trump), with only Fiorina scoring any real victory. Even her victory was limited though. She started at the kid's table, and she'll probably still remain there for the time being; but with the nod of political pundits on both sides as the clear pre-primetime debate winner she'll get a bump in media exposure. It could be enough to land her a spot on the stage with the contenders.
Ben Carson deserves a nod for holding it together, but he'll need a lot more practice. He had a nervous energy, fiddling with his hands at times. His words and story are all great, but he needs to be more comfortable speaking on prime-time.
Too many candidates. Even for this early, the field is too crowded. The winnowing will begin soon. The kid's-table are dead in the water, except possibly Fiorina. Christie and Kasich are done, with Cruz and possibly Carson soon following suit.
I also predict that Trump will peak in the next month or two, and will be long out of the race by Iowa.
edit: I apologize. Cruz was not of the original 2010 Tea Party class. He was elected in 2012.
|
On August 07 2015 18:32 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Is it just me, or has the GOP gone way more right wing than 2012? We're so far from the actual election and planned parenthood is already a test of who hates it most. So bizarre. This particular candidate pool is significantly more "conservative" than the previous two, mostly due to the rising influence of the 2010 Tea Party class (Rubio, Paul, Walker, Cruz*, etc.) As much as political analysts have tried to downplay the influence of that specific election, it remains a fact that the youngest Republican candidates are all from that class. The next generation of conservative politicians seem to be a couple points to the right of the older generation, and their influence is seen in how many are legitimate contenders for the nomination. As for why Planned Parenthood was the subject of debate, it's because they were in the news recently and conservatives everywhere are smelling blood in the water. Defunding PP has been a goal of the conservatives and the GOP for a very long time, and the organization is on the back foot with these videos. Expect to see more hammering away at how much they all hate it, and promises to lead the charge against continued funding. It might not be a winning strategy for the general, but the party-faithful will largely be eating it up, especially the religious/traditional wings of the party. That in itself is not a marker of the general leaning of the electorate as much as it is candidates jumping on a hot issue. Carly Fiorina won tonight. Everyone else either lost a little or stayed the same. Expect to see some minor bumps, but nothing major. The influence of this debate will be overblown for a while. As far as I can tell, no one suffered any major defeats (except, arguably Trump), with only Fiorina scoring any real victory. Even her victory was limited though. She started at the kid's table, and she'll probably still remain there for the time being; but with the nod of political pundits on both sides as the clear pre-primetime debate winner she'll get a bump in media exposure. It could be enough to land her a spot on the stage with the contenders. Ben Carson deserves a nod for holding it together, but he'll need a lot more practice. He had a nervous energy, fiddling with his hands at times. His words and story are all great, but he needs to be more comfortable speaking on prime-time. Too many candidates. Even for this early, the field is too crowded. The winnowing will begin soon. The kid's-table are dead in the water, except possibly Fiorina. Christie and Kasich are done, with Cruz and possibly Carson soon following suit. I also predict that Trump will peak in the next month or two, and will be long out of the race by Iowa. edit: I apologize. Cruz was not of the original 2010 Tea Party class. He was elected in 2012.
Lol look at any social media space for Fox News. Top comment everywhere is backlash about how they treated Trump.
Every media outlet is in full propaganda mode against Trump right now and it's making his support surge.
|
Trump should seriously just get a tat that says "Public Enemy"... Trump seriously knows how to rile the media to his favor, the debate floor had eyes on Trump and the audience was turned into a high school pep-rally whenever Trump made retorts, regardless whether the comment Trump made had any value. He's seriously an entertainer in this election, can't honestly take him seriously.
|
It is a big mistake for Fox News and other republican elites to try to submarine Trump so blatantly. They'd be better off trying to expose deficiencies in his policies with fair questions than lobbing one retarded cheap shot after another.
|
Reading this excerpt from an article by the NYT:
Mr. Kasich also advanced his cause. He entered as a largely unknown candidate outside of Ohio, where he is governor. But he was backed by a supportive audience, he deftly handled tough questions, and he had a solid answer on a question about attending same-sex weddings. His answer might not resonate among many Republicans, but it will resonate in New Hampshire — the state where he needs to deny Mr. Bush a path to victory and vault to the top of the pack.
Are the majority of republicans really still so vehemently against gay marriage? Hasn't that ship sailed, and public opinion turned?
|
On August 07 2015 22:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is a big mistake for Fox News and other republican elites to try to submarine Trump so blatantly. They'd be better off trying to expose deficiencies in his policies with fair questions than lobbing one retarded cheap shot after another.
I wonder how much time and energy Fox news put into finding a smoking gun. Trump has been so incredibly well publicized that he has already fully owned every gaffe. When they say "you called these women fat slobs" he just says "yep" and that's the end of it. If you want to change the story you need new information.
|
On August 07 2015 22:31 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2015 22:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is a big mistake for Fox News and other republican elites to try to submarine Trump so blatantly. They'd be better off trying to expose deficiencies in his policies with fair questions than lobbing one retarded cheap shot after another. I wonder how much time and energy Fox news put into finding a smoking gun. Trump has been so incredibly well publicized that he has already fully owned every gaffe. When they say "you called these women fat slobs" he just says "yep" and that's the end of it. If you want to change the story you need new information.
Exactly. Additionally, republican voters are already highly distrustful of the media. They're just the wrong audience for these kinds of tactics.
|
On August 07 2015 22:28 Acrofales wrote:Reading this excerpt from an article by the NYT: Show nested quote +Mr. Kasich also advanced his cause. He entered as a largely unknown candidate outside of Ohio, where he is governor. But he was backed by a supportive audience, he deftly handled tough questions, and he had a solid answer on a question about attending same-sex weddings. His answer might not resonate among many Republicans, but it will resonate in New Hampshire — the state where he needs to deny Mr. Bush a path to victory and vault to the top of the pack. Are the majority of republicans really still so vehemently against gay marriage? Hasn't that ship sailed, and public opinion turned?
Remember your talking about a group of people who would vote for Trump. Majority opinions don't really account for them.
|
I wonder how long it took to put together a focus group that was so anti-Trump. Probably why the debate took 2 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
