| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:11 oneofthem wrote: lol holy shit i ddin't even know he's an anti-vaxxer. it makes too much sense I'm 85% sure at this point Trump is an undercover Democrat and he's just fucking with the GOP to see how ridiculous he can be and still get their vote. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
I'm never sure what to think of Trump, after a debate. edit: I just realized I didn't even mention Scott Walker. Guess that sums it up | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 17 2015 11:59 TheTenthDoc wrote: I guess I should have specified "any of the positions the people on that stage support not backfire." I mean they're pretty much espousing the polar opposite of his USSR policy and divesting tax cuts from tax hikes is kind of strange. And other than Rand I don't think any of them know what the Fed is. They also wouldn't have appointed Volcker because he was a Democrat. I'm interested how you come to these conclusions (other than Volker). I don't see how the USSR policy has a polar opposite represented (aside from possibly Rand), and I don't understand what your tax cut/hike divestment thing means. Republicans generally support Reagan's tax cuts, but recognize that he traded some of them back in return for promises of spending cuts, promises that were broken. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18179 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
Winners of the Debate - Carly Firona, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney Neutral - Trump, Jindal, Paul, Kacaih Losers - Huckabee, Carson, Paul, bush, walker How do you guys score it? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4881 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:20 whatisthisasheep wrote: Here's how see it: Winners of the Debate - Carly Firona, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney Neutral - Trump, Jindal, Paul, Kacaih Losers - Huckabee, Carson, Paul, bush, walker How do you guys score it? WHere are you getting Romney from? Put Rubio in a lower tier, otherwise probably agree-ish. Carly did pretty decent, but I feel she's the one most vulnerable to scrutiny so it could be double edged. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:18 cLutZ wrote: I'm interested how you come to these conclusions (other than Volker). I don't see how the USSR policy has a polar opposite represented (aside from possibly Rand), and I don't understand what your tax cut/hike divestment thing means. Republicans generally support Reagan's tax cuts, but recognize that he traded some of them back in return for promises of spending cuts, promises that were broken. "Ripping up the deal with Iran" is not at all similar to Reagan's USSR policies. Sending troops into Syria-which 3/4 want-is not at all what Reagan did in Afghanistan (and especially not what he would have done with today's tech). Relentlessly antagonizing Putin and demonizing China is not what Reagan did, which is what most of them do. The only thing they have in common is pouring money into the military. I'm saying that saying the tax hikes failed and the tax cuts succeeded is bizarre. I mean his tax cuts got partly rolled back like a year after they passed so I'm not sure what successful even means and were followed by payroll tax increases. Unless you're not counting the payroll tax increases as tax hikes? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18179 Posts
Neutral: Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Paul Losers: Carson, Walker, Huckabee Huckabee might be neutral too, because he was appealing to ultra religious conservatives, so what sounded crazy to me might have struck the right note with his base. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
Neutral: Paul, Rubio Lose: Huckabee, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Christie, Walker Fiorina just killed it repeatedly, Kasich sounded very pragmatic and accessible, and Bush showed a lot of spirit and conviction. Paul and Rubio made strong points and held their ground, but Paul won't appeal to enough Republicans and Rubio just sounded very generic. Huckabee and Cruz are fucking nuts, Carson sounded like a bumbling sleepwalker with no charisma, Walker was invisible, Christie just looks and sounds like a shady crook with no integrity, and Trump didn't do terrible but was on the bad end of a lot of zingers. He also had no substance at all, when a lot of the debate actually got quite substantive about policy proposals. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Neutral: Cruz, Rubio, Kasich Worse than they wanted: Trump Worse than they needed: Carson, Christie, Paul Tanked so hard they might as well be gone: Huckabee, Walker. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:22 ticklishmusic wrote: WHere are you getting Romney from? Put Rubio in a lower tier, otherwise probably agree-ish. Carly did pretty decent, but I feel she's the one most vulnerable to scrutiny so it could be double edged. I meant Ted Cruz not Romney, my bad | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:22 Introvert wrote: Too bad the democrat debate won't nearly as ineresting. They don't disagree all that much. Preview of the Democratic national debate Cooper: do you like flowers and kittens? Clinton: Yes i believe I do Sanders: Not as much as I like flowers and kittens. Free flowers and kittens for everyone! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:40 xDaunt wrote: Fiorina is the winner tonight. Rubio did well enough to stay afloat. I'm guessing that he will become the establishment candidate of choice before long. From my point of view, Trump did not do himself any favors tonight, and some very ugly chickens of his came home to roost. However, he thus far has been immune to suffering consequences for his petulance, so I'm not sure why things would change now. That said, if anyone will be his undoing, it likely is Fiorina. Carly didnt do herself any favors for blaming weed for her sons death. Other than that, I agree she did a solid job | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:42 whatisthisasheep wrote: Carly didnt do herself any favors for blaming weed for her sons death. Other than that, I agree she did a solid job She also sounded like a nut on Planned Parenthood and the military. A lot of them are taking the same stance on the military that Romney did, and Obama owned him on that one pretty hard in one of their debates. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:20 whatisthisasheep wrote: Here's how see it: Winners of the Debate - Carly Firona, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney Neutral - Trump, Jindal, Paul, Kacaih Losers - Huckabee, Carson, Paul, bush, walker How do you guys score it? As someone who only watched this for the sake of entertainment and thus no good idea about any of them: Winners: Carly Firona, Kasich Neutral: Trump, Bush, Rubio, Paul, Lose: Huckabee, Walker, Carson (not sure if Lose or Neutral on him... I think his voice is what's making me put him here  ), JindalI think that's all names I remember | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:40 xDaunt wrote: However, he thus far has been immune to suffering consequences for his petulance, so I'm not sure why things would change now. A long series of low to medium level consequences for his petulance could explain this. And also his autism. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 17 2015 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote: "Ripping up the deal with Iran" is not at all similar to Reagan's USSR policies. Sending troops into Syria-which 3/4 want-is not at all what Reagan did in Afghanistan (and especially not what he would have done with today's tech). Relentlessly antagonizing Putin and demonizing China is not what Reagan did, which is what most of them do. The only thing they have in common is pouring money into the military. I'm saying that saying the tax hikes failed and the tax cuts succeeded is bizarre. I mean his tax cuts got partly rolled back like a year after they passed so I'm not sure what successful even means and were followed by payroll tax increases. Unless you're not counting the payroll tax increases as tax hikes? So, we have his initial tax reform: A widely held success. However, like you said, the year following there was a deficit projected and here is what is seen as his mistakes: 1) Not insisting on maintaining the low rates for over a year to give them a chance; 2) Giving up recurring (aka Congress can ignore them) tax hikes for one time spending reductions (which the later Dem Congresses continually whittled away at). Thus, all the revenue that was meant to close the deficit never really did because domestic spending continued to increase. This "mistake" was made again by Bush 43. So then you get to Gingrich, who realizes this, and says "aha the only chips we should actually bargain for are permanent, or semi permanent programs" thus welfare reform and other reforms happen and actually gives you a balanced budget. TLDR: Democrats lied to Reagan to get the post-reform tax increases, so pointing this out as him being reasonable is just Dems pointing out that they can't be trusted to hold up their end of a bargain. | ||
| ||
|
|
RongYI Cup
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
