AngryCanadian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,257
The Focus group are indeed bunch of actors i cant say i am not surprised.
Fox News 2016 Republican presidential debate in Cleveland - Official Thread
- Thread starter jct74
- Start date
The Focus group are indeed bunch of actors i cant say i am not surprised.
RabbitMan
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,046
I'm more of a moderate with a libertarian gut these days, and I haven't always been impressed with Rand.
So for your viewing pleasure, here are impressions from an informed normal dude:
Surprisingly, the FOX debate came off as a clear attempt to show viewers whoTrump really is. That is to say, an unapologetic asshole without any real plans.
And even more surprisingly, Trump seemed to dodge and redirect attack after attack like a black belt New England Wise-Ass. It was breathtaking!
That being said, while he was very entertaining, it was also incredibly obvious that he had absolutely zero substance. When asked for details, he had no policies that were intellectually coherent, he had no facts to back up claims and his entire platform consisted of reenacting parodies of himself by Jon Stewart.
He had no place being on that stage, and I was both happy that Rand hit him early on and wishing that SOMEBODY would hit him even harder.
We're losing to Mexico? Really? We're losing to Japan? SERIOUSLY? YOU ARE ADMITTING BUYING OUT POLITICIANS!?
Rand's role in it all was out-sized for his debate time. Like others here stated, Cruz seemed like an afterthought the entire debate and I forgot he was there. I think many of us would agree that Rand was doomed this same fate if he did not lash out, so this was obviously planned out of necessity. Unfortunately, his attacks also came off as planned which made them seem a little grating towards the end. His shouting match with Christie was borderline obnoxious. Trump shut Rand down in the final clash. His smirks came off as childish and seemed to give the impression of a person that would filibuster for 10 hours to fundraise. But he got some really good soundbites in, he made his name heard and he got his points across. That's huge.
In essence, he seemed like...a different kind of Republican.
Jeb seemed very passionate about education, which he would be wise to continue pushing as a strong point. Otherwise he has come off as quite rusty in public speaking and the gravitas that the name BUSH implies becomes rather difficult to associate with him. He doesn't have fire. He seems out of place on a stage full of such polished speakers.
Walker seemed both overly confident and yet amateur. He seemed very comfortable and proud to be on the stage and rattled lines like a professional baby kisser. But for the most part, his lines came off like bullet points memorized for a college course. The pride on his face reflected that of a student eager to show off counting to ten in another language.
Kasich showed heart. He seemed like a regular Joe, a son of a postal worker even, and comfortable in the environment he was in. He didn't shy away from his record one bit. In fact, I don't exactly know if he ever left it. When asked questions NOT about his past, he instinctively clung to his Gubernatorial record like a once forlorned blankie. Over time his gestures got stale, his once quaint mannerisms about his dad being a postal worker and his great record seemed...well...rehearsed. It's a pity really, I almost liked him...
Ben Carson revealed he is comfortable with explaining that he doesn't have a clue about anything. I know that people that are infatuated with him will like him anyway, but he literally said the equivalent of nothing. Everyone is assumed to be a Republican when they go up on that stage, and a Republican: (a) believes we need a stronger military, (b) wants to lower taxes and reform the tax code however impractical it is to do so and (c) is at least in some way a traditionalist when it comes to social values. He said we need a strong military, said we needed a flat tax of 10% (I think? I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say) and that he is pro-life. If anyone else can identify anything at all uniquely interesting about him, please let me know. Otherwise...why the hell would anyone vote for him when there are so many more well qualified and fascinating people on the stage? Like Trump, I felt he was a waste of time and should not have been up there.
Rubio came across as informed and well-spoken to the point of almost sounding like a robot.
Huckabee was Huckabee. We all laughed when he did his whole Huckabee thing didn't we? Good times...
Christie needs to be fiercely moderate and represent Northeast Republicans. But he won't. And consequentially he won't be in the next debate.
Cruz was Cruz. Fiery and forgettable, saying both a lot and not getting me to care at the same time.
I honestly don't know where the polls will go with this one. This Presidential cycle is unprecedented.
But I hope Rand gets a tiny bump in prep for the next round.
So for your viewing pleasure, here are impressions from an informed normal dude:
Surprisingly, the FOX debate came off as a clear attempt to show viewers whoTrump really is. That is to say, an unapologetic asshole without any real plans.
And even more surprisingly, Trump seemed to dodge and redirect attack after attack like a black belt New England Wise-Ass. It was breathtaking!
That being said, while he was very entertaining, it was also incredibly obvious that he had absolutely zero substance. When asked for details, he had no policies that were intellectually coherent, he had no facts to back up claims and his entire platform consisted of reenacting parodies of himself by Jon Stewart.
He had no place being on that stage, and I was both happy that Rand hit him early on and wishing that SOMEBODY would hit him even harder.
We're losing to Mexico? Really? We're losing to Japan? SERIOUSLY? YOU ARE ADMITTING BUYING OUT POLITICIANS!?
Rand's role in it all was out-sized for his debate time. Like others here stated, Cruz seemed like an afterthought the entire debate and I forgot he was there. I think many of us would agree that Rand was doomed this same fate if he did not lash out, so this was obviously planned out of necessity. Unfortunately, his attacks also came off as planned which made them seem a little grating towards the end. His shouting match with Christie was borderline obnoxious. Trump shut Rand down in the final clash. His smirks came off as childish and seemed to give the impression of a person that would filibuster for 10 hours to fundraise. But he got some really good soundbites in, he made his name heard and he got his points across. That's huge.
In essence, he seemed like...a different kind of Republican.
Jeb seemed very passionate about education, which he would be wise to continue pushing as a strong point. Otherwise he has come off as quite rusty in public speaking and the gravitas that the name BUSH implies becomes rather difficult to associate with him. He doesn't have fire. He seems out of place on a stage full of such polished speakers.
Walker seemed both overly confident and yet amateur. He seemed very comfortable and proud to be on the stage and rattled lines like a professional baby kisser. But for the most part, his lines came off like bullet points memorized for a college course. The pride on his face reflected that of a student eager to show off counting to ten in another language.
Kasich showed heart. He seemed like a regular Joe, a son of a postal worker even, and comfortable in the environment he was in. He didn't shy away from his record one bit. In fact, I don't exactly know if he ever left it. When asked questions NOT about his past, he instinctively clung to his Gubernatorial record like a once forlorned blankie. Over time his gestures got stale, his once quaint mannerisms about his dad being a postal worker and his great record seemed...well...rehearsed. It's a pity really, I almost liked him...
Ben Carson revealed he is comfortable with explaining that he doesn't have a clue about anything. I know that people that are infatuated with him will like him anyway, but he literally said the equivalent of nothing. Everyone is assumed to be a Republican when they go up on that stage, and a Republican: (a) believes we need a stronger military, (b) wants to lower taxes and reform the tax code however impractical it is to do so and (c) is at least in some way a traditionalist when it comes to social values. He said we need a strong military, said we needed a flat tax of 10% (I think? I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say) and that he is pro-life. If anyone else can identify anything at all uniquely interesting about him, please let me know. Otherwise...why the hell would anyone vote for him when there are so many more well qualified and fascinating people on the stage? Like Trump, I felt he was a waste of time and should not have been up there.
Rubio came across as informed and well-spoken to the point of almost sounding like a robot.
Huckabee was Huckabee. We all laughed when he did his whole Huckabee thing didn't we? Good times...
Christie needs to be fiercely moderate and represent Northeast Republicans. But he won't. And consequentially he won't be in the next debate.
Cruz was Cruz. Fiery and forgettable, saying both a lot and not getting me to care at the same time.
I honestly don't know where the polls will go with this one. This Presidential cycle is unprecedented.
But I hope Rand gets a tiny bump in prep for the next round.
Last edited:
Jackie Moon
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,218
I didn't think the smirking thing was too terrible.
That might be one of the things his team works on before the next debate to improve and polish overall... but it's a natural reaction when someone is attacking you with BS but you know you have to hold yourself back.
That might be one of the things his team works on before the next debate to improve and polish overall... but it's a natural reaction when someone is attacking you with BS but you know you have to hold yourself back.
RabbitMan
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,046
I didn't think the smirking thing was too terrible.
That might be one of the things his team works on before the next debate to improve and polish overall... but it's a natural reaction when someone is attacking you with BS but you know you have to hold yourself back.
Don't get me wrong! I actually have the same issue--I smile and smirk when I'm excited whether it's from hearing good news, bad news or something interesting is going on. I was smirking every time Rand was on air. I smirk when my wife is angry and frustrated. Sometimes it is inappropriate.
Update: I agree COMPLETELY with the NYT assessment of 'How the Candidates Fared'.
New York Times said:
Rand Paul
Best moment: See Mr. Christie’s worst.
How he handled Trump: He swung first, and he swung hardest.
Overall assessment: Made himself matter again.
Last edited:
timosman
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,090
Todd
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 7,863
Fair and balanced Baby!!!
I think Rand did OK.
I so frickin' hate Fox tho. Such BS that they run these debates. Each candidate should get a question and then the next, go up and down the line. They were clearly avoiding Rand.
And I still can't stand Trump.
And Christie is a jackass.
I so frickin' hate Fox tho. Such BS that they run these debates. Each candidate should get a question and then the next, go up and down the line. They were clearly avoiding Rand.
And I still can't stand Trump.
And Christie is a jackass.
timosman
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,090
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
coworker just came in my office...he never votes, didnt watch the debate but caught the highlights on social media....first thing he says this morning is "You wanna give obama big ole huggggg?"
hahaha...he was fired up about rand and loved the punches trump took
hahaha...he was fired up about rand and loved the punches trump took
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
rand paul has been top 3 trending on fb for about an hour now
MarcusI
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 909
As a non-american watching the debate in Europe, my impressions were as follows:
Outstanding performance:
no one
Good Performance:
- Rand Paul: He was attacking as he had to. And who shoots, will also not hit the target 100% from time to time. Delievered the (tempered down) liberty message. Didnt use his time for the questions he got in the 2nd hour. Bronze Medal for the closing statement. I liked his smirk, but I'm biased.
- Mike Huckabee: There wasnt too much to see from him in the first part of the debate, but he stayed seriously and friendly with some points, easy to understand. Gold Medal for the closing statement
- Ben Carson: Same as Huckabee, but why is he pro-torture and hawkish? That doesnt fit to his appearence. Because of that his performance could be in the mediocre tier as well. But Silver Medal for the closing statements.
Medium Performance:
- Cruz, Kasich, Rubio: Nothing special, they did what they were expected to, no remarkable moment neither positive nor negative. Cruz probably a bit better than the other two.
- Trump: The bull in the china shop. Love it or hate it. Had NO proof that the Mexican government would send the thugs on purpose. He is one of a kind in that race, but we knew that before. Entertaining for sure.
Weak Performance:
- Bush: boring
- Walker: boring, except for the abortion question. And there he has an inhumane standpoint. I know the chances for such a constellation are ultralow, but if the life of the mother really is in danger, then there isnt even a morale question what to do - even though I see the unborn as a person! But the mother's personality is build out far more. And this position doesnt fit his appearence.
- Christie: weak position in the duel vs. Rand. And he is just too faaaaaaaat.
Outstanding performance:
no one
Good Performance:
- Rand Paul: He was attacking as he had to. And who shoots, will also not hit the target 100% from time to time. Delievered the (tempered down) liberty message. Didnt use his time for the questions he got in the 2nd hour. Bronze Medal for the closing statement. I liked his smirk, but I'm biased.
- Mike Huckabee: There wasnt too much to see from him in the first part of the debate, but he stayed seriously and friendly with some points, easy to understand. Gold Medal for the closing statement
- Ben Carson: Same as Huckabee, but why is he pro-torture and hawkish? That doesnt fit to his appearence. Because of that his performance could be in the mediocre tier as well. But Silver Medal for the closing statements.
Medium Performance:
- Cruz, Kasich, Rubio: Nothing special, they did what they were expected to, no remarkable moment neither positive nor negative. Cruz probably a bit better than the other two.
- Trump: The bull in the china shop. Love it or hate it. Had NO proof that the Mexican government would send the thugs on purpose. He is one of a kind in that race, but we knew that before. Entertaining for sure.
Weak Performance:
- Bush: boring
- Walker: boring, except for the abortion question. And there he has an inhumane standpoint. I know the chances for such a constellation are ultralow, but if the life of the mother really is in danger, then there isnt even a morale question what to do - even though I see the unborn as a person! But the mother's personality is build out far more. And this position doesnt fit his appearence.
- Christie: weak position in the duel vs. Rand. And he is just too faaaaaaaat.
Last edited:
liveandletlive
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,164
Ben Carson, a nice man, but he has no business up here with these sharks. He was bloviating and didnt have a clue at times. Huckabee makes me sick, but knows how to play the game.
David Sadler
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 635
FOX NEWS is busy defending itself in social media from a blowback for its ambush of Trump and its treatment of Paul and Cruz.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,922
As objectively as I can be. (remembering this was not about issues - only style)
My grades:
Christie - F (Expect him to not make the cut next time)
Rubio - D- (Polished speaker, but didn't bring much)
Carson - B (Inexperienced in politics, but remained calm and above the fray. Expect him to get a bump)
Walker - D- (Totally forgettable. If they want a record, Kasich looked much better.)
Trump - B- (Some ups, some downs, but survived pretty much unscathed. Probably the best performance he could have hoped for.)
Bush - C (Just boring. But probably kept his donors on board, which had to be his goal.)
Huck B- (Started slow, but appeared genuine. Got a few laughs)
Cruz D (FOX wasn't very kind to him, which may help him, but he appeared too scripted. see Rubio)
Paul C (Definitely the most contentious - Had extreme ups and extreme downs. Didn't appear Presidential, but he may have just been wanting attention. Positive or negative)
Kasich B+ (Maintained composure. Mentioned his record about a million times - with no rebuttals to it. Seemed very at ease. Expect him to get a bump.)
Overall, I think the biggest loser was FOX. It was a horrible "debate". No candidate stood out. If this was an "introduction" to the field of candidates, Kasich probably did the best and Christie the worst. If this was about getting headlines and attention, Trump did the best with Paul and Christie coming in close second.
My grades:
Christie - F (Expect him to not make the cut next time)
Rubio - D- (Polished speaker, but didn't bring much)
Carson - B (Inexperienced in politics, but remained calm and above the fray. Expect him to get a bump)
Walker - D- (Totally forgettable. If they want a record, Kasich looked much better.)
Trump - B- (Some ups, some downs, but survived pretty much unscathed. Probably the best performance he could have hoped for.)
Bush - C (Just boring. But probably kept his donors on board, which had to be his goal.)
Huck B- (Started slow, but appeared genuine. Got a few laughs)
Cruz D (FOX wasn't very kind to him, which may help him, but he appeared too scripted. see Rubio)
Paul C (Definitely the most contentious - Had extreme ups and extreme downs. Didn't appear Presidential, but he may have just been wanting attention. Positive or negative)
Kasich B+ (Maintained composure. Mentioned his record about a million times - with no rebuttals to it. Seemed very at ease. Expect him to get a bump.)
Overall, I think the biggest loser was FOX. It was a horrible "debate". No candidate stood out. If this was an "introduction" to the field of candidates, Kasich probably did the best and Christie the worst. If this was about getting headlines and attention, Trump did the best with Paul and Christie coming in close second.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Because the Republican party is Keynesian.
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
still trending in the top 3 wow
Similar threads
