RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

CNBC Republican Debate
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 6:27 pm    ::: CNBC Republican Debate Reply Reply with quote

I predict this will be different. People want substance and policy from Trump. I don't even know if that's possible. lol. So don't look for it to happen tonight.

Carson. Said to have spent a number of days preparing to debate as a front runner. This. Will. Be. Good. They're going to make one helluva mixtape from his performance tonight. That's my first big prediction.

Jeb! This is what will be different and you can bet your ranch and your fake Texas accent that I'm right. You're going to see the exclamation point come out early and often tonight, folks. Like he tried to end it all by swallowing a handful of Viagra. Jeb, not so much. But the exclamation point will not be denied. This is its big night.

I'm joking but I mean it. Jeb is going to have a hissy fit that's three months in the making. Mark my words with an Exclamation


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 8:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jeb Bush made Obama sound like a "tax and spend liberal". But income taxes are far lower now than they have historically been. Only Dubya Bush had them lower. Obama had a chance to let small automatic tax increases kick in when the "fiscal cliff" was hit, but he stepped in to do even smaller increases. He didn't do anything different than Romney would have on taxes.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 8:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Kasich apparently stole the Exclamation Point's Viagra tonight. Trump said, "Whatever, Jack." and kicked him in the nuts.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 8:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I missed the full exchange but Trump was questioned about calling Marco Rubio "Mark Zuckerberg's personal senator" and denied it. Maybe that was a technical denial with regard to "said". But I don't think the questioner should have left him off the hook - those words are used on Trump's website in his plan on immigration. But I am not disagreeing with Trump - Rubio is an strong advocate for Mark Zuckerberg's desires to import tech workers to drive down wages for tech companies.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ben Carson appears to be glancing down at notes occasionally. I thought that was against the rules, although I don't understand why it would be wrong to have notes.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11672
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 9:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Chump is such a fucking lying, phony POS.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58703
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 9:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ben Carson is not ready for prime time



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18417



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Ben Carson appears to be glancing down at notes occasionally. I thought that was against the rules, although I don't understand why it would be wrong to have notes.


They're allowed a pen and paper though. So it's possible those notes were written during the debate.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11881
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/15 11:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Got to see bunches-but-not-all of the debate whilst on the job tonight.

Chris Christy (figuratively) stamped his Large Foot and took the, "Dammit, I'm HERE!" approach. His "WTF?FANTASYFOOTBALL" moment was rich. I actually liked what he (and Huckabee) said about SS funding, but it's inevitably the same: platitudes that change nothing.

Donald & Jeb: what little I heard from them was neither damning nor exulting.

Carly WHO?

Now. Ben Carson. REALLY? I KNOW it's the GOP, and I know they're politicians, but REALLY? Do they think we're all that stupid? The question re: Costco/Gays made me wanna puke.

I know it's not high on many people's radar screens these days, but his bullshit about the PC crowd that makes everybody shut up, yet how we're all equal, BUT MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN....(and, by inference THAT logic isn't divisive in the least.... Rolling Eyes Evil or Very Mad ). AssssssssHole. Laughing

[Qualifier for the above mini-rant: I don't believe I've stated this here before, but for a while now, since he's become a public figure, I've had a strong *vibe* about Carson having strong homosexual inclinations. I really don't say that as A: a negative, nor B: to stir false innuendo. I just 'read' this in him. However--it definitely colors my perspective on his positions re: gay marriage in its would-be hypocrisy. I cannot prove this, of course, but I do believe it strongly. There is another similar individual on this list of candidates that I shall not name, in the case any others may want to step forward to share their gaydar readings. But at least, this one doesn't say the shit Carson does. Razz ]



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
myt



Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 3923
Location: California


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 1:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-28/gop-debate-iii-post-mortem-trump-top-fiorina-flop-bush-cnbc-biggest-loser



_________________
SuziQ wrote:
ima say this only once, and I'm never gonna say it again. Parker's damn good.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 6:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think Trump's early attacks on Bush - and Bush's ineffectual responses - have damaged him so much that there's no recovery. Bush's counters on both Trump and Rubio failed, so how could he take on Clinton?

Carson puts me to sleep. Fiorina's fake smile lasted the first 5 mins then her natural "sour puss" demeanor kicked back in. All of the "under card" candidates need to drop out (did ANYONE bother to watch?) The only Republican I could REMOTELY consider is Kasich, but he, Cruz, Huckabee, Paul and probably Christie need to drop.

The fewer the candidates, the more Trump will be exposed. I don't think his "we're gonna be GREAT" answer to everything will last much longer. I'm seeing Rubio as the Republican nominee now - which could be problematic for Hillary.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 7:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:

The fewer the candidates, the more Trump will be exposed.


I was baffled as to why, a few days after he puts an immigration position on his website calling for a reduction in H1-B visas, Trump gave an interview and talked about letting more foreign students who graduate US colleges to then compete for American jobs. The two positions don't match. In both cases you are allowing foreign competition for American white collar jobs.

But tonight, it appears that Trump doesn't appear to know what his website says regarding H1-B visas (he may have lied, but I think he is just unaware). He may not even know what the H1-B visa program is. So that is something I would hit Trump on in a debate or interview - why the contradiction between increasing the conversion of student visas to work visas, and yet decreasing H1-B visas. Or, are you aware that your website has a position for reducing H1-B visas?

He is also very vulnerable on his trade talk. I agree with he and Sanders that we need to stop this huge balance of trade issue and bring jobs back. But I don't think Trump knows how trade deals work in this day and age. There is the World Trade Organization to which almost all countries belong that I don't think allows non-agricultural tariffs. Or if it does, it is controlling or overseeing them. Trump can't just have Carl Icahn or one of his "terrible people but great negotiators" change what is protected by WTO membership and other treaties by negotiating. Congress has to overturn those trade deals and probably the control WTO membership. There may be some way to use tax law to stop off-shoring, but Trump never mentions that. And there is the possibility of getting a country to enact voluntary quotas. But Trump doesn't talk about that either.

And there is also the fact that he has big tax cuts and little in the way of deduction removal and still claims it will be a balanced budget.

And he wants to build a wall and deport but never says a word about punishing employers. If you punish employers they stop hiring illegals and they have to leave. But he doesn't say a word about that, which makes no sense.

It's not a campaign issue, or Trump would also be vulnerable on Global Warming/Climate Change.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58703
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 7:28 am    ::: Re: CNBC Republican Debate Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I predict this will be different. People want substance and policy from Trump. I don't even know if that's possible. lol. So don't look for it to happen tonight.


Perhaps with competent moderation we could have gotten some substance. The CNBC gang were ill-prepared and far too combative, to say nothing of the awful questions they offered up.

Popping Carson on Mannatech is the most important thing to come from this debate. You have to question the judgement of someone who falls for a snake oil selling pyramid scheme like that.



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 9:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes and yes to the last two comments.

Trump won the debate early and basically never had to open his mouth again. First, he did sound sharper than in the past debates, as Chuck Todd said on MSNBC last night. But here's why i say he won. Kasich was onto something with his early rant. He really was. Had that call to wake up and wise up been allowed to ring out unchallenged, it may not have turned the election around for him or taken down these pretenders to the throne in Trump and Carson, but it would have been out there and Kasich would have been the hero who said it to their faces. But Trump destroyed him. Pulled the rug out from under the strongest establishment rejoinder he or Carson had yet faced. Pow. And he did it with a sharp hilarious disregard that contrasted so effectively with Kasich's pleading whining we gotta do sumfin tone. That was all Trump had to do and that's why he's on top in all these flash polls.

Rubio is, in my honest opinion, fourth in the crazy dept. behind Carson, Paul, and Cruz. I don't know why I'm the only one (maybe being serious now) who can see it.


scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8537
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jammer, did you see Joe Scarborough tear into Rubio this morning for flatout LYING about his personal finances in regard to a question the woman moderator put to him?

Joe was also dismissive of the moderators and in this particular instance with Rubio's financial dealings that Becky (?) didn't come back with a retort of 'its all in the public records, Senator.'

so long Jeb! this guy has some sort of major stage fright or something. he seems incapable of thinking on his feet. when he went after Rubio's voting record, it was so scripted and Rubio came back at him (also scripted), but Jeb! just took the hit on the chin without a counter-punch in sight.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10393
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 10:19 am    ::: Re: CNBC Republican Debate Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I predict this will be different. People want substance and policy from Trump. I don't even know if that's possible. lol. So don't look for it to happen tonight.


Perhaps with competent moderation we could have gotten some substance. The CNBC gang were ill-prepared and far too combative, to say nothing of the awful questions they offered up.

Popping Carson on Mannatech is the most important thing to come from this debate. You have to question the judgement of someone who falls for a snake oil selling pyramid scheme like that.


Ahem! Nancy Lieberman! Razz

http://www.faboverfifty.com/?s=lieberman&search-type=normal

Quote:
Q: Do you have a skin care routine?

Nancy Lieberman: For skin care, I use Lift. Its by Mannatech. I use it every day. I am so anal about it, you dont even want to be around me.


Rolling Eyes



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 10:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
Jammer, did you see Joe Scarborough tear into Rubio this morning for flatout LYING about his personal finances in regard to a question the woman moderator put to him?

Joe was also dismissive of the moderators and in this particular instance with Rubio's financial dealings that Becky (?) didn't come back with a retort of 'its all in the public records, Senator.'

so long Jeb! this guy has some sort of major stage fright or something. he seems incapable of thinking on his feet. when he went after Rubio's voting record, it was so scripted and Rubio came back at him (also scripted), but Jeb! just took the hit on the chin without a counter-punch in sight.


Just watching now. 4 minutes in. He's already channeling what Bush should have said to Rubio. Tragic how he wasn't able to squash Marco like the little bug that he is... but hold on there, jammer, this is a Bush we're talking about. It's all good. Rubio will get his. Bush is and always will and should be the target. David Frum says this is the end for Jeb! It's that scary of a monster, people. It must end now.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58703
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 10:32 am    ::: Re: CNBC Republican Debate Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I predict this will be different. People want substance and policy from Trump. I don't even know if that's possible. lol. So don't look for it to happen tonight.


Perhaps with competent moderation we could have gotten some substance. The CNBC gang were ill-prepared and far too combative, to say nothing of the awful questions they offered up.

Popping Carson on Mannatech is the most important thing to come from this debate. You have to question the judgement of someone who falls for a snake oil selling pyramid scheme like that.


Ahem! Nancy Lieberman! Razz

http://www.faboverfifty.com/?s=lieberman&search-type=normal

Quote:
Q: Do you have a skin care routine?

Nancy Lieberman: For skin care, I use Lift. Its by Mannatech. I use it every day. I am so anal about it, you dont even want to be around me.


Rolling Eyes


I wouldn't vote for her either Laughing



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 11:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:

Rubio is, in my honest opinion, fourth in the crazy dept. behind Carson, Paul, and Cruz. I don't know why I'm the only one (maybe being serious now) who can see it.


Why do you say/think you are the only one that sees that? The least crazy is Kasick, IMHO.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 12:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:

Rubio is, in my honest opinion, fourth in the crazy dept. behind Carson, Paul, and Cruz. I don't know why I'm the only one (maybe being serious now) who can see it.


Why do you say/think you are the only one that sees that? The least crazy is Kasick, IMHO.


Just checking. Wink Also, Chris Christie is not crazy either. That's not an endorsement, by the way.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5444
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 1:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Highest rated show in CNBC history -- 14 million viewers.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cnbc-republican-debate-14-million-viewers-1201629722/

All the TV pundits I heard said Rubio won, followed by Cruz and Christie. Yet the three online polls -- Drudge, Time Magazine and CNBC -- all have Trump dominantly winning. I could explain Drudge by assuming that website is populated by Trump fans, though I'm not sure why that should be, since Trump isn't particularly conservative. But why would the Time Magazine and CNBC websites be populated by Trump fans?
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 1:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

At least Jeb! Is winning his fantasy football league.

That's something.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 58703
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 1:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Highest rated show in CNBC history -- 14 million viewers.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cnbc-republican-debate-14-million-viewers-1201629722/

All the TV pundits I heard said Rubio won, followed by Cruz and Christie. Yet the three online polls -- Drudge, Time Magazine and CNBC -- all have Trump dominantly winning. I could explain Drudge by assuming that website is populated by Trump fans, though I'm not sure why that should be, since Trump isn't particularly conservative. But why would the Time Magazine and CNBC websites be populated by Trump fans?


Trump has people and bots who vote over and over to skew the online polls.



_________________
It's time I had some time alone
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5444
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 2:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Highest rated show in CNBC history -- 14 million viewers.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cnbc-republican-debate-14-million-viewers-1201629722/

All the TV pundits I heard said Rubio won, followed by Cruz and Christie. Yet the three online polls -- Drudge, Time Magazine and CNBC -- all have Trump dominantly winning. I could explain Drudge by assuming that website is populated by Trump fans, though I'm not sure why that should be, since Trump isn't particularly conservative. But why would the Time Magazine and CNBC websites be populated by Trump fans?


Trump has people and bots who vote over and over to skew the online polls.


It's hard to believe anyone would volunteer to vote that many times (144,000 for Trump in the Drudge poll alone), and I don't know what a voting bot is.

But even if that's true, why would only Trump be doing it? Why wouldn't the desperate and sinking Bush, who supposedly has $100 million, be doing the same thing?

On edit: I tried to vote more than once on Drudge and CNBC but both said they would only count my first vote.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/15 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Highest rated show in CNBC history -- 14 million viewers.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cnbc-republican-debate-14-million-viewers-1201629722/

All the TV pundits I heard said Rubio won, followed by Cruz and Christie. Yet the three online polls -- Drudge, Time Magazine and CNBC -- all have Trump dominantly winning. I could explain Drudge by assuming that website is populated by Trump fans, though I'm not sure why that should be, since Trump isn't particularly conservative. But why would the Time Magazine and CNBC websites be populated by Trump fans?


Trump has people and bots who vote over and over to skew the online polls.


It's hard to believe anyone would volunteer to vote that many times (144,000 for Trump in the Drudge poll alone), and I don't know what a voting bot is.

But even if that's true, why would only Trump be doing it? Why wouldn't the desperate and sinking Bush, who supposedly has $100 million, be doing the same thing?

On edit: I tried to vote more than once on Drudge and CNBC but both said they would only count my first vote.

Bots automatically spoof different IP addresses so that each vote appears to be coming from different places.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin