Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
No wonder historically democracies gradually revert to monarchies. People eventually weary of being forced to listen to and vote for political prostitutes of all types and parties.
Meh. I'd rather not be reminded of the direction this country is headed (not that it's going in a good direction now, but next election doesn't look to bring much hope.)
It's a hoot. Watching first one now. Sanatorum promises that if elected he'll ignore any S.C. rulings he finds "unjust" according to the law of God. Graham promises to drink more.
"Sanatorium promises that if elected he'll ignore any S.C. rulings he finds "unjust" according to the law of God."
Well, why not? If county clerks can do that why shouldn't the president also have that power?
This is easily the scariest bunch of political prostitutes that I've ever seen. Some of them make Sarah Palin look like a reasonable person. Good grief!
Carly Fiorina would refuse to talk to Putin. But she would (1) Re-arm the Kurds, (2) Build up the Sixth Fleet and (3) Re-start the Missle Defense System.
(No mention of "Sequester" under which Comgress has placed stringent caps on social welfare and defense spending). ---
@OJ - What really scared the **** out of me was that Donald Trump sounded more "reasonable" than most of the others on stage with him. Yikes!
End of commentary. Thanks to everyone for your views, Am attempting right now to buzz Ted's I-Watch to wake him as requested.
It's just hilarious how all of these jokers are "going to do this" and "going to do that" without the slightest reference to the constitutional, legal and political limitations that really dictate what gets done and what doesn't. If they are not totally ignorant then they are cynically playing to a group of voters who are.
I thought the "JV" debate was more spontaneous and genuine compared to the Varsity level. Enjoyed it more. Almost seems that the more "advanced" they get, the better they become at "canned" speeches and subterfuge.
I, too, was watching Longmire (but from a DVD). I wonder what %age of the population was watching an old Longmire episode instead of the debates
I don't have Cable TV, hence I can't watch any debates that require something besides the standard broadcast channels. But I would have watched the debates for entertainment.
Perhaps the most interesting part from a MFO/investor's perspective was the sparks between the Donald and Carly about their respective failures as business-people. Trump first accused Fiorina of driving Hewlett Packard into the ground with the Compaq merger, which is true, and then she accused him of going bankrupt four times, which is also true. I don't agree with the concept that America should be "run like a business" as I often hear, but for those who think it should be, these two are not the ones to do it.
I, too, was watching Longmire (but from a DVD). I wonder what %age of the population was watching an old Longmire episode instead of the debates
I don't have Cable TV, hence I can't watch any debates that require something besides the standard broadcast channels. But I would have watched the debates for entertainment.
I don't have cable or Netficks.
You can find them on line. There are sites that stream them. Why? I don't know. Just don't click on anything that wants you to download anything..
I am definitely not a political junkie. I have to think twice to remember who my state governor is, and three times to recall my mayor’s name.
Given the numerous Republican candidates, and the likelihood of a minor expansion to the Democratic field, I committed to watching the entire 5 hours of the candidate debate yesterday, and plan to do the same next month when the Democrats have similar exposure.
Some of your submittals have been harsh, and at times very lighthearted. Unlike you guys, for me this is serious stuff. I need to learn a lot more about all the potential candidates in preparation for a meaningful decision. Unlike others, I am a member of the 30% voting population that considers himself an independent. For decades, I have voted for the person and not for the party.
With some noteworthy exceptions, the debates were informative and somewhat fascinating. Although imperfect in detail, they are a good point of departure for the learning process.
Some major portions of my decision criteria will be the biography, the announced agendas, the résumé, the leadership qualities, and the reactions under debate fire of the candidates.
I still have a long way to go, but I admire the résumés of most of those who appeared yesterday. There’s attractive variety there. It’s too easy to be picayune and too be hypercritical. Some of you guys chose that route. I do not.
In general, I’m impressed with their credentials. I come out a distant second place if I simply compare my résumé against any one of those who were on stage. Like it or not, some of these folks have held challenging and significant jobs across a lifetime that invite critics and controversy. They surely should be evaluated on their performance, but should not be punished for some failures, either perceived or real.
As J.K. Rowling observed: “The best of us must sometimes eat our words.” I’m sure the candidates from both major political parties will do a lot of that during the election cycle. I’ll try to remain open-minded until the twelfth hour.
I anxiously await the Democrat debate upcoming in about a month.
>> committed to watching the entire 5 hours of the [Republican] candidate debate >> I admire the résumés of most of those who appeared yesterday. There’s attractive variety there. ... In general, I’m impressed with their credentials.
Coming from you, these words are extremely striking, and as another independent I will be interested in your thoughts as the months pass with that crowd.
While it is a serious business, it's hard to take the debates seriously as mostly politicians just spout soundbites. I would suggest reading about the candidates as much as possible instead, finding out what their actual record is on different issues and all of the details of their various plans for the country. The appeal of a politician in a debate is an emotional one which is dangerous to begin with. It is how demagogues often seize power. Some pretty terrible people have had tremendous appeal during debates and speeches historically. Better to apply cool reason to their voting/political/business records and policy plans than to see who presents themselves best during a debate.
MJG said, "Some of your submittals have been harsh, and at times very lighthearted. Unlike you guys, for me this is serious stuff."
MJG: Glad you found the thread & debates of interest. But I think you're being a little harsh on critiquing our comments. I too appreciate the impressive resumes and preparation of the candidates and the importance of the issues discussed. And, while I'm never happy with the format of these "debates", I believe that both the people at CNN and at Fox (earlier) did a fantastic job moderating. Let's not overlook the intense preparation these people obviously undertook in advance.
But please recognize that, like a good book, these events can be appreciated on a number of different levels. I'm not ignoring the issues. Some of my training and career work involved persuasive speaking. So I especially enjoy looking at the "staging" of the event, the various types of communication skills displayed and the approaches each candidate takes towards not only the issues, but also towards the the audience and other personalities on stage. It's all part of the "package" MJG - and something that has uniquely altered our political process ever since the first televised Kennedy-Nixon debates (which I remember well). In addition, I won't put any of them up on a pedestal. Like most here, I suspect, I've known too many politicians on a personal level to do that.
As for those who chose not to watch, I think that to infer indifference towards the issues is a gross over-reach. We all learn in different ways. If following a 3-hour long oral recitation/presentation isn't your cup of tea, I'm sure the NYT and many other supurb publications did a fine job highlighting the key points and analyzing the candidates' positions.
Please keep in mind, too, that all of us here are trying hard not to inject our personal political prejudices into the discussion. So, I think some of the humor and "dancing-around" the substantive issues reflects this worthy endeavor.
Part of the reason I am fascinated by MJG's post is that this (NYT) was my takeaway in toto:
They were there freely, armed with the best arguments they and their policy advisers had come up with, to make their cases as seasoned politicians, business leaders and medical professionals — the Republican Party’s “A-Team,” as one of them, Mike Huckabee, said at the outset.
And that … is frightening. Peel back the boasting and insults, the lies and exaggerations common to any presidential campaign. What remains is a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre, that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.
It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to just because you say they will.
Start with immigration, and the idea that any president could or should engineer the mass expulsion of 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Not one candidate said that a 21st-century trail of tears, deploying railroad cars, federal troops and police dogs on a continental scale, cannot happen and would be morally obscene. Ben Carson said, “If anybody knows how to do that, that I would be willing to listen.” They accepted the need to “control our borders” with a 2000-mile fence. Even Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, once an immigration moderate, endorsed the fence. Mr. Carson actually suggested two fences, for double security, with a road in between. Do these people have to be sent to the Rio Grande Valley to see how ludicrous a border fence — over mountains, vast deserts, remote valleys and private property — would be? And it won’t solve the problem they are railing against, which doesn’t exist anyway. Illegal immigration has fallen essentially to zero.
On foreign affairs, there was a lot of talk about not talking with bad people. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said his first act would be to tear up the Iran deal, throwing the nuclear race back to the ayatollahs and rupturing global alliances — but making a point! Carly Fiorina said: “What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message.” ... Jeb Bush spun a particularly repellent fantasy. Speaking reverently of his brother the president, he said, “He kept us safe,” and invoked the carnage of 9/11. Wait, what? Did he mean George W. Bush, who was warned about the threat that Al Qaeda would attack? Who then invaded a non sequitur country, Iraq, over a nonexistent threat?
When the A-Team got around to science and health, many of them promised to help Americans by killing the program that gives millions of them medical insurance. One candidate said he felt sure that vaccines had caused an autism “epidemic.” The two doctors on the dais did not seriously challenge that persistent, dangerous myth.
Let loose by the CNN moderators, the candidates spun their visions freely. Despite an abundance of serious issues to talk about, nobody offered solutions to problems like child poverty, police and gun violence, racial segregation, educational gaps, competition in a global economy and crumbling infrastructure. On looming disasters (the changing climate) and more immediate ones (a possible government shutdown over, of all things, Planned Parenthood), the debate offered no reassurance that grownups were at the table, or even in the neighborhood.
But we did hear an idea to put Mother Teresa — Mother Teresa, a penniless nun — on our money.
Maybe I should be writing for the NY Times. Before the "debate" (see above), I wrote:
It's just hilarious how all of these jokers are "going to do this" and "going to do that" without the slightest reference to the constitutional, legal and political limitations that really dictate what gets done and what doesn't. If they are not totally ignorant then they are cynically playing to a group of voters who are.
The NYT:"It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to just because you say they will."
Perhaps "hilarious" was a poor choice of words, though... "bizarre or pathetic" would probably have been more accurate.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Well, why not? If county clerks can do that why shouldn't the president also have that power?
This is easily the scariest bunch of political prostitutes that I've ever seen. Some of them make Sarah Palin look like a reasonable person. Good grief!
Sorry, but you might as well call the Republican debates the sequel to 'The Apprentice'. All ego driven entertainment.
What is that funny "M" thingy for your avatar here??? Perhaps part of MFO got hacked !
The colors are all wrong, and some of the lettering is missing.
Should be green and white and the full letter set should be: MSU
Oddly enough, I will be in "A-squared" town on Thursday.
Take care,
Catch
It's been really rough being a Wolverine these last several years...especially since I live with a Sparty...so be kind, please!
Be sure to stop at Zingerman's while you are in A2!
Carly Fiorina would refuse to talk to Putin. But she would (1) Re-arm the Kurds, (2) Build up the Sixth Fleet and (3) Re-start the Missle Defense System.
(No mention of "Sequester" under which Comgress has placed stringent caps on social welfare and defense spending).
---
@OJ - What really scared the **** out of me was that Donald Trump sounded more "reasonable" than most of the others on stage with him. Yikes!
End of commentary. Thanks to everyone for your views, Am attempting right now to buzz Ted's I-Watch to wake him as requested.
I don't have Cable TV, hence I can't watch any debates that require something besides the standard broadcast channels. But I would have watched the debates for entertainment.
You can find them on line. There are sites that stream them. Why? I don't know. Just don't click on anything that wants you to download anything..
I am definitely not a political junkie. I have to think twice to remember who my state governor is, and three times to recall my mayor’s name.
Given the numerous Republican candidates, and the likelihood of a minor expansion to the Democratic field, I committed to watching the entire 5 hours of the candidate debate yesterday, and plan to do the same next month when the Democrats have similar exposure.
Some of your submittals have been harsh, and at times very lighthearted. Unlike you guys, for me this is serious stuff. I need to learn a lot more about all the potential candidates in preparation for a meaningful decision. Unlike others, I am a member of the 30% voting population that considers himself an independent. For decades, I have voted for the person and not for the party.
With some noteworthy exceptions, the debates were informative and somewhat fascinating. Although imperfect in detail, they are a good point of departure for the learning process.
Some major portions of my decision criteria will be the biography, the announced agendas, the résumé, the leadership qualities, and the reactions under debate fire of the candidates.
I still have a long way to go, but I admire the résumés of most of those who appeared yesterday. There’s attractive variety there. It’s too easy to be picayune and too be hypercritical. Some of you guys chose that route. I do not.
In general, I’m impressed with their credentials. I come out a distant second place if I simply compare my résumé against any one of those who were on stage. Like it or not, some of these folks have held challenging and significant jobs across a lifetime that invite critics and controversy. They surely should be evaluated on their performance, but should not be punished for some failures, either perceived or real.
As J.K. Rowling observed: “The best of us must sometimes eat our words.” I’m sure the candidates from both major political parties will do a lot of that during the election cycle. I’ll try to remain open-minded until the twelfth hour.
I anxiously await the Democrat debate upcoming in about a month.
Best Wishes.
>> I admire the résumés of most of those who appeared yesterday. There’s attractive variety there. ... In general, I’m impressed with their credentials.
Coming from you, these words are extremely striking, and as another independent I will be interested in your thoughts as the months pass with that crowd.
MJG: Glad you found the thread & debates of interest. But I think you're being a little harsh on critiquing our comments. I too appreciate the impressive resumes and preparation of the candidates and the importance of the issues discussed. And, while I'm never happy with the format of these "debates", I believe that both the people at CNN and at Fox (earlier) did a fantastic job moderating. Let's not overlook the intense preparation these people obviously undertook in advance.
But please recognize that, like a good book, these events can be appreciated on a number of different levels. I'm not ignoring the issues. Some of my training and career work involved persuasive speaking. So I especially enjoy looking at the "staging" of the event, the various types of communication skills displayed and the approaches each candidate takes towards not only the issues, but also towards the the audience and other personalities on stage. It's all part of the "package" MJG - and something that has uniquely altered our political process ever since the first televised Kennedy-Nixon debates (which I remember well). In addition, I won't put any of them up on a pedestal. Like most here, I suspect, I've known too many politicians on a personal level to do that.
As for those who chose not to watch, I think that to infer indifference towards the issues is a gross over-reach. We all learn in different ways. If following a 3-hour long oral recitation/presentation isn't your cup of tea, I'm sure the NYT and many other supurb publications did a fine job highlighting the key points and analyzing the candidates' positions.
Please keep in mind, too, that all of us here are trying hard not to inject our personal political prejudices into the discussion. So, I think some of the humor and "dancing-around" the substantive issues reflects this worthy endeavor.
Thanks for your thoughtful submission.
The comedy factor will be distinctly lower though. Hopefully there is no tragedy.
They were there freely, armed with the best arguments they and their policy advisers had come up with, to make their cases as seasoned politicians, business leaders and medical professionals — the Republican Party’s “A-Team,” as one of them, Mike Huckabee, said at the outset.
And that … is frightening. Peel back the boasting and insults, the lies and exaggerations common to any presidential campaign. What remains is a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre, that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.
It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to just because you say they will.
Start with immigration, and the idea that any president could or should engineer the mass expulsion of 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Not one candidate said that a 21st-century trail of tears, deploying railroad cars, federal troops and police dogs on a continental scale, cannot happen and would be morally obscene. Ben Carson said, “If anybody knows how to do that, that I would be willing to listen.” They accepted the need to “control our borders” with a 2000-mile fence. Even Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, once an immigration moderate, endorsed the fence. Mr. Carson actually suggested two fences, for double security, with a road in between. Do these people have to be sent to the Rio Grande Valley to see how ludicrous a border fence — over mountains, vast deserts, remote valleys and private property — would be? And it won’t solve the problem they are railing against, which doesn’t exist anyway. Illegal immigration has fallen essentially to zero.
On foreign affairs, there was a lot of talk about not talking with bad people. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said his first act would be to tear up the Iran deal, throwing the nuclear race back to the ayatollahs and rupturing global alliances — but making a point! Carly Fiorina said: “What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message.”
...
Jeb Bush spun a particularly repellent fantasy. Speaking reverently of his brother the president, he said, “He kept us safe,” and invoked the carnage of 9/11. Wait, what? Did he mean George W. Bush, who was warned about the threat that Al Qaeda would attack? Who then invaded a non sequitur country, Iraq, over a nonexistent threat?
When the A-Team got around to science and health, many of them promised to help Americans by killing the program that gives millions of them medical insurance. One candidate said he felt sure that vaccines had caused an autism “epidemic.” The two doctors on the dais did not seriously challenge that persistent, dangerous myth.
Let loose by the CNN moderators, the candidates spun their visions freely. Despite an abundance of serious issues to talk about, nobody offered solutions to problems like child poverty, police and gun violence, racial segregation, educational gaps, competition in a global economy and crumbling infrastructure. On looming disasters (the changing climate) and more immediate ones (a possible government shutdown over, of all things, Planned Parenthood), the debate offered no reassurance that grownups were at the table, or even in the neighborhood.
But we did hear an idea to put Mother Teresa — Mother Teresa, a penniless nun — on our money.
It's just hilarious how all of these jokers are "going to do this" and "going to do that" without the slightest reference to the constitutional, legal and political limitations that really dictate what gets done and what doesn't. If they are not totally ignorant then they are cynically playing to a group of voters who are.
The NYT: "It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to just because you say they will."
Perhaps "hilarious" was a poor choice of words, though... "bizarre or pathetic" would probably have been more accurate.