Watched a good chunk of the GOP primary debates. The second one, not having seen the first. WHAT THE F**K!!!!!!!
Well, that's what debates are these days, aren't they? Too many, including one of my likely candidates, Ron DeSantis, felt the need to pretend Trump needed to be there and was a coward for not. Bullshit. It was a crap sandwich and I saw nothing which made me think one of them was more worthy of my vote than the other. That's not to say each wasn't more worthy than any of the abject clinical morons the Dems are suggesting might run, including the Moron In Chief that complete dumbasses actually suggested would be a better president than Trump before cheating hard enough to deny Trump a second term. No. The only Dems who were anywhere near close to being a decent choice for president left the party, because Democrats are assholes. They need to certify as assholes just to be in the party, and need an ID card with a picture of themselves with an asshole where their face is supposed to be. They don't want any of their people to be mistaken for anything other than an asshole.
Here's what needs to be done in any future debate: Those hosting and asking questions need a switch to prevent anyone not directly asked a question from being heard. When someone says, "Before I answer that I'd like to respond to the previous question posed to whomever" they should be cut off. Or if they try that after answering the specific question posed to them, they should be cut off.
There was a Latina who asked a couple of questions which were based on false premises. I don't recall at the moment and don't care to research it. It happened enough that I don't need to do so. But, when someone was asked a question with one of these false premises mentioned, no one objected. No one said "what you said isn't at all true". That concerns me. If each held to the rules, they had only a few minutes to respond, and others could chime in afterwards with an extremely small window of time to do so. But the answer doesn't matter if the question is bullshit. Those bullshit questions should have been called out.
There were three asking questions. Stuart Varney, Dana Perino and Ilia Calderon. The first two are FoxNews people and the third is from Univision. Calderon asked more bullshit questions during the period I watched (almost an hour). She seemed to be the leftist of the bunch based on the stupid things she said in the run-ups to her questions. That's fine. She can ask what she likes in any way she chooses to ask. But when she says something untrue, the respondent should be correcting her immediately and I don't believe I saw anyone do so during the period I watched. That's not on Calderon, but on the candidates.
The other two asked some questions specific to specific candidates, and I don't think any response was what I would have like to have heard in the manner I think is incredibly important for someone seeking my vote should have.
Two candidates are from my state (my new home for the last 16 months), Nicki Haley and Tim Scott. Should either emerge triumphant, I can cast my general election vote for them over any of the American hating clowns the Dems will put up for prez. But each did something I find concerning. One of the questions asked of DeSantis had to do with this question of some slaves having acquired skills while enslaved during the time prior to Emancipation. This is one of the bullshit question from Calderon, and apparently DeSantis had acknowledged this fact not long ago. Leftists and race-hustlers jumped on any who expressed this reality as if it meant the person who understands that fact is diminishing the immorality of slavery. It's how they roll, because leftists are assholes and need to demonize good people in order to deceive the stupid. Racial questions always put white people on the defensive, and more often than not, that's the point of asking them. But DeSantis should have simply said, "Well, that's true, unless we're to believe slaves were only for the most menial of tasks and never trained to serve their masters in ways they could have exploited once freed for their own benefit." That shuts down the race-baiting immediately. I don't blame any white person over being taken aback by such questions, knowing what race-hustling assholes the leftists are, but someone needs to step up and ram it back down leftist throats. It ain't hard. Just don't respect such shit.
Tim Scott found it a subject to which he needed to respond and he lost me by not saying, "Cut that shit out! Of COURSE slaves learned stuff which benefited them once emancipated! What kind of moron would think otherwise and on what factual basis??" But he didn't. He felt it necessary to assert what we all know about slavery.
Nicki Haley, on the other hand, thought she was scoring points by attacking others like DeSantis and Ramawamy. In my book, she didn't. She came off like a conservative Hillary. We don't need that. To his credit, Ramaswamy sought to remind all that everyone on stage were basically good people, and the real threat was Biden and the Democrap Party.
Bergum didn't get a lot of attention, and it's too bad. I don't see him rising from his humble state at this point, but he comported himself well. He seems a fairly sharp guy, but too little is known about him and I don't think he did anything to draw more support to him.
Pence....I can't get beyond his weak response as Indiana governor to the immoral blowback against a religious freedom act he should have pushed like a mad dog. And his weakness when he had a chance to return electoral votes many found suspicious was a travesty.
Chris Christie talks a good game and I'd have to research his record to see how accurately he presented it. He had me for about a minute years ago, but then seemed to be a piece of shit from then on.
Ramaswamy is always bold in his pronouncements, but I'm not totally sold on the guy for president despite liking him in general.
DeSantis was accused of being weak in the first debate, but in this one I found him to be very much like the Florida governor which drew me to him as a true leader. His responses never went over time and he seemed very confident and strong. I haven't seen any reviews, but I'd say he came out very well and should get a bump.
It's very difficult to get a sense of who is truly providing real plans for success. There's a lot of flowery expressions, a lot of self-promotion, and way too much stuff which doesn't serve anyone. That's what a primary debate is these days. In short, a waste of time, though I don't think they should be eliminated. I just want to see them improved so that I can get a sense of who is really worthy of my vote. These debates don't lend enough for the purpose. At least in the general, there are only two. That's better for avoiding the problems inherent in so many on stage.
So my opinion is this: Out of this debate, DeSantis is the guy. I hope, if there's a third, the field will be smaller and Trump will be among them prepared to inform us how things will be even better than the first time around. I'm still torn between him and DeSantis, yet open to be convinced any of the others might be the best choice. I don't see that happening, but it's crystal clear that either are a universe better than any asshole from the Democrat Party. They've hurt us badly enough for quite some time and there's not a one whose name is put forth who won't further harm this nation. Our only hope is from the GOP as weird as that is to say. But it's true. There's no hope for us with another Dem in the White House or in the majority of either House of Congress. That's just the fact.
4 comments:
At this point political debates are simply a joke. They allow the candidates to say and do anything regardless of how it relates to the question asked, and have no control. I agree that they need a mute switch or a Taser to keep things under control.
I agree that Vivek presents himself well, and I think he's right in how he says he'll handle various issues. Essentially he's a more grown up, more refined, more self controlled version of Trump. Anyone who supported Trump, but complains that Vivek doesn't have enough experience is simply applying a double standard.
Over all, I still think that De Santis has the best track record of actual accomplishments, although he doesn't seem to be a particularly good candidate.
At this point, my preference would be De Santis/Vivek ticket. I think that's unlikely, but I'll roll with it for now.
Your preference would be satisfactory, as it gives us a guy who performed well in a political executive position, with a "trainee", as it were, with exec experience in the private sector getting that experience some believe he should have first. I think the argument could be made that Trump has more life experience than Vivek, being much older and having encountered more of the nasty of life, but that's not a great concern for me all by itself. I've seen many speak ill of the kid and I'd love to see all criticisms addressed if at all possible. If there are no truly nasty things to hide, he should get out in front of all of it. Then, I'd like to hear someone whose job it is to dig into these people respond to his defense. To a great extent, I'd love to see that for every candidate. I don't need polling data. I need info. And that includes Trump.
For example, Haley accused DeSantis of opposing fracking and banning it in FL. That hadn't happened yet. But there was a state constitutional amendment voters approved in 2018 he promised to honor as governor. It prohibited offshore drilling and it was a consequence of a history of oil spills in waters off the Florida coast. As to fracking, he pointed to the geological make-up of FL as being less than ideal for that method. But he neither opposed off shore drilling or fracking everywhere, which as president is what is most important. There are clearly areas where those methods could and should be implemented to get us to energy independence once again. This info came out pretty quickly after the debate, and it provides clarification DeSantis hadn't the time to provide himself at the debate.
But yeah, if they don't figure out a way to keep all participants under control, it's not helping to have these circuses any more. I'd also like to see some professor-type person, who taught classes where actual debates are held, to moderate them. He should have mute buttons for each. But debate reform is a good idea if we're going to continue doing them, so that they're actual debates informing the viewers, rather than self-promo, attack adds in motion.
An article I read today pointed to the way federal law enforcement departments have been weaponized. Could have heard something about that. That would have been nice. But in short, the better the questions, the better the debate will be.
The oil drilling issue in FL seems kind of stupid to make a big deal of. The primary thing FL sells is it's coastline. It seems strange that a governor would risk that coastline for a small possibility of some oil. I agree that just because DeSantis acts one way regarding FL, it doesn't mean that he'd automatically oppose all attempts at energy independence.
As I said, the debates as currently formatted seem like a colossal waste of time.
I agree. They do nothing to improve the debate format...or rather, to force it to be what a debate is supposed to be. There's really no reason to butt in, and to wait one's turn, even if one gets few of them...as in the case of Bergum and all not invited, like Elder...demonstrates a level of decorum and graciousness which would suggest someone worth investigating. No matter how good a debate is run, one is still obliged to dig as deeply as possible on one's own to beset inform one's self before choosing anyone. Debates should be a means to that end, but they too often seem like clown shows.
And listen...I don't at all mind cheap shots. A good jab is entertaining and endearing. But to default to such in lieu of substance is an obvious ploy. I didn't like it from Christie or Haley. I don't like it from anyone. That means ANYONE. What these two said seemed planned...like they waited for the opportunity to launch. Good jabs are off the cuff, spur of the moment things which suggests something positive about the intellect of the jabber. On one level, it's an essential tool. I think most can tell the difference between a good, on the spot jab versus a pre-planned one. I like even being the VICTIM of a good insult!!! That's how much I appreciate one. Of course in an election debate I want more than just insults. I'm just saying good ones indicate something positive about a candidate.
I think it's difficult to come up with a format which properly accommodates so many participants. As I said earlier, each question which focuses on something specific to a candidate is time wasted if it precludes input by the rest. Better would be to address the issue (assuming it demands addressing at all) in a manner to which all can respond one after the other. Debates, where there are only two participants, give viewers an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of each. With more than two, time is a factor and fewer issues can be addressed. But they MUST be issue ALL can address in order to provide for the viewer which is the best choice of the bunch.
There's just too much crap upon which they waste OUR time.
Sean Hannity has brokered a debate between Ron DeSantis and the slimy scumbucket Gavin Newsome. It's supposed to happen sometime near the end of November. In listening to Hannity today, it was suggested that he arranged one-on-one debates with a variety of candidates for president. That might be the way to go, even if they fail to ask good questions.
As it stands, I'm either forcing myself to watch or hoping someone does a good analysis of what I didn't.
Post a Comment