A "liberal's" perspective on last night's GOP debate

[TemplarKormac]

Getting a liberal's perspective on conservatism is like asking a dog to see from the perspective a cat. It's flatly impossible.

So, why have a debate on a channel with widely know liberal bias?

I heard that Trump stated that ONLY proven republican voting questioners should be the moderators for GOP debates........Well, talk about the divisiveness that Obama has been accused of, don't you think?

We used to have presidents of ALL Americans......

"I heard"

You'll need to do better than that. It isn't hard to see when a president only has the interests of one half of the country in mind, in contrary to the whole.

 

[rdean]

Kasich appealed to liberals for some of the same reasons Jim Webb did not.

And what reason is that?

 

[rdean]

Getting a liberal's perspective on conservatism is like asking a dog to see from the perspective a cat. It's flatly impossible.

So, why have a debate on a channel with widely know liberal bias?

I heard that Trump stated that ONLY proven republican voting questioners should be the moderators for GOP debates........Well, talk about the divisiveness that Obama has been accused of, don't you think?

We used to have presidents of ALL Americans......

"I heard"

You'll need to do better than that. It isn't hard to see when a president only has the interests of one half of the country in mind, in contrary to the whole.

Or a party who met in secret and plotted to bring down a president the day before he was even sworn in. Pretty nasty people, wouldn't you agree?

 

[nat4900]

Or a party who met in secret and plotted to bring down a president the day before he was even sworn in. Pretty nasty people, wouldn't you agree?

Of course we may disagree with a president's policies, BUT to actually plot to bring down a duly-elected president smacks a bit of treason.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Or a party who met in secret and plotted to bring down a president the day before he was even sworn in. Pretty nasty people, wouldn't you agree?

Of course we may disagree with a president's policies, BUT to actually plot to bring down a duly-elected president smacks a bit of treason.

And who here is plotting to take him down? Instead of lamenting on it, report them to the feds!

No really. I'm under the impression you are accusing people who oppose his policies of somehow being treasonous.

It would be in your best interest to clarify yourself.

Believe it or not, he's gotten away with things that would have gotten any other president impeached.

 

[nat4900]

And who here is plotting to take him down? Instead of lamenting on it, report them to the feds!

No really. I'm under the impression you are accusing people who oppose his policies of somehow being treasonous.

It would be in your best interest to clarify yourself.

Believe it or not, he's gotten away with things that would have gotten any other president impeached.

Well, plotting pretty much stopped after Obama SECOND win of the WH.....now its just bitching and moaning from the side-lines and morons "dreaming" of an impeachment that would never come........You should realize that, if he could run, Obama stands a decent chance of a 3rd term, don't you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And who here is plotting to take him down? Instead of lamenting on it, report them to the feds!

No really. I'm under the impression you are accusing people who oppose his policies of somehow being treasonous.

It would be in your best interest to clarify yourself.

Believe it or not, he's gotten away with things that would have gotten any other president impeached.

Well, plotting pretty much stopped after Obama SECOND win of the WH.....now its just bitching and moaning from the side-lines and morons "dreaming" of an impeachment that would never come........You should realize that, if he could run, Obama stands a decent chance of a 3rd term, don't you?

So then how can you go accusing people of treason then?

Is it treason to oppose the president now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And who here is plotting to take him down? Instead of lamenting on it, report them to the feds!

No really. I'm under the impression you are accusing people who oppose his policies of somehow being treasonous.

It would be in your best interest to clarify yourself.

Believe it or not, he's gotten away with things that would have gotten any other president impeached.

You should realize that, if he could run, Obama stands a decent chance of a 3rd term, don't you?

I bet he'd try with an executive order

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you went from accusing people of actively committing treason for mounting opposition to the president to

"Oh that stopped when he won his second term."

You're a clown, I'll give you that.

 

[PredFan]

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

Well, the MAIN problem with Cruz, is that he'd argue about the existence of gravity. No one will work with the guy since he has an extremely poor attitude and his policies are way off-the-wall.

We conservatives aren't looking to "work with" the left.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So...PC was right. Liberals do hate free speech. Opposing a government policy is essentially free speech. Liberals like nat4900 call it treason.

Let that sink in.

 

[PredFan]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

EVERY SINGLE TIME. Just because the wrong side won, which happens a lot in Washington, doesn't mean Cruz wasn't right.

 

[PredFan]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

It is funny when a Leftnutter thinks they can objectively and thoughtfully critique the Rs.

I am fully capable of critiquing Ted Cruz

You are confusing "capable of" with "allowed to be".

 

[nat4900]

So then how can you go accusing people of treason then?

Is it treason to oppose the president now?

If your reading comprehension could improve a bit, you'd realize that I never stated that to oppose a president was treason.....HOWEVER, to plot to undermine a president may well be treasonous. Surely there's a grown up around your trailer park to explain the difference to you.

 

[nat4900]

We conservatives aren't looking to "work with" the left.

Thank goodness for that........Never liked tea bags anyway.

 

[nat4900]

So...PC was right. Liberals do hate free speech. Opposing a government policy is essentially free speech. Liberals like nat4900 call it treason.

No, NO.......I'm ALL for free speech.....otherwise I couldn't label you the moron that you surely are.

 

[nat4900]

EVERY SINGLE TIME. Just because the wrong side won, which happens a lot in Washington, doesn't mean Cruz wasn't right.

Yep, sort of like this character.......

 

[Wildman]

...exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

hell.., they are doing that without supporting Mrs. Blow Job...!

 

[GWV5903]

sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

What's there to stand up to?

Really? What's her record?

Failed US Senator from NY, remember she voted to support the Iraq War!

Failed SOS, Libya is a disaster...

Can you list anything she improved?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So then how can you go accusing people of treason then?

Is it treason to oppose the president now?

If your reading comprehension could improve a bit, you'd realize that I never stated that to oppose a president was treason.....HOWEVER, to plot to undermine a president may well be treasonous. Surely there's a grown up around your trailer park to explain the difference to you.

I'm of the mind that "oppose" and "plot" mean the same thing to people like you. Treason under US law means conspiring to A) aid or comfort an enemy of the government, or B) attempting to overthrow the government of the US. That's cute. Using the political process to undermine the president or anyone else in the government isn't a new thing, nor treason.

Oh, and I know people in trailer parks smarter then you, dumbass.