Debate Now Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't paying close attention at the time, but I believe I heard the folks on Fox News' "The Five" talking about the first GOP debate scheduled in just eleven weeks. And how the rule is that the field allowed into the debate will be narrowed down to ten determined by the ten guys--so far no gals would be qualified--who are polling the strongest. Personally I think that sucks because we need to hear from those who aren't already on everybody's bucket list at this time. Of course those the people are most familiar with are going to poll higher than the lesser well knowns.

For instance how do we get Carly Forina's name to become a household name if she isn't allowed any exposure. I have been sufficiently impressed with her that I am sure she is preferable to a lot of those guys if she is just given a platform to make her case.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

At heart, we're all libertarians to some degree. According to you, there are pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage conservatives.

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

Well, here is what you said a conservative is:


The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

The right is all over the map on that one too [gay marriage].

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that [immigration].

So, apparently since I believe in a woman's right to privacy, am pro equal rights for SSM and think that the immigration remedies bandied about are total nonsense, I apparently am a conservative; .

Rules for this thread per the OP:

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread....

So which GOP or libertarian candidate do you support?

 

[Foxfyre]

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

At heart, we're all libertarians to some degree. According to you, there are pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage conservatives.

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

Well, here is what you said a conservative is:


The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

The right is all over the map on that one too [gay marriage].

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that [immigration].

So, apparently since I believe in a woman's right to privacy, am pro equal rights for SSM and think that the immigration remedies bandied about are total nonsense, I apparently am a conservative; .

Rules for this thread per the OP:

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread....

So which GOP or libertarian candidate do you support?

Lately it's been John McCain; scores of State level GOP leaders both here and when I was in Texas (Jon Lindsay chief amongst them).

What candidates have you supported or are you the only one who gets to ask questions? Yes, by all means, lets all have to reveal who we voted for. What could be more "American" than that????

Look, you stated the critera for what the "right" believes....according to you, since I believe some of those things I can be considered to be a member of the "right" as well. Or is there some other discriminatory clause?

I am not supporting any yet. But I am on record at USMB as a Tea Party supporter, I support libertarian views, I will be voting in the GOP prrimary election,, and, though I don't know who he or she is yet, it is highly likely that I will be voting for a Republican in the 2016 Presidential election.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

At heart, we're all libertarians to some degree. According to you, there are pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage conservatives.

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

Well, here is what you said a conservative is:


The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

The right is all over the map on that one too [gay marriage].

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that [immigration].

So, apparently since I believe in a woman's right to privacy, am pro equal rights for SSM and think that the immigration remedies bandied about are total nonsense, I apparently am a conservative; .

Rules for this thread per the OP:

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread....

So which GOP or libertarian candidate do you support?

Is there a defined list of Tea Party Candidates ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

At heart, we're all libertarians to some degree. According to you, there are pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage conservatives.

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

Well, here is what you said a conservative is:


The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

The right is all over the map on that one too [gay marriage].

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that [immigration].

So, apparently since I believe in a woman's right to privacy, am pro equal rights for SSM and think that the immigration remedies bandied about are total nonsense, I apparently am a conservative; .

Rules for this thread per the OP:

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread....

So which GOP or libertarian candidate do you support?

Is there a defined list of Tea Party Candidates ?

Nope. Just those who embrace libertarian concepts and principles that the Tea Party is pushing for; i.e. smaller, limited, efficient, effective government, no more taxes than absolutely necessary, and a return to Constitutional limits on government. The Tea Party doesn't care what party a candidate joins up with; only what they expect of candidates they support.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

At heart, we're all libertarians to some degree. According to you, there are pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage conservatives.

Still waiting for candycorn to affirm that he/she is a GOP, libertarian, or Tea Party supporter.

Well, here is what you said a conservative is:


The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

The right is all over the map on that one too [gay marriage].

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that [immigration].

So, apparently since I believe in a woman's right to privacy, am pro equal rights for SSM and think that the immigration remedies bandied about are total nonsense, I apparently am a conservative; .

Rules for this thread per the OP:

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread....

So which GOP or libertarian candidate do you support?

Is there a defined list of Tea Party Candidates ?

Nope. Just those who embrace libertarian concepts and principles that the Tea Party is pushing for; i.e. smaller, limited, efficient, effective government, no more taxes than absolutely necessary, and a return to Constitutional limits on government. The Tea Party doesn't care what party a candidate joins up with; only what they expect of candidates they support.

O.K. Thanks.

I recall reading that there was a Tea Party Caucus but that the leaders of the Tea Party (or it's more outspoken voices) didn't like it thinking it to be an effort by the GOP to co-opt the Tea Party name.

Unfortunately, this is where some of the bad press for the Tea Party comes from.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Candy go back to your tribe of malcontents and equivocators.You have no good intentions here, you seek only to disrupt what has been a strong thread so far. I know you just can't stand republicans having the kind of in depth substantial conversations that your comrades on this website are incapable of, but we are not bothering you so please leave and respect the rules for,this thread. I am sure the mods would agree.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Soooooo......

Why don't you run a straw poll and see who the conservatives/TP elect ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Soooooo......

Why don't you run a straw poll and see who the conservatives/TP elect ?

Why don't you start your own thread and do that? This thread is devoted intentionally to those who intend to support a GOP candidate and who are not anti-Tea Party types. I didn't get the impression that the OP requires Tea Party support but was intended to exclude those who are anti-Tea Party or anti-conservative or anti- GOP so that everybody else can really objectively discuss the candidates.

As one who is proactively a Tea Partier, I can say without hesitation that most of the Tea Party groups have chosen to try to reform the GOP rather than try to organize and make a third party viable. The GOP old guard of course has not appreciated the Tea Party endorsed candidates and at times have attempted to marginalize them.

I still remember Lindsay Graham recently saying, on television, that any of the GOP hopefuls would make a much better President than Hillary Clinton, except for Ted Cruz. Honestly, if Graham won the nomination, I don't know if I could hold my nose tightly enough to vote for him.

Latest polling results definitely show Carson and Huckabee's fortunes rising. Walker and Rubio are definitely still in there but both have lost some ground recently as others come on board. As the dust is nowhere near settling yet, it is impossible to know who will emerge as the real front runners later on.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 Presidential Polls

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

 

[Papageorgio]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Not a bad idea, but I would worry that we'd hear too much from the same candidates.

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Not a bad idea, but I would worry that we'd hear too much from the same candidates.

But at least we would hear from them unfiltered and hopefully unscripted. For the most part the debates are nothing but a group Q & A press conference with the most charismatic or controversial candidates getting most of the questions. And those questions are answered with memorized scripted sound bites. They are essentially useless in assessing a candidate's qualifications and temperament for the job and generally consciously or unconsciously serve to create negative impressions of the GOP overall because they pit candidate against candidate instead of encouraging constructive dialogue.

 

[Papageorgio]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Not a bad idea, but I would worry that we'd hear too much from the same candidates.

But at least we would hear from them unfiltered and hopefully unscripted. For the most part the debates are nothing but a group Q & A press conference with the most charismatic or controversial candidates getting most of the questions. And those questions are answered with memorized scripted sound bites. They are essentially useless in assessing a candidate's qualifications and temperament for the job and generally consciously or unconsciously serve to create negative impressions of the GOP overall because they pit candidate against candidate instead of encouraging constructive dialogue.

True, would a three panel debate in the first round and the winner goes to the next round with a two in each debate?

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Not a bad idea, but I would worry that we'd hear too much from the same candidates.

But at least we would hear from them unfiltered and hopefully unscripted. For the most part the debates are nothing but a group Q & A press conference with the most charismatic or controversial candidates getting most of the questions. And those questions are answered with memorized scripted sound bites. They are essentially useless in assessing a candidate's qualifications and temperament for the job and generally consciously or unconsciously serve to create negative impressions of the GOP overall because they pit candidate against candidate instead of encouraging constructive dialogue.

True, would a three panel debate in the first round and the winner goes to the next round with a two in each debate?

Not sure what you mean by a three panel debate, but say Bill and Joe are polling the lowest in the current polls so each would be paired against a front runner just like it is in March madness. Whoever was judged to win the debate would move on to debate the winner of another debate. The candidate with the most convincing answers and who answered the questions most directly without a lot of propaganda rhetoric would be the winner. But at least the lowest ranked guy, if he loses, would have gotten some serious face time on TV that he won't get if only the top 10 get to debate. And if the lowest rank wins, then good for him/her. The top ranked guys already get a lot of interviews and other face time so it wouldn't hurt them all that much to lose. But it would give the lesser knowns at least an opportunity to become better known.

 

[Papageorgio]

I was thinking three candidate debate. For the first round then two candidates the next rounds . It would help narrow the field quicker.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was thinking three candidate debate. For the first round then two candidates the next rounds . It would help narrow the field quicker.

Oh I see. That would be an option but I want substance, not quick. The dark horses need that face time and an opportunity to be heard or we will never have a chance to elect any fresh faces but will just keep re-electing from the same narrow group of candidates just because they have name recognition.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Not a bad idea, but I would worry that we'd hear too much from the same candidates.

Well, lets say you have 16 candidates, You go from 16-8-4-2. The "winner" would get 4x amount of air time that the 8 first round losers received. You end up with 15 debates which is more than they have scheduled now but at the same time, you end up with primaries ongoing during the 15 debates....

So, lets say that Perry flames out in the first round but goes on to win the Texas primary on 3/1/16. There is a mathematics that support the winner of the Texas primary which has 155 delegates being the leader after Super Tuesday. But he flamed out in the first debate. Are you going to keep the delegate leader off the debate stage in the interest of determining a "winner"? If I'm Perry, I wouldn't go anywhere near a debate if I'm leading in delegates. It certainly is not true that the debate winners always win at the ballot box. Ask Nixon.

I think you'd hold the debates before any primaries.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Are these going to be debates or the same crapp we have to put up with now ?

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Are these going to be debates or the same crapp we have to put up with now ?

The way it is currently scheduled it will be the same old same old scripted Q&A. The way I am suggesting, it would be real debates. The candidates would be given topics to debate or would agree on the topics and would flip a coin to see who went first. They could ask each other questions or ask each other for clarification on this or that, but there would be no moderator with the usual 'gotcha' questions and who avoids anything that would allow the candidates to shine. There would only be a panel of objective judges to judge the debate and rule on a winner and a referee who would not participate or ask questions but would be the time keeper to ensure each candidate got equal time. Maybe each candidate in the debate could choose a couple of topics to address to make sure each candidate could choose the issue in his/her platform that s/he cared the most about.

I am guessing that CSpan would jump at the chance to host the debates and could probably furnish the objective judges to judge them.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Why not let the lesser candidates get together and buy their own hour. They would only have to stop some of the mailings to save some money. This would also weed out the pretenders. Have an Internet debate. Or persuade someone like Hannity to have one hour a week for any candidate to be questioned by one of his famous panels. He should get an Emmy for some of his panel conversations. Never happen. Or better yet have each candidate have a mock debate against a Hilary Clinton clone, now that would shake things up. Be creative and stop whining.