1. Watch along with me. Comment. I'll just be expanding this numbered list of insights. What do we expect? Fireworks? Boredom? Somebody — Kasich?? — making a showy play for attention?
2. My son John is live-blogging too. I recommend that.
3. These CNBC commentators are horrible. Do they even know they're on television? Talking over each other, desperate, contentless. Ugh! They talk like they're drunk.
4. Biggest weakness? Kasich leads off by not answering the question at all, forthrightly refusing. Huckabee denies having weakness, or... he plays by the rules. Jeb says he's impatient. Rubio says he's not sure it's a weakness, but he's optimistic. Trump says he's "too trusting" and if people let him down, he never forgives. Carson says his weakness is not seeing himself in the position of President (until people convinced him). Fiorina says she was told she doesn't smile enough (and she smiles). Cruz says his biggest weakness is he's passionate, he's a fighter, and he's not the guy you want to have a beer with, but he's the one to drive you home. Christie points out the weaknesses of the Democrats. And Rand Paul complains about the budget deal, and he's beginning tomorrow to filibuster it.
5. Trump is asked if his campaign is a cartoon, and he says that's not a very nice question.
6. Carly wants the tax code reduced to 3 pages (from 73,000). The moderators are interrupting and arguing way too much.
7. Big cheer for Rubio's criticism of the Sun Sentinel for being biased in favor of Democrats. Jeb gets on Rubio for missing Senate votes, and Rubio catches him for hypocrisy.
8. Cruz launches into a criticism of the questions the moderators have asked so far. It's a vivid indictment and it gets a big cheer. This interchange ends in near chaos. Cruz really tried to intimidate the moderators.
9. This debate is so stressful and ugly. The moderators are so disrespectful and the candidates are all yelling. Almost all. Carson will never yell.
10. The audience (at the University of Colorado in Boulder) showed tremendous support for Ben Carson. It cheered wildly when he attacked the questioners for criticizing his "vetting process" because he didn't prevent a webpage from using a photograph of him.
11. Trump goes on about those terrible super PACs. And Rubio says: "The Democrats have the greatest super PAC. It's called the mainstream media." That gets a big cheer from the audience.
12. Subsidies are "a bunch of crap," says Carson.
13. Christie is highly critical of the moderators: "Even in New Jersey, what you're doing is rude."
14. Rand Paul wants "a government so small you can barely see it."
15. "In your heart of hearts, you can't wait to hear a debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina," says Carly Fiorina.
16. Ben Carson thanks the audience for being so attentive.
17. Trump will make good deals for America because he made the deal that got the debate reduced from 3 hours to 2.
18. Who did best? Maybe Christie. Maybe Cruz.
19. Did anyone even mention Ronald Reagan tonight? What happened? That was weird.
October 28, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239It is time for the field to be winnowed. Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina are the only candidates left with a path to the nomination. Having the rest up there only adds to the circus atmosphere the media try to create at these events.
These 5 should tell the RNC to stuff the debate schedule they arranged. It is clear the RNC would like at least 4 of those candidates to disappear. They should set up their own debate schedule. Sell the rights to the networks to carry the debates and split the money between them like the NFL splits it's TV contract revenue among the teams.
Trump and Fiorina are the only two in that group that could pull something like that off.
I like Erick Erickson's assessment of the moderators: “CNBC could have saved themselves and the Republican Party a lot of money by hiring actual monkeys to fling their pooh at the candidates."
Cruz and Rubio had the best take-downs of their interrogators, but that moment when John Harwood, getting desperate, said something like "doesn't that raise questions about your vetting process?" when Carson said someone must have used his picture without his authorization...that was pathetic. The audience roared its displeasure, and Carson didn't answer the stupid question. He just laughed and said "They know."
While the moderators were horrendous, I don't think all the media slams help make the case for the ideas they want to implement.
Might work for the primaries, but constant complaining about the referee is what the losing team always does. Why start out acting like the loser?
Cruz and Rubio are not even eligible natural born Citizens. They are naturalized at birth by statute (Rubio 8 US Code S. 1401(1), and Cruz 8 US Code S. 1401(g))
Notwithstanding the curiously and recently added August 2013 State Dept regulation that those made citizens abroad by 8 US Code S. 1401 "are not considered naturalized" (7 FAM 1131.6-3), or that the 14th Amendment is not a vehicle of naturalization for those born of less than 2 US Citizen parents in the US (7 FAM 1131.6-1), both the 14th Amendment and 8 US Code S. 1401 are NATURALIZATION statutes enacted by Congress via the necessary and proper exercise of the power to enact uniform immigration and naturalization law.
The definition of "naturalization" established by INS 1952 and still used by the State Dept. today is the "conference of citizenship by any means whatsoever". That means the statutes and Amendments themselves NATURALIZE BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER. The 14th Amendment did not make the freed black slaves natural born Citizens eligible to be POTUS, it made them "citizens of the US".
Anyone who is not born in the US to US Citizen parents (the natural born Citizens who need no statute to "naturalize them"-- and that it why there is no statute) are naturalized either by statute or oath. at the beginning of the Republic (1789) there were only 2 types of US Citizens. The natural born Citizens, born of adherents to the Declaration of Independence, since 1776, and the residents of the new states who were NATURALIZED when their state ratified the new US Const. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 was the first naturalization statute ("or a citizen of the US at the time of the ratification of this Constitution."). There was no other naturalization statute until a year later. They did not define natural born Citizen (no term in the Constitution is "defined" by it) because it was a well known term of art of the Original Common Law (natural law or law of nations), i.e "one born in a country of parents who are its citizens".
The original naturalization statutes did not confer citizenship on those born of aliens within the US until their parents naturalized (w/in the child's minority) after a 2 year residence requirement (SEE NA 1802 S. 4). Anyone born in Marco Rubio's situation (2 US resident alien parents in US territory) was not a US Citizen until the parents naturalized, and this was the practice until 1898, after the 14th Amendment (1866), with the holding of Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 @693 (1898), that those born to LEGAL RESIDENT ALIEN parents are US Citizens because the legal habitation of the parents created an allegiance to the host country that was passed to the child, making them subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That SCOTUS construed the 14th Amendment as a vehicle of naturalization,
It is impossible to think therefore that Rubio was of the class of natural born Citizens thought of in the Original constitution, and A2S1C5 has never been amended, therefore he is not a natural born Citizen today.
As for Cruz, a person born in his situation-- to 1 US Citizen mother and foreign father in a foreign Country--- would not have been considered a US Citizen and would have had to naturalize by oath. That practice ended with the Cable Act (1934), which allowed US Citizen mothers to pass along US Citizenship to children born abroad, since they would be born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th Amendment." (now codified at 8 US code S. 1401(g)). Again, it is impossible to think the un-amended A2S1C5 would have considered Cruz a natural born Citizen when he would bot have been considered even a US Citizen at the time he was born until 1934.
"You refer to Carly Fiorina as "Carly" in paragraph 6, but don't refer to any other candidate by their first name only. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it just jumped out at me immediately."
Not so. I call Jeb by his first name.
Note the difference between distinctive and nondistinctive first names. Mike, Ben. Doesn't make sense to use those.
It's mostly a matter of using the more distinctive name. And somehow I feel it's necessary to use Rand Paul's full name.
I resist calling Trump "The Donald." I've always disliked that. Calling him just Donald seems silly.
Wow..find myself kinda agreeing with Garagey on Cruz' moment. Great observation as it was , I felt him lose some gravitas when he burned his time, then got indignant about not being allowed to answer...highlighting both his strength and weakness.
"""I'd rather troll under the bridge being crossed by the best comedic material in America..."""
Then go there.
You can tell the debates were a success by the childish comments of our lefty participants.
Please, please ,please nominate Hillary.
Or that old Bolshevik, Bernie.
Hell.
Even that guy that can't keep his clothes on.
AReasonableMan said...
I don't get Ben Carson. What is his appeal?
Well. Unlike the current resident, he's a brain surgeon. So he's not only smart, he understands what it's like to work for a living. Unlike the current resident.
And from my point of view.
He actually is the only virgin in the whorehouse that is politics.
Jeb's first name is John.
Rusty said...
He actually is the only virgin in the whorehouse that is politics.
So, Snow White and the Fifteen Whores? That sounds more like a fairy tale than a rational analysis.
When Cramer popped up, I really felt he should have his array of sound effect buttons.
"our cause"
Jeb's first name is John.
No wonder he's so boring.
John!
"constant complaining about the referee is what the losing team always does."
Not only the losing team. Watching basketball for many years showed me how often winners complained about referees. Jordan always had something to say after almost every call. Complaining about referees is what competitors do, because they're going to work for every advantage and push back against any resistance.
So, Snow White and the Fifteen Whores? That sounds more like a fairy tale than a rational analysis.
He's the sensible outsider alternative to Trump. He also works as a wedge against racial issues when the Dems are throwing out Lilly White and Grandpa Sanders.
I think Rubio ultimately has the best shot at the nomination. He has time to tack to the right a bit on immigration, to help ameliorate the right-wing base. With him though, it's doubtful we'd get a Susana Martinez VP selection, who I think would help.
Fiorina would probably be the VP choice to combat Hillary.
I don't think Sanders will be the Dem VP choice. He's too old, too white, and too Northeastern. If Hill is smart she'll try to seek out someone younger and either Southern or Western.
Not only the losing team. Watching basketball for many years showed me how often winners complained about referees. Jordan always had something to say after almost every call. Complaining about referees is what competitors do, because they're going to work for every advantage and push back against any resistance.
ARM isn't a Republican primary voter who wants to empathize with his/her choice. Cruz played perfectly into the mindset of his intended audience. Won't hurt him a bit.
Harwood the hack.
“Harwood did something extraordinary. He lied about Rubio’s tax plan in the exact same way not once but twice — once at the debate and once about two weeks before the debate. What made it extraordinary was that Harwood had apologized for that same lie the first time on Twitter on October 14 and then lied again Wednesday night as if he didn’t remember his own apology and correction.”
The Cracker Emcee said...
Maybe in comparison to the assembly-line sort of blue collar work, but the mass of white-collar workers are ridden far harder and subjected to far more stress than the skilled working-class heroes of the trades.
walter said...
Retirement age as class issue... Any talk of increase has always been marginal/incremental..especially in context of increasing health/lifespans since these "entitlements" were enacted.
But yes..not getting so damn obese helps the knees...that's Huckerbee's thang.
While it is true that age at death has increased steadily, the aging process has not changed significantly. There is no cure for aging. Sixty year old knees are still sixty year old knees. It remains unreasonable to compare someone who is a manual laborer with an office work when trying to assess the effect of increasing the retirement age.
You both greatly underestimate the stress associated with working outside in any weather conditions compared to working in air conditioned comfort.
Sixty year old knees are still sixty year old knees. It remains unreasonable to compare someone who is a manual laborer
Wouldn't most manual laborers by the time they are sixty be promoted into management? I don't have a complete view of the subject matter but all of the older physical laborers in my extended family have moved up into oversight work rather than doing the work the young guys do.
To have 60 year old men doing that type of backbreaking labor is highly inefficient. Any company that would employ men in such a way would be much less productive and less successful than their competitors.
EMD said...
Wouldn't most manual laborers by the time they are sixty be promoted into management? I don't have a complete view of the subject matter but all of the older physical laborers in my extended family have moved up into oversight work rather than doing the work the young guys do.
To have 60 year old men doing that type of backbreaking labor is highly inefficient. Any company that would employ men in such a way would be much less productive and less successful than their competitors.
You only need a small number of managers relative to worker bees which is why older manual laborers tend to be unemployed and more dependent on welfare. The increase in disability payments partly reflects this reality. An increase in the retirement age would disproportionally affect these people.
Again ARM, any discussion of raising ages on elder entitlements have been about small amounts over time. Even taking your construction examples into consideration, considering the aging terrain when enacted, health and longevity have increased. But I would also like to see the percentage of retirement age labor that is in these manual labor positions you speak of before using that as a significant reason to ignore the former.
CNBC ought get rid of talking heads and just run the market tickers all day.
walter said...
health and longevity have increased
Longevity has increased, no doubt, but aging remains largely unchanged especially for workers who have difficult manual jobs that produce wear and tear on their bodies. As this discussion shows quite clearly, this is a class issue, with the burden of increasing the retirement age falling disproportionally on those least able to cope.
yOu can assert that health (workable years) hasn't increased..but do you have data? And again..any talk has been tinkering around the margins. But I can see you really NEED to make this a class warfare issue. Same old game.
Wouldn't it be fairer to means test entitlements rather than increase the age of eligibility?
Ultimately, robots will change everything.
Only those who believe that government is the end-all believe the government can provide any sense of "Fairness."
Will likely have to do both ARM. It would also be wise to have a portion of SS in the market to get some sort of real return. But the left has made even a small amount a third rail item..
walter said...
But the left has made even a small amount a third rail item..
I think the Bush Financial Crisis did that, without any help from the left.
Bush's fault! Good one. Barney has a big wet kiss for ya.
There goes ARM, acting like the financial crisis was Bush's fault, and only Bush's fault, and if not for that, SS wouldn't be the "third rail" it is today. How divorced from reality can one become before they spin off into another plane of existence?
What happened to 'the buck stops here'?
That went out of fashion after Obama started learning new things about the shit his administration was doing every day from the news.
AReasonableMan said...
"Wouldn't it be fairer to means test entitlements rather than increase the age of eligibility?"
Realistic solutions that don't involve printing money or Trillion dollar deficits would require both.
The other issue that would have to be dealt with is that if you took the SS money and put it in a private account invested in T Bonds you would get 2 or 3 times the amount out at age 65 than the current system.
AReasonableMan said...
"What happened to 'the buck stops here'?"
That only works if you want a facile talking point. If you want to actually look at the cause of the problem, and find workable solutions that actually benefit Americans you have to look at banking regulation and fanny/freddy.
If you just want a bludgeon to get crony democrats elected who enrich the same banks and loaning institutions that caused the mess you say it is Bush's fault.
AReasonableMan said...
"What happened to 'the buck stops here'?"
Ain't no way Obama was ever going near that phrase and its racist overtones.
Wow, that's the description? If you only read that, you'd have no idea how on fire Cruz was and how terse the back and forth was with the snarky "questioner".
A much better approach is done by certain blogs who just give an update every 10 or 15 minutes with some detailed highlights, rather than try and fail to give a point by point blow by blow. And I don't think John is trying to downplay Cruz or bury what Cruz is saying, in a defense of the Dems, it's just that he's using the wrong format.
No, I was trying to downplay Cruz. As I said, I thought it was a contrived attempt to have a "moment." He was acting ridiculous by trying to call out the moderators for asking non-substantive questions, while spending all his time on frivolity instead of answering his substantive economic question. I find it absurd that he's gotten so much praise for rehashing Newt Gingrich's approach to debates from 2012 of bashing the moderators for not treating the candidates more gently. The candidates should answer whatever tough questions they get, instead of whining about the questions. (And to suggest that the Democrats didn't get tough questions is simply false.)
I choose to use my live-blog format because many people enjoy it, and the fact that you disagreed with me on one candidate's answer is not a reason for me to switch to a different format. I actually don't like when live-bloggers wait 10 or 15 minutes and try to give me a general impression of what's been going on; I don't trust those impressions, and the debate moves too quickly for that. I want to catch the details.
"to suggest that the Democrats didn't get tough questions is simply false"
I probably forgot..but what questions were posed to Dems to get them to turn on each other?
I agree that Cruz spent some gravitas grandstanding about the lame questions..but I still se a significant difference in the angularity of questions vs the Dem debate.
Post a Comment