This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""

jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (8 posts)

Was there anything worth hearing last night during the GOP debate?

  1. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 2 years ago

    Was there anything worth hearing last night during the GOP debate?

    I missed it. Is there anything that made it worth seeing? The only clips I see are Trump being arrogant about O'Donnell. Tell me there was something more that wasn't just about how cocky Trump is.

  2. dashingscorpio profile image89
    dashingscorpioposted 2 years ago

    You didn't miss anything.
    Every candidate bragged about what they had achieve in their lifetime, slammed Obama, and Clinton along with the current status of the nation. Very few specifics were given. A lot of over promising.
    Christie and Rand Paul got into it a little bit.
    Having 10 people on stage limits screen time to for each candidate to be asked the same amount of questions and given equal time.
    A big deal was made out of Trump refusing to rule out running as a third party candidate. From his point of view it's his only "trump card" to keep conservative media, the Koch brothers, and the other candidates from going full bore and attacking him during the campaign to eliminate him.
    "If I'm not treated well then I may consider it."
    I don't believe he wants to sabotage his own party but by the same token he wants to win or lose the nomination without them personally attacking him by what he feels may be underhanded tactics.
    Essentially he's the kid with the ball threatening to take it home if the other kids don't allow him to play. smile

  3. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    The bigger question is there anything worth seeing on the TV news?
    My answer is NO.

  4. connorj profile image75
    connorjposted 2 years ago

    Indeed there was a significant amount of specifics debated. Contrare to what some have texted there was significant substance. Yet as a psychologist I am well aware some only hear what they want to. Rubio shined; yet that woman contender stole the early show and was specific with the first two calls she would make her first day in office... I love the statement that Gentle Ben made about race, color etc. linking to the brain. Other than the uncertainty of how Trump will react if he does not win the nomination am excited about both the depth of the Republican candidates and the reversal of the Iran deal to be honest.

    1. dashingscorpio profile image89
      dashingscorpioposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What were some of the "specifics"? Most of the talk was about what is wrong and individual past achievements, I was listening for alternative ways to fix healthcare, immigration, social security/Meidcare. Rubio & Kasich came off well.

    2. profile image0
      PeterStipposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If you say that the debate had significant substance and you are a psychologist I wonder about the level of study you've done. I guess education is the first thing the next president should attend to !!!

    3. connorj profile image75
      connorjposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Did you not associate all of the relevant and numerous substantive points with your grey matter? Perhaps without association it indeed went in one ear and out the other...

  5. Ericdierker profile image57
    Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago

    Most assuredly what was worth hearing was that there was a debate. I heard reports that many people tuned into watch it rather than reruns of mind numbing reality TV shows. A miracle of sorts. Having debates bodes very well for a society having them. And holy cow some people are talking about it rather than the latest no talent big butt diva.
    Nothing in a debate has later context. Like an interview it comes down to snippets and one liners that can be headlined and quoted. What is worth noting is if some of the candidates are too lame to grasp that. If they actually believe that a debate with ten people on national TV is the place to "get down to business" I do not want them as my chief executive.
    So to me what is worth noting is who improved in the stupid polls. After all if they cannot do well in that simple task they are not competent.