I think Obama is incompetent AND calculated. Think about early in his presidency. He handed the Queen of England a thumb drive (or something similar) with all of his speeches on it as a gift. Was that really calculated or just plain DUMB? I say dumb.

You can argue with me about the substance of what Christie said, but as a viewer, it didn’t matter. He pointed out the repetitious quality of Rubio’s canned stuff, and it became obvious that Rubio was spewing what he memorized. Does it matter if what he memorized was correct or not? It didn’t to me. It just came across as empty. As if Rubio couldn’t come up with own words. That all that mattered.

Well, I guess you think it’s true that Obama is a bad president because of inexperience, not for any other reason.

Because that was Christie’s main message. Go back to the transcript. He makes the analogy several times. Christie’s answer to the “knave or fool?” question for Obama is: fool.

That makes Christie a fool. Rubio was trying to say that. Too bad Christie’s belittling of Rubio’s method of saying it fooled you.

I wonder: would people have liked it better if Rubio had just let the analogy of his inexperience with Obama’s inexperience—and the idea that that’s the source of Obama’s “errors”—stand? Or would it have been better if, instead of saying “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” several times, Rubio had said “Obama is aware is the meaning and consequences of his own actions, and is therefore culpable rather than incompetent?” Why is that better?

The point was that Obama is not incompetent, but that everything he’s doing is quite deliberate and designed to “fundamentally transform” a country he despises into something it was never set up to be. Why do you think the base is so lathered up about handing the Congress to the Republicans only to watch them deliberately enable everything he’s doing?

The entire field out to be pointing that out, and tarring Hillary/Bernie/Biden as Obama’s 3rd term on steroids. Only Cruz has been saying that until Rubio on Saturday, and even he ought to mention it a lot more. There are a lot of people still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for his disastrous performance because the media has portrayed him as the victim of a situation left for him by those dastardly Republicans, and that one else could have done a better job than Obama.

Any patriotic American who loves this country could have done a far superior job on ending the recession, creating the environment for job creation, forestalling the upheaval in the Middle East, protecting our liberties and defending the Constitution simply by dint of not purposefully trying to make the situation worse.

1) Trump
2) Christie
3) Cruz.

Trump was less bombastic and gave more specifics about his vision for the U.S. Maybe not as much as some would like, but much more than he has ever used in other debates. Did anyone else read the Breitbart article today about how the Bushes used eminent domain to build the stadium in Texas? LOL. I know most on here are not Jeb fans, but where was this outrage about eminent domain in 2000 when George W. was running?

Christie was GREAT. I loved everything he did. His attacks on Rubio were fantastic and on point. He should’ve been like this from the beginning. I still am sad he did not run in 2012. That was his best chance. Then he blew it when welcoming Obama to his state after the hurricane. But I want him to do well in NH, because he is great at targeting people with substance.

Cruz did exceptionally well in his foreign policy responses. He also had substantive arguments for everything. Was glad he had a great night.

BTW, did anyone else notice the class of Trump? When Carson did not hear his name called, Trump, instead of taking his place at the podium, waited in the wings until Carson got to make his entrance. For all of those who think Trump is class-less, I point to that moment as who he is beneath the bluster.

No: the question I find necessary is why would a sane people, a non-stupified people take more care with staged gameshow walk-ons than with politicians’ corn-based ethanol subsidy stances, for instance, by which means the proponents of subsidies steal tax dollars from a vast population of Americans to ‘give’ to a tiny group of others, all while driving energy and food prices higher as well as grabbing their own program ‘management’ fees along the way?

Our politics shows itself to be so degraded that often the proper questions don’t arise due to displacement by utterly inconsequential questions.

The next question is why? Why is that? Why are so many Americans so utterly ignorant of their political interests?

For example, why do so many Americans ignore the fact that a Democrat candidate ought to be in prison for treason, instead treating her as qualified for the highest office in the land? Why do so many Americans ignore that another “Democrat” candidate runs for the office of the Presidency as an avowed socialist, a hideous and failed political theory resulting only in misery and destruction on every occasion attempted?

But no, some large fraction of Americans want none of those questions. They’re instead content to focus on vicious television personalities, i.e. clever morons. But how did Americans come to favor clever morons?

Answer: they too were taught to be morons.

Next question? Who would want to teach Americans to be morons? Well, how about clever moronic power seekers who believe they know everything, but certainly do know this one little thing: that knowledge is a source of power, and hence, knowledge in others is dangerous to their own desires, the acquisition of more power?

Remember the joke about the bear. The one fellow says he doesn’t have to outrun the bear in order to avoid being eaten: he only has to outrun his companion.

The link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430898/print

One theory that would explain it is that Trump is no longer ordered as the Trojan horse to attack Carson, since Carson isn’t running in front.

Democrat engineered third party runs, like Ross P, tend to happen under Clintons.