Winners:
Fiorina - hands down winner of early debate and would have won main event as well
Cruz - held firm to his conservative principles, took on McConnell and stayed above the fray
Rubio - opening and closing statements were best of the night, but I'm wary that he's just another politician

Held Their Own:
Jindal - laid out a decent vision, stayed on point, hit most of the conservative points and seemed sincere
Carson - got lost a little bit but had great closing statement and didn't flinch. The bar of expectation was pretty low for him
Santorum - talked about the middle class, which unfortunately got lost in his other rhetoric. Relied too much as his DC insider

Loser
Perry - he needed to have a strong performance and he didn't. Fiorina steamrolled that first debate and Perry didn't come close in comparison
Paul - I had high hopes for Paul, but he was too combative and didn't stay on message. His counter-punching came across as angry
Walker - didn't give anyone a reason to vote for him. Looks like his high point was his speech when he launched his campaign
Graham - too much focus on 'boots on the ground' as the only way to defeat ISIS. Got in some good jabs at Hillary, but an angry warhawk
Christie - Paul did damage with the NSA back and forth and Christie lost that and couldn't recover. Might have played in 2004, not 2016
Bush - if you liked him before, he didn't lose ground. If you weren't already a supporter, he did nothing to improve his standing, and he needed to
Huckabee - about the only one to focus exclusively on social issues, but polls show those issues aren't that important in this electon

Won some - Lost some
Trump - looked like the non-politician that he was. The Rosie comment was gold but, unfortunately, it was his high-point last night.
Kasich - came across as the moderate that he is. Just like Romney, Dole and the Bushs'. A proven losing strategy for Republicans at the national level


Bottom Line

Base on what I saw last night, I would vote for Fiorina, Cruz, Jindal and Carson. Might vote for Santorum, Walker, Paul, Rubio and Trump. Would not vote for any of the rest.

^^^^
What will you do when Jeb is the nominee: Hold your nose & vote, or stay home?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As an atheist, I pray to sense and reason."
~ Anonymous

The only winners were the commercials.
These buffoons made Nixon look Presidential. And he's dead.

Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> What will you do when Jeb is the nominee: Hold
> your nose & vote, or stay home?
>

Stay home. I see him as no different than Hillary for the most part, just that Hillary will take us over the cliff a little faster. For the middle class and for conservatives, we need someone to turn the car around, not slow it down or even stop it where it is. For us, the country needs to head in the other direction. Bush won't do that. I don't even think he'll stop the car, just slow it down a little. No more globalists, they've done enough damage to the middle class.

Middle Class Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stay home. I see him as no different than Hillary
> for the most part, just that Hillary will take us
> over the cliff a little faster. For the middle
> class and for conservatives, we need someone to
> turn the car around, not slow it down or even stop
> it where it is. For us, the country needs to head
> in the other direction. Bush won't do that. I
> don't even think he'll stop the car, just slow it
> down a little. No more globalists, they've done
> enough damage to the middle class.

I hear this sort of "take us over the cliff", "turn the car around", "head in the other direction", "stop the car" rhetoric from conservative s quite often, and I want to ask you some questions about it.

In your opinion, when/what was the turning point that caused America to “head in the wrong direction”? How long have we been “off course”? Why was there no serious outcry about the country’s direction until Barack Obama was elected?

What, specifically, about the government needs to change in order to “right America’s course”? Will those changes to the government be effective to “right America’s course”?

What about America's past do you want to recapture/recover?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As an atheist, I pray to sense and reason."
~ Anonymous

From the polls Carson and FIORINA.

I personally think Christie won but he worked with Obama to recover NJ from Sandy so no republican will every vote for him.

Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In your opinion, when/what was the turning point
> that caused America to “head in the wrong
> direction”? How long have we been “off
> course”? Why was there no serious outcry about
> the country’s direction until Barack Obama was
> elected?
>
> What, specifically, about the government needs to
> change in order to “right America’s course”?
> Will those changes to the government be effective
> to “right America’s course”?
>
> What about America's past do you want to
> recapture/recover?


Not necessarily about the past.

It's about rebuilding American's middle class. We need to start building things again and stop outsourcing that out to China and Malaysia. This country was greatest when we had a vibrant, viable, growing middle class.

The government didn't make America great, how our government was set up, along with restrained capitalism and society based on sensible morality did. Now we have an out-of-control government that serves the uber-wealthy and almost no morality. We have become a society based on consumption, selfies and educated pinheads with no common sense. The government isn't going to fix this mess. Every regulation or rule or law they pass is a hit against individual liberty. The baby boomers became a generation of dependent, self absorbed, greedy narcissists who spawned a generation even worst than they are. They look to the government to fix everything in their lives, right every wrong and control the outcome of ever endeavor for every individual in this country. All we have to do is give government complete control of our lives. Liberty is overrated anyways, just ask the Jews in 1930 Germany or the citizens in Mao's China.

It started in the 1970's. We've been off course since. The Internet has made it exponentially worse. And Obama had a opportunity to fix it. Instead, he divided us further, continued the destruction of the middle class, continued to sell America to globalist piece by piece and taken up every divisive issue he could find.

Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Middle Class Conservative Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stay home. I see him as no different than
> Hillary
> > for the most part, just that Hillary will take
> us
> > over the cliff a little faster. For the middle
> > class and for conservatives, we need someone to
> > turn the car around, not slow it down or even
> stop
> > it where it is. For us, the country needs to
> head
> > in the other direction. Bush won't do that. I
> > don't even think he'll stop the car, just slow
> it
> > down a little. No more globalists, they've
> done
> > enough damage to the middle class.
>
> I hear this sort of "take us over the cliff",
> "turn the car around", "head in the other
> direction", "stop the car" rhetoric from
> conservative s quite often, and I want to ask you
> some questions about it.
>
> In your opinion, when/what was the turning point
> that caused America to “head in the wrong
> direction”? How long have we been “off
> course”? Why was there no serious outcry about
> the country’s direction until Barack Obama was
> elected?
>
> What, specifically, about the government needs to
> change in order to “right America’s course”?
> Will those changes to the government be effective
> to “right America’s course”?
>
> What about America's past do you want to
> recapture/recover?

The ideology of these teabagger foxnews junkies is rooted in the pre-industrial 1800s when only white, land-owning christian males could vote. This attitude permeates almost ever issue and opinion they have.

Teabagger Mindset Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The ideology of these teabagger foxnews junkies is
> rooted in the pre-industrial 1800s when only
> white, land-owning christian males could vote.
> This attitude permeates almost ever issue and
> opinion they have.


Yawn. Fail. Try harder.

Middle Class Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's about rebuilding American's middle class. We
> need to start building things again and stop
> outsourcing that out to China and Malaysia. This
> country was greatest when we had a vibrant,
> viable, growing middle class.

I'm sure that you know why America has lost so much of its manufacturing base to Asia: Costs. American manufacturers cannot pay a middle-class wage and remain price-competitive. We currently have the potential of a competitive advantage through low-cost energy, but it's not enough to make-up the wage difference.

> Now we have an out-of-control government
> that serves the uber-wealthy and almost no
> morality.

How would our government function differently if it were "controlled'?

Is it possible for a society to regain "morality"? How could that be done?

> It started in the 1970's. We've been off course
> since.

Not even Reagan was able "bring us back on course", and just a decade after we strayed? That doesn't bode well for current efforts 40 years on...

> The Internet has made it exponentially
> worse.

How so?

> And Obama had a opportunity to fix it.
> Instead, he divided us further, continued the
> destruction of the middle class, continued to sell
> America to globalist piece by piece and taken up
> every divisive issue he could find.

Honestly, hasn't every president since Carter "had an opportunity to fix it"?

What did Clinton, or either Bush 41 or 43, do to "bring us together"?

So Obama allowed the status quo to stand as had his predecessors?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As an atheist, I pray to sense and reason."
~ Anonymous

Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure that you know why America has lost so
> much of its manufacturing base to Asia: Costs.
> American manufacturers cannot pay a middle-class
> wage and remain price-competitive. We currently
> have the potential of a competitive advantage
> through low-cost energy, but it's not enough to
> make-up the wage difference.
>
> Is it possible for a society to regain "morality"?
> How could that be done?
>
> Not even Reagan was able "bring us back on
> course", and just a decade after we strayed? That
> doesn't bode well for current efforts 40 years
> on...
>
> > The Internet has made it exponentially
> > worse.
>
> How so?
>
>
> Honestly, hasn't every president since Carter "had
> an opportunity to fix it"?
>
> What did Clinton, or either Bush 41 or 43, do to
> "bring us together"?
>
> So Obama allowed the status quo to stand as had
> his predecessors?


You brought up Obama as if he is somehow the only one that is being blamed for this mess. I pointed out that he deserves to be blamed for what he's done and not done. He has been a complete failure of a president for the working, middle class. Probably the worst in my lifetime.

You seem to think there is nothing America can do about the flight of our manufacturing to cheap labor. We have to incentivize the creation of those jobs here. There are several ways to do that. Currently, when new manufacturing opportunities are created through new innovations and products, no one even looks at the US as a possibility.

Our society has become more debased, more balkanized, less civil, more hate-filled and more consumed by self since as the Internet has grown. For every good thing offered by the Internet, there is a bad thing.

Of course it is possible to regain morality. It has happened several times since this country was founded.

Remove the neo-cons from the list, then define the word "conservative" ... the only good choice is a candidate which is pro-liberty, hands off the economy, for limiting the central (Federal) government, and who believes a nation cannot survive with maintaining it's unique culture and borders.

All the rest are just playing on the "fears" of Americans and pandering to special interest groups.

The candidate with the most fortitude, however, is Mr. Trump, hands down.

A woman should not be placed in power over men. We already have enough Mama's boys, not to mention overly flambuyant males, weakening our society.

PLT4c Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remove the neo-cons from the list, then define the
> word "conservative" ... the only good choice is a
> candidate which is pro-liberty, hands off the
> economy, for limiting the central (Federal)
> government, and who believes a nation cannot
> survive with maintaining it's unique culture and
> borders.
>
> All the rest are just playing on the "fears" of
> Americans and pandering to special interest
> groups.
>
> The candidate with the most fortitude, however, is
> Mr. Trump, hands down.
>
> A woman should not be placed in power over men.
> We already have enough Mama's boys, not to mention
> overly flambuyant males, weakening our society.

Mama's Boy's? The only type of boy who would buy that bullshit is a mama's boy.