The second GOP debate was unimpressive

This debate was less orderly and reflected badly on most of the candidates. If they’re going to behave like this, it would be better to put the candidates in sound-proof booths and only turn on their microphones when they’re allowed to speak.

The questions didn’t impress me, and Ilia Calderón didn’t contribute anything of value.

Burgum started off well with a clear libertarian message, and had some good things to say, but at times he went off on confusing rants. He gets points for being consistent, but he has no chance.

Vivek has done a rather startling about-face on his opponents. Last time they were all “bought and paid for.” This time they were all good people. He did not do well, although I liked his comment about ending birthright citizenship.

Tim Scott was an asshole (trying to overcome his “nice guy” image?), but he did stand out a bit with his comments about the effect of the great society on black families.

Christie sounded much better tonight. I almost liked him.

Pence did a lousy job. He seemed confused at times. Still slow and boring.

Haley was a phrenetic asshole, seemed wonky, and not at all inspiring, although I did like her “bring it” reply to Scott (or was it Ramaswamy?).

Desantis was clearly the best, but didn’t distinguish himself enough to make any difference.

The best chance any of them have of becoming the nominee is for something to prevent Trump from continuing — i.e., either his legal troubles get to be too much, or his health declines, or something like that.

4 thoughts on “The second GOP debate was unimpressive”

  1. I only saw parts. It’s sad what are choices are.

    IDK if it was Haley or ??? … said, basically the looting 2 days ago in Philadelphia is because of the border crisis. I was looking at the looters. The vast majority of the looters definitely were not immigrants from south of the border, nor whites, nor asians… They were some other demographic.

    Other thing about this debate…or not this one…but any prez debate… Basically, they ask all these questions about what candidate X would do about situation Y, where in reality, Y is a local or state problem and really, the prez has no authority to intervene in Y. This is especially true of a Repug debate where they say they believe in limited government. Sure.

    1. Yes, it’s very annoying when they ask presidential candidates how they will solve problems that aren’t in the purview of the president.

    2. QUOTE: Basically, they ask all these questions about what candidate X would do about situation Y, where in reality, Y is a local or state problem and really, the prez has no authority to intervene in Y.

      Bingo! They spend waaaay too much time pontificating about things they cannot directly control. The worst part…the average viewer actually “believes” they can do what they say.

      1. That’s one thing I appreciate about ND dude. He (sometimes) says when things are state issues.

Comments are closed.