The Republicans couldn't even get on the debate stage properly

[Benvolio]

just want to remind people of the immigration queen rubio is and his support in big business to supress wages by importing and expanding visas.

I am impressed to find one liberal who cares enough about workers to object to the suppression of wages by immigration and visas.

 

[kallipolis]

I am impressed to find one liberal who cares enough about workers to object to the suppression of wages by immigration and visas.

Ask the CEO of Apple Inc. why their Silicon Valley designed telephones, and computers are manufactured in China.

 

[BenDan]

Watch that video carefully.

Carson said he didn't hear his name called. He said they were told not to come out onto the stage until their names were called.

Every person called by Martha Radditz (except Bush) hesitated. Every person called by David Muir (except Kasich) came out. They couldn't hear Radditz's voice.

She called Carson, and he waited off stage. A stagehand told him to go on, but then he heard David Muir call Ted Cruz, so he hesitated again.

Radditz called Trump, and he, too, waited off stage - because he couldn't hear her, either.

When Muir called (again) for Carson, he came out. When Radditz called (again) for Trump, he still couldn't hear her, so he still didn't come out. Then when Muir called for Trump (third time), he came out.

Female voices are higher pitched than male (generally), and are not as easy to hear - especially for middle-aged males with high frequency hearing loss. Add to that the poor acoustics and probable incidental noise backstage and you can see what was going on.

This was not the candidates' faults.

I watched it live

The bigger gaffe was that the moderators didn't realize they weren't there and then after calling out Carson and Trump again, had to be told to introduce Kasich by Chris Christie

overall ABC did a bad job - moderators never followed up or rarely

 

[rareboy]

Great to see them look like gormless idiots.

Oh and the introduction thing was funny too.

 

[T-Rexx]

did you see the debate last night ?

have you seen the other debates ?

you don't have to answer because it's obvious from your comments that the answer is no

My hope is that Kasich somehow wins the nomination so that if republican were to win the WH, the country would not be in danger

your equating Kasich with Cruz/Rubio, etc. is obscene

Kasich is a stunning homophobe.

He opposes gay marriage. He opposes gay adoptions. When he was in Congress, he helped defeat laws that would have prevented discrimination against gays. In Ohio, he has prevented gay parents from obtaining birth certificates for their children.

He says he opposes the "gay lifestyle" and he is disgusted and amazed that California schools have decided to recognize the contributions of gays to society.

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/john-kasich

I appreciate that Kasich is the best your party has to offer. But your best is disgusting garbage.

 

[jbrown329]

Kasich is preaching to his gallery.....to ensure that they hear, what they believe they should hear.

Nothing strange, nor unconstitutional.

Establishment Clause. And it was flat out ignored in the 1860's (In God We Trust) on coins. It was again ignored in the 50's with that phrase put on to paper currency. Then the (unofficial) motto was changed from E pluribus unum to "In God We Trust".

And "no religious test" doesn't happen anymore. Republicans (and the religious right) have been slowly chipping away at the separation of church and state for decades.

And they will scream at the top of their lungs if you even dare to suggest that their 'freedom' of religion (1st Amendment) also gives me freedom 'from' religion. And these people are fighting them. https://www.au.org/

 

[jbrown329]

Kasich continues to preach to the converted....never fear words filled with empty rhetoric, guaranteed to impress morons.

Excuse me. I've spent untold hours researching the religious right and their push to turn the United States into a xian version of Iran. Theocracy. If I were to add all the time spent since 2001, I'd guess at least 3 full months. And that would be 24hrs a day/7days a week. I lost all my research in a computer meltdown. That particular drive had close to 250GB of info/videos.

And a bunch of those 'morons' are damn wealthy and support Republicans that feel exactly as they do. To get elected, those Republicans have learned to keep their mouths shut in public. Take a very hard look at 'religious' leaders on the right. You will find Christian Nationalists and Dominionists. And some run mega-churches with 1000s upon 1000s of followers who gladly pump money into that 'church'.

 

[kallipolis]

I underestimate no one.

 

[jbrown329]

As for the debate, I lasted about 20 minutes before I had to turn the channel. Otherwise my neighbor would've learned a whole lot of new cuss words.

 

[nycguydowntown]

LOL Chris Christie just beat the crap outta Rubio...was amazing to watch almost as good as the democrats debate.
none of them seem prepared for what happened last night on our side.
yes everyone saw that clusterfuck at the beginning, i felt bad for Dr. Carson and watching Christie take on Rubio for being the lightweight he is, its astonishing.

Lol---rubio is such a little queen---who is such a nothing---wanted christie to throw him down and sit on him---pin him down like a wrestling match--

 

[Benvolio]

Excuse me. I've spent untold hours researching the religious right and their push to turn the United States into a xian version of Iran. Theocracy. If I were to add all the time spent since 2001, I'd guess at least 3 full months. And that would be 24hrs a day/7days a week. I lost all my research in a computer meltdown. That particular drive had close to 250GB of info/videos.

And a bunch of those 'morons' are damn wealthy and support Republicans that feel exactly as they do. To get elected, those Republicans have learned to keep their mouths shut in public. Take a very hard look at 'religious' leaders on the right. You will find Christian Nationalists and Dominionists. And some run mega-churches with 1000s upon 1000s of followers who gladly pump money into that 'church'.

The Church of England was the legally established church, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, but its meaning was limited to that. If it had mean what you want it to mean, it would never have been adopted. The US was founded as a Christian nation and there has always been a religious aspect to our government. The very day after the House passed the First Amendment it passed a resolution for a day of national prayer and thanksgiving to God, saying: "We acknowledge ...the many signal favors of Almighty God, ..." So, Washington designated a day of Thanks giving, saying: It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will....".
I am not a believer, but Christianity is a strong part of our national culture and character, and I object to the authoritarian movement to destroy it. The people who want to preserve our Christian character are not the authoritarians, nor the ones working for change.

 

[TX-Beau]

The Church of England was the legally established church, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, but its meaning was limited to that. If it had mean what you want it to mean, it would never have been adopted. The US was founded as a Christian nation and there has always been a religious aspect to our government. The very day after the House passed the First Amendment it passed a resolution for a day of national prayer and thanksgiving to God, saying: "We acknowledge ...the many signal favors of Almighty God, ..." So, Washington designated a day of Thanks giving, saying: It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will....".
I am not a believer, but Christianity is a strong part of our national culture and character, and I object to the authoritarian movement to destroy it. The people who want to preserve our Christian character are not the authoritarians, nor the ones working for change.

Wow the delusion - it pains the eye.

 

[TX-Beau]

Kasich is preaching to his gallery.....to ensure that they hear, what they believe they should hear.

Nothing strange, nor unconstitutional.

Actually creating a government agency to promote Christianity would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

 

[kallipolis]

Whereas, Kasich preaching to his gallery, is not a violation of the Constitution,

 

[BenDan]

Kasich is a stunning homophobe.

He opposes gay marriage. He opposes gay adoptions. When he was in Congress, he helped defeat laws that would have prevented discrimination against gays. In Ohio, he has prevented gay parents from obtaining birth certificates for their children.

He says he opposes the "gay lifestyle" and he is disgusted and amazed that California schools have decided to recognize the contributions of gays to society.

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/john-kasich

I appreciate that Kasich is the best your party has to offer. But your best is disgusting garbage.

more nonsense and no answer to the question which is telling

The HRC is the organization that last I looked chose Hillary > Bernie when the side by side comparison as it relates to LGBT rights clearly pointed to Bernie as being favorable

Kasich will not mess with a Supreme Court ruling - he has said so

Kasich has promoted govt. aid to the less fortunate - in his state - and is campaigning on lifting everyone up - again, watch the damn debates and hear for yourself instead of your own echo chamber

Kasich was the one who at an early debate who spoke to a question about gays and marriage and aced the "test"

And you referring to me as a republican is akin to equating Kasich with Cruz

It proves that you don't read or listen just talk out of your ass

 

[TX-Beau]

Whereas, Kasich preaching to his gallery, is not a violation of the Constitution,

Yeah that's not what I said, and is really jut a kind of pointless comment anyway since all of them are "preaching" to a gallery, his is going to expect him to violate the constitution if he ever gets elected.

You tell your voters they are going to get cheese and wine, you'd better have a cow and some grapes.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't use crystal balls, nor do I predict the future.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't use crystal balls, nor do I predict the future.

Predict the future? It's simple electoral politics - you promise your voter base A, you need to at least look like you're trying to provide A.

The Republicans are in the shit now because they promised Christian Sharia Law, then gave the candy store away to their cronies. Now the howling mob is after blood, and the politicians once again are promising Sharia law complete with government sanctions and "Agencies" to promote it.

If the rest of the world thought Bush the Lesser was Bad, take a look at what's coming down the pike at ya.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, the objection was to the idea of religious agencies and the people who promote them. No one was objecting to politicians pandering to their base.

 

[T-Rexx]

The people who want to preserve our Christian character are not the authoritarians, nor the ones working for change.

No, those are the "theocrats" (a.k.a. "Republicans"). They want to model the US government after modern Iran.

more nonsense and no answer to the question which is telling

I don't own a television.

The HRC is the organization that last I looked chose Hillary > Bernie when the side by side comparison as it relates to LGBT rights clearly pointed to Bernie as being favorable

What does that have to do with Kasich's bigotry? Are you trying to say that the HRC is lying about Kasich because they prefer Hillary to Bernie??? Does that even make sense? And what about the myriad of other sources which confirm Kasich's long history of bigotry? Are they all lying?

Kasich will not mess with a Supreme Court ruling - he has said so

No, Kasich has NOT said he would not try to appoint judges who would overturn Obergefell. In fact, everything he has said indicates that that is precisely what he would do, should he ever be given the chance. What he said was that he would obey the law (presumably until he has the chance to change it to his liking) - as if he has any choice in the matter.

I have never understood why you worship at the feet of these bigots. You keep insisting that a man who says gay marriage is wrong (and who tried to stop it), who tried to stop gay adoption, who did block gay couples in Ohio from obtaining birth certificates for their children, who continues to oppose the outlawing of anti-gay discrimination, who says he is disgusted by your "lifestyle," and who is "amazed" that any school would teach that gays have contributed to civilization, is our friend.

Kasich is a disgusting bigot. Please stop pretending that he is some kind of gay hero, just because the Supreme Court has forced his hand. You did the same thing with Mitt Romney - insisting he was our friend when he opposed gays being permitted human rights. I don't understand why you love these people who want you to suffer grievously.

Kasich has promoted govt. aid to the less fortunate - in his state - and is campaigning on lifting everyone up - again, watch the damn debates and hear for yourself instead of your own echo chamber

I would not consider taking rights away from gays "lifting everyone up."

And the only reason he expanded Medicaid in Ohio was because he had to - he didn't have enough money to fund the budget without it.

Kasich was the one who at an early debate who spoke to a question about gays and marriage and aced the "test"

"Attending a gay wedding" is hardly a "test" for gay rights. He (allegedly) attended the wedding of a "friend" (he won't say who or where or when). A(n alleged) wedding that Kasich would have prevented if it had been in his power to do so. He said he was "very disappointed" by Obergefell. He said he wouldn't kick his daughter out on the street if she came out as gay - what phenomenal support! And agreeing to follow laws about which he has no choice but to accept is hardly "support" for gay rights.

The man who passed your "test" favors allowing people to discriminate against gays. He helped veto legislation in Congress that would have outlawed discrimination against homosexuals nationally. Thanks in part to that, it is perfectly legal in Kasich's Ohio to fire a person from a job on the grounds of homosexuality, or to refuse that person housing - positions which Kasich continues to support!

And you referring to me as a republican is akin to equating Kasich with Cruz

That's funny, since Kasich is readily comparable to Cruz on the issue of gay marriage; and your long history on this site has been of 100% support for Republican candidates and positions. I know you pretend to support Sanders because you believe Clinton is unbeatable by any Republican, while you hold out hope that some Republican might defeat Sanders. Your attempts to rehabilitate Trump into a human being have been humorous.

It proves that you don't read or listen just talk out of your ass

Somehow, you ignore the vast trove of readily available information which proves Kasich a homophobic bigot. But I am the person who doesn't read or listen.

 

[jbrown329]

The Church of England was the legally established church, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, but its meaning was limited to that. If it had mean what you want it to mean, it would never have been adopted. The US was founded as a Christian nation and there has always been a religious aspect to our government. The very day after the House passed the First Amendment it passed a resolution for a day of national prayer and thanksgiving to God, saying: "We acknowledge ...the many signal favors of Almighty God, ..." So, Washington designated a day of Thanks giving, saying: It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will....".
I am not a believer, but Christianity is a strong part of our national culture and character, and I object to the authoritarian movement to destroy it. The people who want to preserve our Christian character are not the authoritarians, nor the ones working for change.

Are your eyes brown?

Document Proclaims Secular Government

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, “No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”


The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-2/secular-government/

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination.

Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a desperate desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their writings, one can discover positive statements about God and/or Christianity. However, merely believing in God does not make a person a Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter
~ Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

It has attracted attention in recent decades because of a clause in Article 11 stating that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli