# Who do you think will do well in the debate tonight (8/6/15)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 6, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146 "2015-08-06T12:28:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/201 "2015-08-07T22:27:20Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Rubio is my prediction; I’m not going to vote for the GOP candidate, but he does strike me as someone who can garner popular support. His biggest weakness is his inexperience, but I don’t think that would be much of a problem in the general election, since he can deflect charges that he isn’t experienced enough by pointing out how little time in politics Obama had in 2008 (thereby accusing the Dems of hypocrisy). And, as we saw here, he will respond by arguing that he is the leader “for the future”, which might resonate. > I disagree. What Kelly did was reference his remarks as a basis to ask if he had the right “temperament” to be President, which I interpreted as asking him if he would react to people who vigorously opposed him as President with dismissive insults. She also asked how he would respond to charges that those remarks represented misogyny, which I interpreted as asking him how he would fare against a female Democratic candidate who will try to use it against him. I don’t think that she was accusing him of sexism and waging a “war against women”. What she said was this: > [@](#): > > Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton who is likely to be the Democratic nominee that you are part of the war on women?” So while she couched her remarks in concern about his temperament it looks very much to me like she was indeed accusing him (albeit by proxy) of misogyny and waging a war against women. > [@Moriarty](#): > > actuality, it was an easy pitch to let him respond with all of his credentials as a gender-blind businessman who puts women in positions of power. The fact that he doubled down on his insults (essentially threatening Kelly by suggesting that she was next on his shit list) shows that he wasn’t ready to actually answer the charges. I agree that he may not have been ready to answer the charges, but I’m also cognizant that had he done so he’d have been playing to political correctness in the same way that’s resulted in all the other candidates being so helpless. Even if he’d done so, his enemies would no doubt want to start probing his businesses and interviewing his female executives and looking for anything they could use to undercut his, for want of a better word, excuses. I think he was wiser and it was more in keeping with his message and his personna to answer just the way he did. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m amused by two things Starving Artist has said: > > 1. Dissing the ‘modern cult of political correctness.’ > > Because it’s not like conservatives don’t have any PC stances of their own, from climate change to tax cuts to gun control to government regulation to immigration to Iran to poor Christian bakers and florists being victims of gay marriage. I have to say this is the strangest definition of political correctness I’ve ever heard. What you’re talking about are political philosophies and policy positions, which both sides have. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. The notion that Trump brought the immigration issue to the fore. > > In his second term, Bush tried to pass an immigration reform bill. The Dems were ready to negotiate; Bush’s fellow Republicans killed it. And after the 2012 election, the GOP leadership thought maybe they’d better start being less hostile to Hispanics, so they decided to try immigration reform again - you recall Rubio was the point man for this effort. But the base rose up and shouted it down. And the GOP candidates have all taken immigration positions to please their base. So this one’s been front-burner; it’s just that Trump’s been willing to say the impolitic things that a good chunk of the GOP base believes. There’s a difference between bringing it to the fore in terms of national dialog and working to achieve something on it through legislation. My comment, as I said to **Richard Parker** , was that Trump was responsible for making it uppermost or close to it in the minds of America’s citizenry. Trump himself said that if it weren’t for him no one would even be talking about it, and he’s right. The left certainly isn’t interested in dealing with it, and the candidates on the right are too afraid of political correctness to tackle it the way it should be. Trump is the only one who’d confronting the issue in the terms many conservatives want to see it addressed, which is to halt the influx of people coming into the country illegally, to do away with the ridiculousness of sanctuary cities, and only allow people to immigrate if they do so legally. There’s not a thing in the world wrong with any of that, but political correctness in this country has brought us to the point that even mentioning any of those things gets one labelled a racist. Trump doesn’t give a shit what people call him, he just wants the country to abide by its laws and to control its immigration like every other civilized, developed country in the world does. > [@Sam Lowry](#): > > So your defense that he’s not a sexist is that he’s an unprovoked jerk to a lot of people? I can understand that being entertaining, but it’s not what I want in a president, and it surprises me that other people would want it. I wouldn’t say he’s an ‘unprovoked’ jerk, nor to ‘a lot’ of people. Most of the people he’s been a jerk to have attacked him first, and the ones he’s been a jerk to without having been personally attacked by them are the politicians who he feels are making stupid decisions that are harming the country. > [@Sam Lowry](#): > > maybe he’s not sexist, but if not, he’s clueless at best. Here’s a page with the context for the various insults that Kelly was referencing. It doesn’t make him sound much better. > > Also, Trump has been attacking Kelly throughout the day on Twitter, and retweeting a lot of the sexist attacks against her. > > I’m not at all a Megyn Kelly fan, but she shouldn’t be called a bimbo, and accusing a woman of being angry as a way of dismissing her is a common sexist attack. This is kind of what I’m talking about. You never hear anyone attacked for being sexist when they deride America’s ‘angry white males’. ---
**Author:** ![emcee2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emcee2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emcee2k)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/202 "2015-08-07T22:36:52Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Never mind for a moment which candidates you like or hate. If any of them were a close friend of yours, and he/she asked, “Is it time for me to get out, or do I still have a chance” what would you tell them? > > My answer: everyone in the first debate except Carly Fiorina should drop out immediately. Bye Rick Perry. So long Jim Gilmore. Hasta la vista, George Pataki. Sayonara, Bobby Jindal (don’t count on staying governor long, either). Sorry, Rick Santorum. > > As for the Big Ten, Ben Carson proved conclusively that he doesn’t belong. He’s an intelligent, highly decent man, but he doesn’t belong on the big stage. Let him run for something smaller. Much smaller. > > I’d tell Huckabee and Christie that it’s time to go home, too… but they may still think they have a shot (they don’t). Most people will barely remember this debate by time the actual voting starts. Though he’s unlikely to win, Santorum has as much chance as most of candidates it the second debate. The candidates who have no real shot now, are the same ones who had no real shot before the debates. What really amazes me is Rick Perry. On paper he should be one of the most electable candidates up there. You got to be some kind of industrial strength doofus, to be the longest serving governor of the second most populous state in the union, and still be considered a long-shot joke candidate playing on the same level as Carly Fiorina. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/203 "2015-08-07T23:05:56Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > ETA: According to IMDB, the dialogue is “That’s right. Infiltrators came up illegal from Mexico. Cubans mostly. They managed to infiltrate SAC bases in the Midwest, several down in Texas and wreaked a helluva lot of havoc, I’m here to tell you. They opened up the door down here, and the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come walking right through, rolled right up here through the Great Plains.” > > I stand corrected. I am unlikely to ever watch _Red Dawn_, but should like to say that excluding reserves, the Cuban Army of the 1980s was about 145,000 according to an alarmist article in **[The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1988/08/cuba-havanas-military-machine/305932/)**, whilst the Thananithstas had 80,000 according to **[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Nicaragua)**. Of course, they’d have to leave a few brave souls at home to defend against counterattack. Americans luxuriate in their fearfulness whilst being wholly competent to wipe out entire small nations. I won’t bother to look up whatever was the US military power back then, but even if that was completely inadequate and comparatively out-gunned, these people wouldn’t have got past the good folk of Texas. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/204 "2015-08-07T23:11:43Z")
The Cubans and Nicaraguans just knocked the door in. In the movie the Soviets come in afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/205 "2015-08-07T23:25:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I have to say this is the strangest definition of political correctness I’ve ever heard. > > What you’re talking about are political philosophies and policy positions, which both sides have. OK, then explain what _you_ mean by the term, other than “positions held by liberals.” How **I** would define political correctness is when it’s somewhere between a significant _faux pas_ and anathema within a particular group to hold (or not hold) a particular position. This is a definition that has the advantage of being neutral with respect to party or left-right orientation. And conservatives, by this definition, have tons of issues where they’ve determined what the politically correct position is, some of which I’ve named. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/206 "2015-08-07T23:37:04Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > How **I** would define political correctness is when it’s somewhere between a significant _faux pas_ and anathema within a particular group to hold (or not hold) a particular position. I think an excellent example of right-wing political correctness is Ted Cruz’s claims about uttering the phrase “Islamic extremist.” How is that not an attempt to say “You can’t just say something, you have to say it the politically correct way”? ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/207 "2015-08-07T23:40:01Z")
Those I liked for vary reasons were: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Jim Gilmore, Donald Trump(except for the attacks). Chris Christie grew on me. Gilmore is the only one of the pre date, Happy Hour debate that I liked. ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/208 "2015-08-08T04:04:17Z")
I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I did catch Christie/Paul’s argument over the NSA spying. I personally found Christie’s stance on the issue repugnant (saying that it’s okay to ignore the 4th Amendment on the off chance we find terrorists), especially since he basically just tried to drape himself in 9/11 as justification. Then again, I’m not exactly the usual Republican voter, but I gotta wonder - among conservative voters, is there more support for Christie’s pro-security position over Paul’s libertarian position? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/209 "2015-08-08T05:14:33Z")
Now Democrats support NSA data collection, Republicans are opposed: > **[Poll: Massive opinion swing shows most Democrats criticized Bush-era NSA...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339514/Poll-Massive-opinion-swing-shows-Democrats-criticized-Bush-era-NSA-surveillance-love-Obamas-version.html)** > > In 2006, just 37 per cent of Democrats approved of NSA snooping on private phone lines. Last week's poll showed that number has jumped to 64 percent under Obama - a swing of more than one out of every four liberal voters ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/210 "2015-08-08T09:26:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now Democrats support NSA data collection, Republicans are opposed: > > [Poll: Massive opinion swing shows most Democrats criticized Bush-era NSA surveillance, but now love Obama's version | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339514/Poll-Massive-opinion-swing-shows-Democrats-criticized-Bush-era-NSA-surveillance-love-Obamas-version.html) Boy howdy, what a slanted article: > [@](#): > > The national survey from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post found that 64 per cent of Democrats approve of the NSA ‘getting secret court orders to track calls of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism.’ Only 34 per cent voiced disapproval. > > When Pew asked a similar question in 2006, just 37 per cent found the practice of ‘secretly listening in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval’ acceptable. So let’s see: in 2006, only 37% of Dems thought it was acceptable for the government to read our emails and listen in on phone calls without any court approval at all. But in 2013, 64% of Dems were OK with tracking calls with a court order from the FISA court. So two rather significant differences in what’s being asked: content v. metadata, and court approval v. none. And this represents a swing of opinion how, exactly? How do we know that 64% of Dems wouldn’t have been OK with the 2013 question back in 2006? There’s certainly plenty of room for people to be against the first, but OK with the second. Meanwhile, 75% of Republicans in 2006 supported listening in on phone calls and reading emails without a court order, while in 2013, 52% of Republicans were OK with metadata collection with a FISA court order. The article describes this shift as a ‘more modest’ swing of opinion (23% v. 27% for Dems, basically the same magnitude and probably too close to statistically distinguish). But the big difference is that this unquestionably **represents a real change of opinion on the part of Republicans** , while that can’t be said with any certainty for Dems. It was **Republicans** who were OK with extreme surveillance as long as one of their own was running the show, but who were against more limited surveillance with Obama in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/211 "2015-08-08T10:32:08Z")
What follows is my direct impression immediately after watching the full debate, and before reading or hearing any punditry or other analysis. The first grade is my estimation of their appeal (in this debate specifically) to the primary electorate. The second grade is my estimation of how their debate performance might play to swing voters. (I am neither a GOP primary voter nor a swing voter, but I think I’ve demonstrated a fairly canny sense of how those groups think in past elections). I added comments in some cases: Kasich D/A Christie C+/B Paul D/D (weird looking) Rubio C-/C- (comes across like a grade schooler; abortion answer hurts him with moderates) Cruz B+/F (exactly what I’d have expected) Carson D+/D (sleepy, out of his league; don’t expect him to be in the top tier for long unless those polled stubbornly cling to the “magic bullet” of an Uncle Tom figure) Walker A/A- (very smooth but not unctuously so; perfectly pitched except that his abortion stance will definitely need that pivot for the general) Bush C-/D+ (tongue tied, stiff, uncharismatic, SO establishment) Trump B/C- (effectively dinged by moderators but fought his way out of tough corners about as well as possible given the difficult position the facts put him in) Huck: A/C+ There were three candidates who got an “A” from me in either primary or general election appeal. A little more on those three: **Huckabee**. His stock seems pretty hot to me right now within the GOP primary electorate. He is effectively pushing the buttons in the way Cruz only wishes he could. Huck seems to have drifted away from some of the elements that made him look eight years ago like he could appeal more to the center (particularly on economic issues), but I suspect he could pivot and get some of that back if and when it is needed in a general election campaign. **Kasich**. I continue to be impressed with him as a general election candidate. I think he’d be the GOP standardbearer with the best (if still slim) chance to beat a Democrat, but he’s also the only one I’d feel sort of okay about his actually being president. Which, I think, is a clear sign that he’s unpalatable to the base. But he is no Huntsman; I think he could have a chance to be another McCain or Romney, who could have a chance to get the nomination despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would elicit from the hard right. **Walker** is still the really scary one, as I think he has a great shot at the nomination and could be a pretty effective general election candidate, yet I’d be sick to my stomach to have him become president. P.S. Did anyone notice that Carson and Walker are apparently monists? That should be shocking to most religious conservatives, I’d think. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/212 "2015-08-08T12:44:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I wouldn’t say he’s an ‘unprovoked’ jerk, nor to ‘a lot’ of people. Most of the people he’s been a jerk to have attacked him first, and the ones he’s been a jerk to without having been personally attacked by them are the politicians who he feels are making stupid decisions that are harming the country. I don’t want a president who’s a jerk to anybody. Can you imagine Obama calling any woman the things that Trump does with regularity? There’s a certain standard of civility that I expect of any human, Trump doesn’t clear that bar, much less that of a president. If you’re in an elementary school playground, maybe you do retaliate for every real or perceived insult. But when you grow up, you leave that behavior behind. At least you’re supposed to. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/213 "2015-08-08T17:22:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t want a president who’s a jerk to anybody. Can you imagine Obama calling any woman the things that Trump does with regularity? There’s a certain standard of civility that I expect of any human, Trump doesn’t clear that bar, much less that of a president. If you’re in an elementary school playground, maybe you do retaliate for every real or perceived insult. But when you grow up, you leave that behavior behind. At least you’re supposed to. Hear hear! ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/214 "2015-08-08T19:27:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t want a president who’s a jerk to anybody. Can you imagine Obama calling any woman the things that Trump does with regularity? With regularity? We only know of one instance where he called a woman (Rosie O’Donnell) names, and frankly I’ve called her much worse. It was also in retaliation to an attack she made on him. His philosophy has always been to hit back when attacked, only harder, so his opponent learns not to fuck with him. That’s a good approach in my opinion. Besides, there are far more important issues at stake. It would be silly to turn away from a candidate you think would do a good job as president and allow elect someone instead who’ll either do the exact opposite (in this case a Democrat) or a much less effective one (one of the other Republicans) simply because you think he was a jerk for calling someone names. I am interested to note the apparent sexism in your sentiment that Trump shouldn’t talk that way to a woman. In these days, when women talk like sailors and men get ignored or scowled at for holding a door open for a woman, hasn’t it long been the message from the left that to accord women special treatment was a form of sexism designed to keep them in their place? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/215 "2015-08-08T22:02:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > With regularity? > > We only know of one instance where he called a woman (Rosie O’Donnell) names, and frankly I’ve called her much worse. It was also in retaliation to an attack she made on him. His philosophy has always been to hit back when attacked, only harder, so his opponent learns not to fuck with him. That’s a good approach in my opinion. > > Besides, there are far more important issues at stake. It would be silly to turn away from a candidate you think would do a good job as president and allow elect someone instead who’ll either do the exact opposite (in this case a Democrat) or a much less effective one (one of the other Republicans) simply because you think he was a jerk for calling someone names. > > I am interested to note the apparent sexism in your sentiment that Trump shouldn’t talk that way to a woman. In these days, when women talk like sailors and men get ignored or scowled at for holding a door open for a woman, hasn’t it long been the message from the left that to accord women special treatment was a form of sexism designed to keep them in their place? Sexist or not, one way in which we judge gentlemanly behavior is in how a man treats women. Kelly pointed out several examples. In return, Trump strongly alluded that she might be on her period. Can you imagine any president speaking in such crass terms? I can’t see Nixon or Reagan or either Bush doing so. One could argue that we should accept boorish behavior because someone would make a good president. How so? You get the same policies no matter which Republican is nominated- cut spending, cut taxes, hate abortion, hate Muslims, hate gays… So why tolerate Trump and his infantile behavior when you can get the same thing without the baggage from others? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/216 "2015-08-08T22:17:32Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > With regularity? > > We only know of one instance where he called a woman (Rosie O’Donnell) names, and frankly I’ve called her much worse. It was also in retaliation to an attack she made on him. His philosophy has always been to hit back when attacked, only harder, so his opponent learns not to fuck with him. That’s a good approach in my opinion. > **[Fact checking Trump's history of insulting women](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/facti-checking-trumps-history-insulting-women)** > > GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he can't recall specifics of insulting women, though news reports paint a long history of him comparing women to animals. > **[Here are all Donald Trump's insults to women that Megyn Kelly asked about](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/6/9114625/republican-debate-donald-trump-women)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/217 "2015-08-08T22:52:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Sexist or not, one way in which we judge gentlemanly behavior is in how a man treats women. Kelly pointed out several examples. In return, Trump strongly alluded that she might be on her period. Can you imagine any president speaking in such crass terms? I can’t see Nixon or Reagan or either Bush doing so. > > One could argue that we should accept boorish behavior because someone would make a good president. How so? You get the same policies no matter which Republican is nominated- cut spending, cut taxes, hate abortion, hate Muslims, hate gays… So why tolerate Trump and his infantile behavior when you can get the same thing without the baggage from others? I imagine that if the truth were known, almost every candidate on both sides has used equally insulting slurs toward people whose behavior they disliked. They just haven’t done so publicly like Trump has prior to his run for president. Plus the media is out to get this guy like no other. I have no doubt that if they wanted to, the media could find equally noxious comments coming from virtually every other candidate (on both sides) and member of Congress, except perhaps for the strongly religious like Huckabee. And what’s with all this hate stuff? Surely even you know that it’s possible to dislike certain behaviors without it ipso-facto translating into hatred. You guys do this all the time and it’s quite dishonest. And **running coach** , those are the same instances that have been brought up before. Yes, Trump made a lot of harsh comments about Rosie O’Donnell. He made them in response to her mocking him on television, a ridicule that got widespread coverage. He set out to make her pay, and make her pay he did. So far, all we’ve got are two instances where he insulted a woman’s looks, one where he is repulsed by a female attorney wanting to pump breast milk mid-deposition, and one where he popped off about the looks of a female politician. All this reminds me of the GHW Bush/Ferraro debate in '84, where the day after a debate between the two Bush made the observation that “We tried to kick a little butt last night” and the media immediately turned it into “We tried to kick her little butt last night” in order to make it seem he was condescending and insulting to women. I’m sure that for every slur Trump has hurled toward a woman there’ve been many more where he’s done the same to men. He’s a rough and tough New York City real estate guy and that’s how they behave. It has nothing to do with sexism. As I’ve said before many of his top executives have been women and his wife Ivana was in total of one of his casinos. Piers Morgan (a guy I detest, btw) recently stated in a column he wrote recently that in four hours of intense discussion in the boardroom of _The Apprentice_ that included women and minorities, he never once saw or heard Trump behave in a sexist or racist manner. All this is 100% media created and media driven, and its purpose is to drive Trump out of the race. It’s dishonest of the media to bring up only the insults Trump has made toward a handful of women without also showing the many times and ways he’s insulted male opponents as well in an effort to make him look sexist. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/218 "2015-08-08T22:53:58Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > We only know of one instance where he called a woman (Rosie O’Donnell) names, and frankly I’ve called her much worse. I guess that’s why he’s polling ahead of you. Trump is a birther. Anybody who would even consider a birther for President is nuts, in my professional opinion. ETA: and this has nothing to do with Obama. It’s just that nobody with any intelligence could possibly believe that the government doesn’t vet people before assigning millions of dollars worth of Secret Service protection to them, as the Bush Administration did for Obama in the summer of 2008. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/219 "2015-08-08T22:56:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > But the big difference is that this unquestionably **represents a real change of opinion on the part of Republicans** , while that can’t be said with any certainty for Dems. It was **Republicans** who were OK with extreme surveillance as long as one of their own was running the show, but who were against more limited surveillance with Obama in the White House. Very nice catch. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146/220 "2015-08-08T22:56:37Z")
I will acknowledge that Trump’s gonna have to tone it down if he wants to be taken seriously going forward. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-you-think-will-do-well-in-the-debate-tonight-8-6-15/727146.md?page=12)