I watched ALL of the Republican debate on CNN. Here’s my gut response: Jeb Bush comes across as the most humane (and yes, he had more energy); John Kasich quite sensible. The rest? Ugh. I take particular umbrage with Marco Rubio. Could anyone be more myopic? His tirade against environmental concern is so extreme. Is there no middle ground with him? If some jobs are lost, wouldn’t more jobs be gained in the new technologies? Has he no concern for clean air and water? He likes to drink water. God help him.
Trump was a bit more cordial than the last time. He is so very entertaining.
Carly Fiorina comes across as a solid hawk, perhaps even more than most of the men. Do you think she overdid it to show that she is a strong person? I don’t know. But I applaud her statements not to fund Planned Parenthood (NO reason tax dollars should support abortions not only because it’s a great moral issue but also because the tax paying public is so divided on the issue. PP will have no problem getting funds from the private sector anyway) and I appreciated her passion against legalized marijuana as a gateway drug. For all that, I think all of the candidates want to take funding away from PP.
Sadly Jeb didn’t get to summarize his tax plan, although Carson and others did. Having read Jeb’s in the NYTIMES, it definitely seems reasonable. Carson’s tithing (10 %) across the board for everyone is intriguing, but he’s not a viable candidate and the tithing thing doesn’t seem practical on some levels, although it would totally simplify everything. Plus it’s biblical!
I wish these debates would focus more on the issues than the usual political rants and idealistic speeches. The moderators don’t ask penetrating questions! E.g. on the hot issue of the Iran deal: during the considerable number of sanction years, Iran has built up considerable uranium deposits and, without any Western communication , sources say it would be ready to build a bomb in the next three months. So what good did the strict sanctions do? They only isolated a sick and diseased country and allowed its leaders to do what they wanted while the common people suffered there. Why would no one state the obvious here? Sadly, central points like these are never brought up in most debates. At least some of the potential candidates did state the obvious: with or without this agreement the USA can bomb Iran any time it likes. And so can Israel for that matter. So what is the big deal here? In the past, some diplomacy with an enemy has had greater potential than none at all even when war became inevitable. And as Kasich repeatedly stated, we gain more support from Europe when we at least try the diplomatic way first.
Have a wonderful day. You deserve it!
frjamesdiluzio 