GOP Debate #5: Conclusion

Not a word on the economy, not a word on education, not a word on the plummeting life span of the white working class (which is supposed to be the Republican base, by the way), not a word on crime, not a word on poverty, not a word on healthcare. Not a word on anything that is relevant to the daily lives of actual voters.

Are these people running for President of the US or President of the Middle East? I’m sitting here, between Illinois and Missouri, listening to candidates who don’t seem to be aware that Illinois and Missouri exist and face problems that are not connected to the Middle East or even North Korea.

The debate is good entertainment but it’s completely divorced from the real issues facing the country.

25 thoughts on “GOP Debate #5: Conclusion

  1. Well, they could only answer the questions that were posed to them. CNN didn’t seem to care about anything else. Wolf Blitzer is a known neocon warmongering idiot, but this was embarrassing. Even Fox news debates had a decent mix of questions.

    Like

  2. Fourteen people dead in San Bernardino along with many unexploded pipe bombs, and today a quarter of a million children kept out of L.A. County schools by the threat of international terrorism, and this isn’t a real issue?

    The candidates on stage tonight addressed American citizens’ legitimate concerns, and one of them will be our next President.

    (No, I didn’t watch tonight’s debate — two many non-contenders in the fight — but I will be watching the Three Stooges argue on Saturday night.)

    Like

    1. The greatest problem of today’s school children is so not missing a day of school. But the real problems in secondary education nobody is even trying to address.

      As for San Bernardino, there is no recipe for preventing that and blabbing about it for 2,5 hours will not change that.

      Like

      1. “the real problems in secondary education nobody is even trying to address.”

        Yes, this a real problem, along with the threat of ISIS, but the Democratic candidates aren’t addressing either.

        Like

  3. If I’m a frightened moderate this debate is highly unsatisfying.
    I thought it was disingenuous to talk about the specter of frightened parents just because they could link it to terrorism, as if something like Newtown wouldn’t be equally nightmarish. (The 3rd anniversary was yesterday).
    “I will protect you from maniacs by posturing but only if they’re the right kind of maniacs in a specific situation.”

    Like

      1. Carpet bombing ISIS might make the L.A. County school supervisor a little less likely to piss in his pants at the hoax threat.

        Like

  4. Off-topic: I’m writing a paper (and incorporating Irlanda! Yay!), and I need to do a presentation for my Child Lit class. This obviously isn’t an issue in the paper, but we need to give a certain amount of background on books we didn’t cover in class, and I was wondering how much of the plot I should reveal? Is it absolutely ridiculous for me to worry about this?

    Like

    1. That’s great! It’s best not to retell the plot in detail. Several sentences introducing the plot are enough, and then everything else you want to mention about the novel should come as part of your analysis.

      It’s not ridiculous to worry about this because it is a fine balance that needs to be found to avoid retelling yet make it clear what the novel is about. People who review my work often chide me for retelling too much, so nobody is fully immune. 🙂

      Good luck and don’t forget to have fun!

      Like

      1. Okay. So, for the presentation, (which is basically a “why did you choose to write about those particular books” thing), I should focus mainly on the connections between books.

        “Good luck and don’t forget to have fun!”

        -Fun? I always freeze during presentations (I have to do a poetry reading on Friday along with a mini Q&A panel with the other readers, and I’m already freaking out about that). But the paper is going really, really well. 😀 I’m already having trouble with going over the page limit.

        Like

    2. No. Assuming that you’re writing for adults (children don’t get subtleness), tell just enough of the plot to get your readers interested, but not to give away the story line.

      Like

      1. Okay. In my paper, though, would I assume the reader has already read the books I’m writing about? So no plot would be necessary unless it’s relevant to my argument, yes?

        Like

        1. Again , no. It’s dangerous to assume any knowledge on the part of your readers (not an insult, just a fact). So tell them the absolute minimum t hat you need to get them interested,* and then just be quiet!

          The few literary snobs that object aren’t going to make a statistical difference in your popularity or your sales, anyway.

          Like

          1. Okay.

            “The few literary snobs that object aren’t going to make a statistical difference in your popularity or your sales, anyway.”

            -It’s a final paper for a class. No currency will be made but for grade points. 🙂

            Like

  5. A musical break from a more innocent time with less jittery people. If this video and song were made today people would scream in protest over the band’s insensitivity.

    Like

    1. Well, I didn’t see this video in 1982, when I was stationed overseas as part of the Allied military occupation of Germany — but when I view this video today, I don’t see anything controversial about it.

      The “bomb” dropped in the video is sexual and beautiful, as well conveyed by the talented singers and dancers in the film. The superimposed military bombings are silly and irrelevant — they’d make more sense today, in a world of perpetual war, than in the innocence of the early 1980s, when America wasn’t at war with anybody.

      But thanks for posting it, Shakti — I’ve copied and downloaded it, and added it to my vast (stolen) collection of oldie video greats. 🙂

      Like

  6. I could be wrong, but I thought that this debate was supposed to about foreign policy, not about domestic issues. It’s not unusual for these debates to be focused on one area or another, rather than wander all over the map. Of course, if the Democrat debate addressed foreign policy, poor Bernie wouldn’t have anything to say.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.