Stream: Trump’s—No, Wait—The Republican Debate

I say, old man. That's Trump!
I say, old man. That’s Trump!

Today’s post is at the Stream: Trump’s—No, Wait—The Republican Debate.

Winner? No question about it, it was Trump at a canter. This was conceded even before the debate began in the under-card where the four folks who couldn’t make prime time were asked questions not about themselves, but about Trump. They took it well, though, like those golfers who had just won a tournament back in the day Tiger Woods was at the top and who were asked, “How do you think your victory affects Tiger?”

The situation was repeated during the main event, where one of CNN’s not-so-bright panelists announced he didn’t want a cage match, but then started goading other candidates to bash Trump. At one point when Trump and the walking-dead Bush were going at it, CNN switched to a split screen so we could see what kind of faces Trump was making.

Cruz was twice offered the chance to go after Trump. He refused. Trump never rose to the bait either. Trump even patted Cruz on the back and announced Cruz had a wonderful temperament after CNN’s panelist started chanting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”

And what was the big story immediately after the debate? Trump’s pledge to stick Republican and not run as a third party candidate.

It’s not only that, but Trump actually gave reasoned, responsible, real answers to (most) questions. There were no explosions, though they were undoubtedly hoped for. Trump was the only one calling out the idiotic idea that global warming—he said it properly: global warming, not “climate change”—was our scariest threat. Trump even pushed past some odd audience boos. (Where did they get that audience anyway?) Face it, the man never backs down. That, for many, is obviously his appeal…

Go there to read the rest.


  1. If Trump wins the nomination, I’m looking for immigration visas to New Zealand or Canada. The man is not a conservative, he’s an opportunist who takes positions to gain popularity. He is not knowledgeable: when asked what the “nuclear triad” was, he couldn’t give a straight answer.
    I believe he has been sponsored by the Clinton’s to save an otherwise unwinnable election.

  2. Gary

    I only can stand watching these things for a few minutes, but I did see each candidate make at least one statement. Here are their weak points: Cruz is the smartest guy, but unfortunately like Jack Kemp (another smart guy) lacks some telegenic presence. Jeb! is right that a president can’t make it on insults alone, but otherwise there isn’t much there. Rubio is trying to be a big boy but isn’t mature enough to pull it off. Carson is unfocused. Carly is unimaginative (I’ll get my private sector friends to help). The Donald is bluster and narcissism that reminds me of professional wrestling. The rest… meh.

    Let the road show continue. The primaries, where organization is key, will sort it all out.

  3. John B()

    Trump was the only one calling out the idiotic idea that global warming—he said it properly: global warming, not “climate change”—was our scariest threat.

    This is actually a two-faced stand by Trump. Earlier he lambasted Cruz for [just like Briggs] being in the “pockets” of big oil; being against the “renewable” fuel mandate – in particular ethanol. Can’t win in Iowa without being pro-ethanol. The whole “renewable” fuel lives and dies with Global Warming.

  4. Bob: Your irrational side is showing again. Even a foray into conspiracy theory. I would never have suspected that. By the way, why do you think New Zealand or Canada is any better? (And you stayed here while Clinton the first gave North Korea nuclear technology and Obama the first gave Iran nuclear weapons. You stayed while Obama allowed an invasion of the United States from South America, destroyed the economy and pronounced himself the greatest human being that ever lived. Yet now you would leave?)

    John B(): I disagree that ethanol lives and dies with global warming. Mandates for its usage go much further back than the global warming mantra. The original idea was ethanol was “cleaner” than gasoline. Having grown up in Iowa, I can assure you that all the farmers there want is $$$. Give them the same subsidy and ship the corn to a third world country to improve the US offsetting to hunger. No problems. You can win Iowa. (Iowa is very easily bribed—they will do anything for a government handout. Many farmers are that way too—they are “entitled” to your money.)

    It’s interesting that people are so convinced “this is the end”. Maybe it is, but there was a Civil War, WWI, WWII, the discovery humans could destroy huge chunks of the planet with a suitable application of a hydrogen bomb, etc and we’re still here. I am not sure we are more divided than during the Civil War and we’re not much more socialist, if any, than the life and times of FDR. Whether or not Trump wins depends on whether people decide they want a leader to fix everything or they wake up and fight back at the grassroots level. We got here at the grassroots level—progressives made people stupid and helpless. No one stopped them. I don’t know, maybe that’s America wants. If so, there’s no stopping it and you can’t leave it because worldwide. People have become “entitled” to other people’s money and believe they should not have to work. Most countries are socialist or communist.

  5. The only two candidates who have the knowledge, personality and skills to save this country–Kasich and Christie–are, sad to say, way down in the polls. Well, as has been said, a country gets the rulers they deservc, and if this be elitist, t.s.

  6. John B()


    The original idea was ethanol was “cleaner” than gasoline.

    Still environmentalism and it doesn’t make sense


    MPG. Due to ethanol’s lower energy content, FFVs operating on E85 get roughly 15% to 30% fewer miles per gallon than when operating on regular gasoline, which typically contains about 10% ethanol.5

    (I’ve heard it closer to 30%)


    Assuming an average efficiency corn farm and an average
    efficiency ethanol plant, the total energy used in growing
    the corn and processing it into ethanol and other products is
    81,090 BTUs. Ethanol contains 84,100 BTUs per gallon and
    the replacement energy value for the other co-products is
    27,579 BTUs. Thus, the total energy output is 111,679 BTUs
    and the net energy gain is 30,589 BTUs for an energy outputinput
    ratio of 1.38:1

    So considering the fuel efficiency and the fact that farmer’s are using diesel, I’m guessing the clean air is probably a sham. The other problem with ethonal is it’s stability problem in transportation and storage (it probably explains the difference in fuel economy depending on how quickly you use the fuel the get – and then there was the ethanol plant that wanted to use coal versus natural gas).

    Using food for fuel makes zero sense (BTW, one report said Iowa is all out for Cruz despite his ethanol stand).

    I can’t disagree about what you say about Bob and I’ve often used the phrase “This too shall pass”

  7. Anon

    I don’t understand why Trump is blasted for his narcissism, when all the candidates in both parties share the exact same trait. You need a certain amount of confidence and gumption and yes, narcissism, to throw your hat into the ring. P.S. Canada is hardly a bastion of conservatism. P.P.S. I have heard Dems say that they would vote for Kasich.

  8. John B(): My point was that ethanol is not dependent on global warming. Also, I noted we can use it for food, as long as the farmers get the subsidies. It’s about the money. Iowa may follow Cruz, hoping their senators and representatives will override any opposition to continuing subsidies. It’s worked so far.

    Anon: In reality, voting for anyone that is already in politics is basically voting for the same outcome, irregardless of party. Cruz may be the only exception. Otherwise, the others all have very similar platforms with the Democrats.

  9. DAV

    Bernie might have got it right that GW is causing terrorism. ISIS may be truing to divert us from the issue so that their customer Big Oil isn’t harmed. Uh yup.
    Trump may have looked lite he was giving clear responses but a lot of what he said he would do really isn’t possible for a president. For example, what he would do with cop killers even though murder is clearly within state jurisdictions. Then too, he presents one side during debates and quite another on the internet. He seems to only want to feed his ego. We’ve got one of those now. Who needs another helping of that.

    What’s scary is that if Trump doesn’t win the primaries he may just go out on his own (even though he signed a pledge not to) and fracture the vote which will effectively hand the election over to Hillary.

    The gasoline/alcohol was a response to the oil crisis in the 70’s. Theoretically we would need less oil. Turns out not to be but now (as usual) we get stuck with a bad policy.

  10. Gary

    Anon, Trump says “I/me/my” far more than any of the other candidates. And at about the same rate as Obama. Narcissism and self-confidence are different traits. The focus of the former is the person, of the latter it’s something else. A narcissist can’t see anything greater than himself and thus predictably is going to make decisions that benefit himself. I want a president who isn’t so shallow.

  11. Steve E

    For example, what he would do with cop killers even though murder is clearly within state jurisdictions.

    DAV: If a cop were killed during the commission of a federal crime it would be within federal jurisdiction despite the fact that murder falls within the states’ purview. Moreover, it would be possible to pass legislation that made killing a cop a federal offense.

  12. DAV

    Moreover, it would be possible to pass legislation that made killing a cop a federal offense.

    Still something outside of presidential powers. He might ASK for legislation but he can’t do it himself. A lot of things he has said he would do follows this pattern.

  13. Concerning Trump—
    From Psychology Today:
    “I don’t know whether Donald Trump is truly a narcissist or not. And neither do any of the reporters or talking heads on television. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a clinical diagnosis, and not one that should be bandied about casually and unethically. Those reporters and talking heads who call him a narcissist don’t acknowledge that Trump is acting exactly like we’ve taught him to, by a media-driven election process which encourages candidates towards cliffs of arrogance, overconfidence and simplicity.”

    As for his claims he can do something a president cannot really do, there is nothing at this point a president cannot do. Obama has made that absolutely clear. So has Congress. No one stops a president from doing whatever he likes. Supreme Court rulings don’t, Congress doesn’t. So Trump may indeed be accurate in his assessment of the power of the president.

  14. Joy

    Is narcissism caused by Trumpness or is Trumpness a superfluous variable?
    I think that’s the nub.

  15. Joy: Yes, that’s the nub. When Obama ran for president, his extreme narcissism was not evident. After 7 years, it’s quite apparant. With Trump, his self aggrandizing is apparant here and now. He doesn’t hide it like Obama did. So it’s hard to tell. As the Psychology Today article noted, voters want people who are extremely confident. So that’s what we get. Quite, well-mannered types are ignored (The Jerry Springer Syndrome). Sometimes self-confidence and bragging enhance the elected official, sometimes they don’t. Short of looking very confident, the only other thing many voters look for is who hands out the most candy.

    What is interesting is how the entire world opposes Trump at this point. The Pakistani girl who won the Noble prize said Trump is making more radicals.* England wants to forbid him into the country. It’s worldwide insanity. Or a conspiracy or who knows? I’ve never heard of this before. In over 50 years, I don’t remember any presidential candidate being opposed by other countries. Of course, after Obama tried to rig the Israeli election, maybe it’s the new fad. Politics worldwide has lost its collective mind.

    *Kind of off-topic, but this argument is interesting. It now seems battered women have brought their battering upon themselves. It now seems that violence and brutality are the fault of the one attacked, not the attacker. This is 180 degrees off what was preached for years. Women were victims. Now they just aren’t behaving right or their husbands would not be hitting them. Like radical Muslims would love us if we just would be nice enough.

  16. Joy

    One could wax lyrical about what is wrong with Oobama’s character but as he’s on the wane it seems pointless, easy, unkind and perhaps a waste of energy. He’s done “his best” the worst and now it’s time to take the distaff before Hilary grabs it and so move along.
    If Republicans don’t get behind someone they’ll fall behind everyone.
    Trump is handing the Republicans what they so need I can’t see any sense in Trump bashing. It looks like pride is getting in the way for some people who would otherwise be happy with any other Republican on any day anywhere. Thees, mostly men, are allowing emotion to cloud their judgement. “he’s a big nose” “he’s shouty” “unhinged”, “look at his hair”, “dangerous”, “he’s rich!”, “he’s successful and doesn’t need back up”, “I don’t like him”. On and on it goes, “he’s a narcissist!” Wow!
    “Shut the door! they’re comin’ in the winda’!”.
    It’s suicide for American Republicans and as Republicans are the voice of sanity you’ll have a real problem if they don’t see sense before they sink their own ship.
    “Good morning Mrs President! “
    Ben Carsen would be my second choice. Note how he doesn’t bash the leader, keeps the bigger picture in mind, he’s honest, very charming and agrees with Trump. A noble man, I admire him too. Both are passionate to Do Not To Be.
    Why should I care I’m English and proud of it. we’ll have Trump and you can have the choice of Nicola Stergeon,, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone, we’ve had no takers yet. Actually you can have all of them Hillary will need some helpers so they’re ;more use over there.

  17. Joy: I’m not sure it matters whether we have our crazy politicians or yours. It seems most of the world has lost it. Whether or not this can be fixed remains to be seen, but I think we may find we are at the point where nature is the only way to straighten things out, and nature is a very harsh teacher. Humans just won’t learn and there’s little we can do about that.

    (At this point, in America, there is only one party—the one that owns us and takes from us and we pretend they represent us. Delusional, I know.)

  18. Joy

    Sheri on *
    It’s the liberal bigotry; the hidden enemy which creeps, aids and abets tyrants.
    The Tyrant always blames their victim.
    They’re really naming their victim subject.
    So I say, don’t wear the badge! to them I say ‘on my worst day, I’m still better than you’.
    The liberal bigots want everyone to wear the badge. Those who would fight back are blamed for “asking for it”.
    “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”
    Truly I am angry as many of us are angry. Mark Steyn had the following to say:
    “I’m not prepared to concede one inch, not one inch of the civilized world to these barbarians.” He’s not alone.
    Western nations need truth and strength of character. All the way.

  19. Hey, I’ve thought of two other places to which we might emigrate if it’s Trump and Hillary: Switzerland or Israel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *