Republican NBC News debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley is so damn reasonable .

Are you sure she is a Republican?

She and maybe Christie at times are clearly the only people on that stage that can articulate a case for being considered for POTUS.

Agree. I would feel comfortable with either of them as POTUS and I generally vote for democrats. Depressing that Trump is so far ahead.

+1, I think they are doing a great job staying the course for when Trump inevitably is convicted of something in one of the criminal matters. The Dems should be worried if Haley somehow emerges with the nomination. I’ve never voted for a R for president before but I would vote for Haley over Biden.

I really don't see republican voters lining up behind Nimarata against Trump.

Haley won two terms as governor of in the conservatively red state of South Carolina. Republicans didn't hesitate to line up for her then and they wouldn't in a general presidential election either. Overtaking Trump for the nomination may not be possible but as the PP noted, if/when Trump was forced out with legal troubles, Republicans would have a replacement they could actually be proud of.

A much better case scenario for the country would be both Trump and Biden dropping out with the parties instead nominating people like Haley and Whitmer. What a breath of fresh air it would be for the country to have a choice between two experienced executives that are in the prime of their careers and moderate enough to lead all the people in fair manner. Both Whitmer and Haley are obviously more fit than Trump and Biden to serve the country well as POTUS and it would be entertaining for all the right reasons to see them together on a debate stage as opposed to the Trump/Biden debates of 2020 that were frankly an embarrassment for the country. The political policy differences between the parties aren't the cause of our dysfunction in government; it's the people in leadership positions in government that are causing the dysfunction. I certainly wouldn't agree with many of the political viewpoints of both Haley and Whitmer but I would be content with either of them in office knowing we have a very decent and highly competent person serving in the most important and powerful position in the world.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley is so damn reasonable .

Are you sure she is a Republican?

She and maybe Christie at times are clearly the only people on that stage that can articulate a case for being considered for POTUS.

Agree. I would feel comfortable with either of them as POTUS and I generally vote for democrats. Depressing that Trump is so far ahead.

+1, I think they are doing a great job staying the course for when Trump inevitably is convicted of something in one of the criminal matters. The Dems should be worried if Haley somehow emerges with the nomination. I’ve never voted for a R for president before but I would vote for Haley over Biden.

I really don't see republican voters lining up behind Nimarata against Trump.

Haley won two terms as governor of in the conservatively red state of South Carolina. Republicans didn't hesitate to line up for her then and they wouldn't in a general presidential election either. Overtaking Trump for the nomination may not be possible but as the PP noted, if/when Trump was forced out with legal troubles, Republicans would have a replacement they could actually be proud of.

A much better case scenario for the country would be both Trump and Biden dropping out with the parties instead nominating people like Haley and Whitmer. What a breath of fresh air it would be for the country to have a choice between two experienced executives that are in the prime of their careers and moderate enough to lead all the people in fair manner. Both Whitmer and Haley are obviously more fit than Trump and Biden to serve the country well as POTUS and it would be entertaining for all the right reasons to see them together on a debate stage as opposed to the Trump/Biden debates of 2020 that were frankly an embarrassment for the country. The political policy differences between the parties aren't the cause of our dysfunction in government; it's the people in leadership positions in government that are causing the dysfunction. I certainly wouldn't agree with many of the political viewpoints of both Haley and Whitmer but I would be content with either of them in office knowing we have a very decent and highly competent person serving in the most important and powerful position in the world.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley made the most sense of anybody on the stage. Vivek is nuts...from saying the moderators should be replaced with Tucker/Rogan/Elon,
Mto slamming Ronna "don't call me Romney" McDaniel, to attacking Haley's daughter, to calling Zelensky a nazi. I'm not sure how anybody can take him seriously.

How about speculating that Michelle Obama might really be running the country??

I wouldn't mind if Michelle was running the country. She would do a great job.

Based on…?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will vote for Haley if she bans Tik-Tok!
Mom of 11 year old boys

You know you can ban it in your house, right? Or put controls in their phones.

Haley doesn’t. So how bad can it really be?

Haley’s daughter is not a minor, you twit. She can do whatever she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take-away from this debate is that the Republican Party is in deep deep trouble when Trump finally exits the stage. These people are uncharismatic morons that no one likes.

Vivek is definitely a moron. You may not agree with Nikki Haley and Chris Christie, but I definitely wouldn’t characterize them as morons. Joe Biden would look terrible on a debate stage with either of them.

+1
Plenty of people like these candidates (perhaps with the exception of Vivek). The PP sounds nervous.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Vivek was disgusting going after Kristen Welker. He’s trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley made the most sense of anybody on the stage. Vivek is nuts...from saying the moderators should be replaced with Tucker/Rogan/Elon,
Mto slamming Ronna "don't call me Romney" McDaniel, to attacking Haley's daughter, to calling Zelensky a nazi. I'm not sure how anybody can take him seriously.

How about speculating that Michelle Obama might really be running the country??

I wouldn't mind if Michelle was running the country. She would do a great job.

Based on what job experience?

She has a D next to her name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

Look it up you effing moron. Almost 200 people have been exonerated since being executed. Not to mention those currently on death row. At least Catholics have it right and are consistent with their pro life stance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

Look it up you effing moron. Almost 200 people have been exonerated since being executed. Not to mention those currently on death row. At least Catholics have it right and are consistent with their pro life stance.

There are far more people like this college student who are victims of these evil humans. This guy should fry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican is fine with the unjust death of an innocent person in the pursuit of executing guilty persons. In other words Republicans thinks the execution of an innocent person by the state is just collateral damage and a trade-off for the ability of the state to kill guilty criminals.

Democrats think that one innocent person's death is too much of a sacrifice to justify allowing the state to kill its own citizens.