Disgrace in Milwaukee

[hntnhole]

So last night the first Republican "debate" was held in Milwaukee, WI., and broadcast on Fox News Channel.  

Being politically interested, but more because the Netflix series I was watching finished about 10 minutes before the "debate" was to begin, I decided to check in on it.  

Disclaimer:   I've never voted for a Republican, and even when I had to travel for business quite a bit, I've never missed an election.  So I had to check the station-guide to even find Fox News, since I never watch it.  Of course, now that Pre-Season is here, I will watch a game on Fox Sports, but that's it.

This event - while billed as a debate - was hardly that.  It was far more a screaming match between the candidates themselves, the candidates and the audience of constantly screaming, hollering, fools, to the extent that what Fox calls "moderators" having to attempt to quiet the audience down a few decibels.  

Each of the candidates sought to out-shout each other, and all at once almost constantly.  The result was nothing less than televised grade-school-playground-level mayhem.  The entire auditorium-full of candidates / audience disgraced themselves over and over and over.  Of particular disgust was Mr. Ramaswamy, with his claim that the increasing climate-change was, in fact, a complete hoax (he actually used that word), and that the US should pump more fossil fuels, refine them, and pollute even more.  Mr. Christy got quite a few zingers in on his fellow candidates, Mr. DullSantis was his usual dull self to a T.  

These people are collectively and individually an enormous threat to stability, fairness, attempting to right the wrongs of our social construct, and deserve nothing less than the dust-bin of history.

No wonder the only apparent advertiser left on Fox News is that pillow-pimp from MN, or so the rumors go.  

Every one of us who can, simply must exercise our right to vote, both up and down-ballot.  These people must be soundly rejected.  

[BootmanLA]

I vaguely considered watching, but then I realized the following:

1. I'm not going to vote for any of these candidates (or any other Republican) over any Democrat, whether it's Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, or the vivified zombie corpse of FDR;

2. I already know which of these candidates is the worst, which is to say, all of them; and 

3. Any minute I spent watching this "debate" would be a minute I couldn't spend in a more uplifting and consequential pursuit, such as cleaning out my belly lint, organizing the twist-ties in my kitchen drawer by length, or attempting to teach my cats how to spell "antidisestablishmentarianism". 

[topblkmale]

16 hours ago, hntnhole said:

 

This event - while billed as a debate - was hardly that.  It was far more a screaming match between the candidates themselves, the candidates and the audience of constantly screaming, hollering, fools, to the extent that what Fox calls "moderators" having to attempt to quiet the audience down a few decibels.  

 

I can't wait for the Democratic debate (which there will probably not be one). So I will have to wait til 2027 to see CNN/MSNBC coverage of that event.

[viking8x6]

Being stuck in a red state, my only significant power in the upcoming Presidential election is likely to be my primary vote. So I have some interest in what goes on with the Republican debates and candidates. Furthermore, what happens with those debates is going to influence the post-primary campaign, because it will telegraph to the Republicans how far right they can go and not alienate the silent centrist majority. That could be pretty important to how things go down in November '24.

I really want to make sure that the marginally sane candidates (i.e. not Trump and Ramaswamy) have a significant voice in those debates.

The RNC (bless their black flabby little hearts) apparently don't want that - viz their qualification rules (including a couple of oaths) for the debates.

I urge all of you, especially those in red states, to donate a little (a dollar is fine) to Chris Christie and Will Hurd, and to answer any polls that cover Republican turf with one of those names.

[Close2MyBro]

If you're not happy where you live, you can move. Thousands of us have left places that weren't suited for us. If you stay, then you choose to accept everything around you, good and bad.

[viking8x6]

59 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

If you're not happy where you live, you can move.

I didn't say I wasn't happy. Every location has its limitations.  That said, I am planning to move. Not sure whether it will happen before 2024 - the real estate market in the target area sucks right now.

[topblkmale]

5 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

I didn't say I wasn't happy. Every location has its limitations.  That said, I am planning to move. Not sure whether it will happen before 2024 - the real estate market in the target area sucks right now.

Which blue state or target metro area are you planning to move to?

[viking8x6]

4 minutes ago, topblkmale said:

Which blue state or target metro area are you planning to move to?

I'm not actually moving (nor selecting my destination) for political reasons, y'know. I imagine few people do that, though more LGBTQ+ people than others, I guess.

The plan is to move to a rather red region in a blue state (rural PA, not too far from where I am now). The actual reasons have to do with relationship and taxes. Though truly, my current apartment has some serious drawbacks too.

[NWUSHorny]

17 minutes ago, topblkmale said:

Which blue state or target metro area are you planning to move to?

My only experience with living in a deep blue metro area, is that the casual sex scene is almost non-existent, so I would recommend against making that the only criteria.

 

12 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

The actual reasons have to do with relationship and taxes.

I'm in much the same boat. Taxes, cost of living and proximity to family are bigger considerations than political leanings, as well as the availability of sex.

[topblkmale]

14 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

I'm not actually moving (nor selecting my destination) for political reasons, y'know. I imagine few people do that, though more LGBTQ+ people than others, I guess.

The plan is to move to a rather red region in a blue state (rural PA, not too far from where I am now). The actual reasons have to do with relationship and taxes. Though truly, my current apartment has some serious drawbacks too.

True. Many LGBT people do. The inverse reminds me of Atlanta - a blue city in a rural red state - where many black gay men flocked to in the late 90s from all over the US.

[viking8x6]

6 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

My only experience with living in a deep blue metro area, is that the casual sex scene is almost non-existent, so I would recommend against making that the only criteria.

It's pretty well non-existent here (and in my target destination) as well - for reasons of density and closeting.

Quote

Taxes, cost of living and proximity to family are bigger considerations than political leanings, as well as the availability of sex.

Yep. The family issue is one of the main reasons I'm not looking (ironically) in your area LOL. Quality of life there is quite lovely in my book (apart from the sex thing).

[meetme]

2 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Being stuck in a red state, my only significant power in the upcoming Presidential election is likely to be my primary vote. So I have some interest in what goes on with the Republican debates and candidates. Furthermore, what happens with those debates is going to influence the post-primary campaign, because it will telegraph to the Republicans how far right they can go and not alienate the silent centrist majority. That could be pretty important to how things go down in November '24.

I really want to make sure that the marginally sane candidates (i.e. not Trump and Ramaswamy) have a significant voice in those debates.

The RNC (bless their black flabby little hearts) apparently don't want that - viz their qualification rules (including a couple of oaths) for the debates.

I urge all of you, especially those in red states, to donate a little (a dollar is fine) to Chris Christie and Will Hurd, and to answer any polls that cover Republican turf with one of those names.

You don’t have to stay a registered Republican.  The GOP needs to see a major exodus, they aren’t interested in the will of the people, walk away, live where you live but chose a party that will work with you.

[viking8x6]

1 minute ago, meetme said:

You don’t have to stay a registered Republican.  The GOP needs to see a major exodus, they aren’t interested in the will of the people, walk away, live where you live but chose a party that will work with you.

I'm under no illusions whatsoever that either of the major parties is going to "work with [me]". They are, as parties, clearly firmly in the pockets of the capitalist machine. Unfortunately they are also thoroughly entrenched, and barring revolution that essentially disenfranchises all the other parties and viewpoints.

I'm much less worried about which Democrats get into office than about which Republicans do. Though I'll make an exception in Joe Manchin's case (which is the one reason I'd consider switching back to Democratic registration).

But my comment is less concerned with who gets into office in the long run, and more about influencing the public dialog.

[PozBearWI]

For openers, it is interesting RNC decided to hold the first debate in a distinctly Democratic city.

I recorded it so I could scroll through all the BS parts from the incompetent Fox News as well as all the RNC crap.  I just wanted to listen to the candidates words from their mouths.

WRT votiing, I am non partisan but tend to vote more for Democratic candidates than R.  In the upcoming primary, as Democrats do not seem warm to having options beyond Biden, it makes no sense for me to waste my one and only ballot option on a D, ballot.  Especially when I might influence the R outcome.  Right now Christie is, for me, the frontrunner I am likely to vote for.  But bear in mind, this is just ONE debate.  Lots of stuff to occur before this coming April.  So while these are my leanings, too soon to make a decision.  

[topblkmale]

18 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

For openers, it is interesting RNC decided to hold the first debate in a distinctly Democratic city.

I recorded it so I could scroll through all the BS parts from the incompetent Fox News as well as all the RNC crap.  I just wanted to listen to the candidates words from their mouths.

WRT votiing, I am non partisan but tend to vote more for Democratic candidates than R.  In the upcoming primary, as Democrats do not seem warm to having options beyond Biden, it makes no sense for me to waste my one and only ballot option on a D, ballot.  Especially when I might influence the R outcome.  Right now Christie is, for me, the frontrunner I am likely to vote for.  But bear in mind, this is just ONE debate.  Lots of stuff to occur before this coming April.  So while these are my leanings, too soon to make a decision.  

 

I don't think they had a choice for venue as there are no Republican cities.