On the the first Republican Party "debate" of 2015
This wasn't a debate. A political debate, in the classic sense, is the presentation of evidenced based argument. Evidenced based argument we call empirical ratiocination. A political argument is the presentation of one's political program for a Party platform vis-a-vis the political program and Party platform presented by and argued for by others. Such presentations and challenges by others arguing contrary positions are the content of political debate.
What we saw on last Thursdays FOX news platform was at best mutual recrimination and argumentum ad hominem wherein the individual was presenting himself as the issue for discourse, to which his 'ideas' were but amplifications showing how wonderful he is vis-a-vis how loathsome were his opponents.
A real political debate, even in U.S. political history e.g. see the Lincoln v Douglas Debates, is one in which individual candidates represent Party positions on issues. Debaters challenge each other on the issues to respond to arguments with arguments rather than folksy and self-praising autobiographical bragging, anecdotes and ad hominems.
The press once denounced ad hominems as demagogic 'mud slinging'. The difference distinguishing past debates and relation to a critical press reporting and critiquing is perhaps that then there were real, substantive issues that parties represented, different class interests, whereas today there is no differences between the 'policy advocates' of individual candidates.
This so-called debate amounts to the same ol' wine in different bottles. Cut business taxes. Eliminate regulations on business and banks. Repeal financial reform (Dodd-Frank). Eliminate Planned Parenthood and abolish abortion. Get rid of "Obamacare". Extend the retirement age and reform Social Security. Balance budgets by eliminating social programs. Smash workers unions.
The so-called Republican candidates 'debate' was a forum for candidates to put forth their reactionary opinions unchecked. The candidates are allowed to lie and evade questions without the moderator checking them or asking for political significance, clarification or insisting on evidentiary documentation to keep the debate objective and make claims verifiable.
For example Donald Trump states that "the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border" and, when confronted about this statement, to put forth evidence, he says that "Border Patrol, people that I deal with, that I talk to, they say this is what's happening." This is an obvious variation of the fallacy called anecdotal fallacy. Evidence would be to provide documents from Mexico wherein the government of Mexico had established a policy and implemented same and/or produce individuals sent to the U.S. e.g. to sell drugs, rape women &c., which is exactly what Trump charged it and claimed he had evidence to prove. The documentation proof should have been demanded -- that Trump put up or shut up. There was no such demand, neither by the interviewing 'moderator', nor by fellow debaters.
"The reason we know that it is is because of the DNA schedule that we now have clear scientific evidence on."
What is a "DNA schedule"?
"We got nothing, and Iran gets everything they want."
Who is "we". What represents "nothing"? What is "everything"?
..."the Iranians have said is, 'we will wipe Israel off the face of the map'...
Who said "we will wipe Israel off the face of the map..."? When, where? Israel is a State, not a geography. The political geography of the region is called Palestine and its inhabitants called therefore Palestinians. Eliminating the settler-colonial garrison State called Israel is no different than in Zimbabwe than was the displacement of the apartheid settler-colonial garrison State that called itself "Rhodesia". The 'map' remained the same.
Lil Joe and David Moros============================
A few reactionary "pearls of wisdom" from candidate and so-called "moderator" alike.
So, what did we do? We came in, we balanced an $11 billion deficit on a $29 billion budget by cutting over 800 programs in the state budget. We brought the budget into balance with no tax increases. ... We cut business taxes $2.3 billion, and we cut regulation by one-third of what my predecessor put in place.
We fought the teacher's union.
...challenging the teachers union and beating them is the way to go.
You get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that doesn't suppress wages and kill jobs.
And one of the best things we can do is get the government out of the way, repeal Obamacare, put in — reign in all the out of control regulations, put in place and all of the above energy policy,...
We need to have a regulatory budget in America that limits the amount of regulations on our economy. We need to repeal and replace Obamacare...
We have to end Obamacare...
...we need to — we need to — stop the — Iran agreement, for sure, because the Iranian mullahs have their blood on their hands...
Iran is at the heart of most of the evil that is going on in the Middle East through their proxy.
I will tell you one thing. I would've a whole lot rather had Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation [with Iran] than John Kerry. Maybe we would've gotten a deal where we didn't give everything away.
But the issue for us is to have a Congress that stands up and says not only no, but hell no, to this money going to a regime that is going to use it for terror…
...Iran is not a place we should be doing business with.
To me, you terminate the deal on day one, you reinstate the sanctions authorized by Congress, you go to Congress and put in place even more crippling sanctions in place, and then you convince our allies to do the same.
I oppose the Iranian deal, and will vote against it.
It has to do with the incredibly dangerous place that this world is gonna be as a result of a deal in which we got nothing.
...We got nothing, and Iran gets everything they want.
...and then intend to cancel the Iran deal, and finally move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice to open an investigation into these videos and to prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations.
A lot of people are talking about defunding planned parenthood, as if that's a huge game changer. I think it's time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception.
The reason we know that it is is because of the DNA schedule that we now have clear scientific evidence on. And, this notion that we just continue to ignore the personhood of the individual is a violation of that unborn child's Fifth and 14th Amendment rights for due process and equal protection under the law.
It's time that we recognize the Supreme Court is not the supreme being, and we change the policy to be pro-life and protect children instead of rip up their body parts and sell them like they're parts to a Buick.
And I have been proud to fight and stand for religious liberty, to stand against Planned Parenthood
I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…
Well, I'm pro-life, I've always been pro-life, and I've got a position that I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that… in that I believe that that is an unborn child that's in need of protection out there, and I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected...
And let me go further. I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not. Whether they can speak or not. Whether they can hire a lawyer or not. Whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live.
They asked me a question as to pro-life or choice. And I said if you let it run, that I hate the concept of abortion. I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I've very much evolved.
WALLACE: Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio, more than 3,000 people sent us questions about the economy and jobs on Facebook. And here is a video question from Tania Cioloko from Philadelphia. Here she is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Please describe one action you would do to make the economic environment more favorable for small businesses and entrepreneurs and anyone dreaming of opening their own business.
The first thing we need to do is we need to even out the tax code for small businesses so that we lower their tax rate to 25 percent, just as we need to lower it for all businesses.
*** And last but not least, we need to repeal Dodd-Frank. It is eviscerating small businesses and small banks.
*** We need to make America fair again for all businesses, but especially those being run by small business owners
A transcript of the debate available at:
LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe