The 2012 CNN/Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate

[StorminNorman]

You're right, if there is no minimum wage there'd be more jobs. Sweatshop jobs like China where people work 18 hours a day for a few dollars and will not be able to afford food or shelter for more than a family of two....but aiming for the cheapest jobs and standards of living is the ultimate "free market solution," I suppose.

Right, because it's minimum wage laws that prevent this nation from being littered with sweatshops.

 

[dnno1]

Right, because it's minimum wage laws that prevent this nation from being littered with sweatshops.

Actually, if there were no minimum wage law (nor any regulations regarding occupational health and safety), we would have no basis to define what a sweatshop is, so technically there would be no sweatshops. That being said, it doen't mean that eliminating the minimum wage it the right thing to do. In truth, there needs to be a minimum wage set such that a person can a minimum standard of living.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, if there were no minimum wage law (nor any regulations regarding occupational health and safety), we would have no basis to define what a sweatshop is, so technically there would be no sweatshops. That being said, it doen't mean that eliminating the minimum wage it the right thing to do. In truth, there needs to be a minimum wage set such that a person can a minimum standard of living.

The sad thing is though that with the minimum wage, producers then raise their prices to account for the minimum wage thereby undoing the intentions of what the minimum wage is meant for and hurts the middle class as well in the process because they don't get raises when the minimum wage goes up.

It's a double edged sword IMO.

 

[Marx]

I love how the audience at these GOP debates give the biggest cheers for executions and uninsured people dying. They seem like wonderful human-beings.

...that was shameful.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: RICK PERRY "TAKEN ABACK" BY DEBATE AUDIENCE CHEERING UNINSURED MAN'S DEATH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/rick-perry-uninsured-health-care_n_960209.html

 

[dnno1]

The sad thing is though that with the minimum wage, producers then raise their prices to account for the minimum wage thereby undoing the intentions of what the minimum wage is meant for and hurts the middle class as well in the process because they don't get raises when the minimum wage goes up.

It's a double edged sword IMO.

I don't know how much bearing that has when the average wage is usually higher than the minimum. Remember, it is demand and competition that are the drivers of the price for goods. Outside of that only a tiny fraction of what we buy is substantially dependent on salaries paid to minimum wage workers. A business has far more expenses (like rent, franchise fees and utilities) that could increase the price of their goods and services more significantly than an increase in the minimum wage.

 

[StorminNorman]

Actually, if there were no minimum wage law (nor any regulations regarding occupational health and safety), we would have no basis to define what a sweatshop is, so technically there would be no sweatshops. That being said, it doen't mean that eliminating the minimum wage it the right thing to do. In truth, there needs to be a minimum wage set such that a person can a minimum standard of living.

Except that minimum wage laws doesn't set a minimum standard of living.

If I don't have a job, how does the minimum wage law set my minimum standard of living?

Further, what is the "minimum standard of living"? If I have a good family, or a good church, I can live off of the charity of those who support me while making $10,000 and be living a much better life than someone who makes $30k in Washington DC without such support.

And you don't need government legislation to define a sweatshop. Come on, man.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know how much bearing that has when the average wage is usually higher than the minimum. Remember, it is demand and competition that are the drivers of the price for goods. Outside of that only a tiny fraction of what we buy is substantially dependent on salaries paid to minimum wage workers. A business has far more expenses (like rent, franchise fees and utilities) that could increase the price of their goods and services more significantly than an increase in the minimum wage.

The average wage is affected when they have to pay more for basic goods such as milk, bread, cheese, etc. to make up for the increases in costs for the increase in minimum wage. Today's middle class is struggling to deal with inflation caused by various factors and increasing the minimum wage tends to hurt the middle class quite a bit.

In the end, those who get minimum wage aren't affected because while they're getting higher pay, that's just going to go right back to the increased costs. The rich aren't going to be affected because they can afford it easily. The middle class though, not so much, they're the ones who have to put up the brunt of increased costs because their wages don't go up, so more of their money is going to just the basic cost of living for basic goods.

Like I said, minimum wage is a double edged sword. On one hand, the intentions behind it are good and it's designed to prevent employers from giving their employees dirt pay. But on the other, it really doesn't affect the lower class because the increase in pay just goes back into the increase in the costs of living, and it hurts the middle class because it results in a increase in costs with nothing to offset them.

 

[Paradoxium]

Oh noes HK had no minimum (until May 2011), it was a hell hole full of slave labor. Evil evil place. Backwards place with backward economics. Evil stuff like lowest unemployment in the world (that or second lowest), pretty cheap food and schweet pickups . HK wishes it was the godsend heaven like Detroit, the city of tomorrow. Detroit what America wishes it can will become.

 

[enterthemadness]

Oh noes HK had no minimum (until May 2011), it was a hell hole full of slave labor. Evil evil place. Backwards place with backward economics. Evil stuff like lowest unemployment in the world (that or second lowest), pretty cheap food and schweet pickups . HK wishes it was the godsend heaven like Detroit, the city of tomorrow. Detroit what America wishes it can will become.

Detriot is liek a mini Rome...wonder when the sports teams will leave town...

 

[DACrowe]

UPDATE: RICK PERRY "TAKEN ABACK" BY DEBATE AUDIENCE CHEERING UNINSURED MAN'S DEATH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/rick-perry-uninsured-health-care_n_960209.html

Ahh political opportunism.

This crowd is supposed to represent the face of the Tea Party (i.e. GOP base) right?

They....

-Cheered and rejoiced at the word execution. That rejoicing gave way to ecstacy when Rick Perry dropped the 2-3-4 corpse number on 'em.

-Cheered at a hypothetical man dying because he was uninsured and the state refusing to cover it. They even yelled "Let him die!"

-Furiously boo-ed Rick Perry because he stood by his Texas law that...allows the children of illegal immigrants to go to college if they pay their fair share and/or serve their country....

-Furiously boo-ed Ron Paul because he suggested taking a view of nuance on the Middle East instead of Santorum's fluffy and pandering "American exceptionalism" ass-kissing. Paul said we are "unfair" to Palestinians and it sounded like they were ready to lynch him.

....This is the Tea Party and modern Republican Party ladies and gentlemen. They have a good shot at picking our next president. God help us all.

 

[DACrowe]

Right, because it's minimum wage laws that prevent this nation from being littered with sweatshops.

They ensure a minimum level of income, dignity and lifestyle in the U.S. that we would not have without it. It helped (along with other pro-worker laws you despise) build the foundation of the modern middle class. There would be more employment if there was no minimum wage. There would also be a much smaller (if existent) middle class and a poorer country with gaping income disparity in the process.

 

[The Squirrel]

Ahh political opportunism.

This crowd is supposed to represent the face of the Tea Party (i.e. GOP base) right?

They....

-Cheered and rejoiced at the word execution. That rejoicing gave way to ecstacy when Rick Perry dropped the 2-3-4 corpse number on 'em.

-Cheered at a hypothetical man dying because he was uninsured and the state refusing to cover it. They even yelled "Let him die!"

-Furiously boo-ed Rick Perry because he stood by his Texas law that...allows the children of illegal immigrants to go to college if they pay their fair share and/or serve their country....

-Furiously boo-ed Ron Paul because he suggested taking a view of nuance on the Middle East instead of Santorum's fluffy and pandering "American exceptionalism" ass-kissing. Paul said we are "unfair" to Palestinians and it sounded like they were ready to lynch him.

....This is the Tea Party and modern Republican Party ladies and gentlemen. They have a good shot at picking our next president. God help us all.

I'm not going to argue the points, the cheering was ugly, but no one yelled "Let him die!" In the video.

 

[DACrowe]

Sorry, I was mixing it up with the Daily Show parody. They just yelled "YEEEAAAAAAH!"

So much better.

On a substantive note, Weiner's seat went to a Republican tonight which means Obama may be in big trouble. Granted, that may have been an angry vote from orthodox Jews who view Obama as not pro-Israel enough (i.e. he tried to broker a peace accord with a hawkish Israeli government). Still, that is one voting segment that is disasatisfied. If they turn on Obama and the Dems, one wonders what the rest of the country far more concerned with the economy may think.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Who was the guy who had the sign that said "Die quickly!"?


Not so silly anymore.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Who was the guy who had the sign that said "Die quickly!"?


Not so silly anymore.

Believe you're talking about former Florida Rep. Alan Grayson.

 

[Faramir]

Yeah, I hate most of the extreme displays of backwards thinking amongst the Tea Party. Examples like racist anti-gay, anti-immigration radicals, pro-death penalty pro-lifers, militarist nutjobs abound... but they do advance some politics that actually make sense, and they are organized. I think they were more 'grassroots' before being hijacked by the Tea Party Caucus.

But what I really don't like is people ridiculing the teapartiers and calling them terrorists so they can bring down their sensible stuff too: fiscal responsibility, little government, federalism, etc. I get it, a lot of people in the movement are crazy and gullible, but a lot other are not and they are fighting for some pretty sensible things that ought to be heard.

In general, the Debate was a disgrace, not only because of the lame, evasive, disingenuous, soundbyte answers... but also because of the horrible moderation. Liberals at CNN, especially Blitzer, must have had a field day with the candidates. But they were afraid of Ron Paul. 5 minutes?? Questions about the Bernanke and Fed and you don't even question the guy on the actual subcommittee Bernanke reports to? The guy that wrote a book on the matter titled END THE FED????

And what's the one question he gets: ... but Congressman, again, would you let a 30 year old man die?? Un...believable.

I think CNN's rationale for that kind of crap must be this: IF the GOP nominates Paul, the GOP will win. He will simply get too many social liberal votes, anti-war votes, the gay vote, the young vote, the fiscal conservative vote, and most importantly, the 'fed up with politicians' vote... all the people that feel Obama let them down on their issues. Paul is all over the spectrum.
Republicans worst mistake would be not to nominate him, because then all those moderate republicans, disaffected democrats and independents would RUN AWAY to Obama's loving arms. The other guys are not getting any traction. And Blitzer knows that. He's counting on that.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Paul would lose the seniors, perhaps the biggest voting bloc, because of his opposition to social security, medicare, etc. I also don't see him doing well with working-class minorities due to his opposition to social welfare programs and the minimum wage. There's also a big bloc of Republicans that remain wary of him because they percieve him as against big business and weakening America's muscle on the international stage. And big business is where the campaign cash is.

I also think he has too many wacky, dangerous views and has too many crazy sound-bites that would be highlighted in attack-ads during a general election to win. Paul is a nonstarter, despite what libertarians tell themselves. If he can't win a primary full of GOP voters, then he can't win a nationwide Presidential run.

 

[Faramir]

Wait, wait, didn't the guy say he would let seniors to stay on the plan and allow young people to opt out of the plan? Because, yes, that's what he said.

I don't think he has many dangerous views. On the contrary. And if they sound tacky, it's because the current status quo lead to people into believing stuff that is just no true. When people hear Greenspan and Bernanke say we can print money with almost no consequences, or Paul Krugman say the only thing the Fed has done wrong is too little quantitative easing... that is wacky. But more and more people are educating themselves on the matter and one thing Paul has done is stay on message... even if his own views conflicted with anyone else's and lost him votes.

What Obama has provoked is that many people on the left feel betrayed, and that has created an urge, specially amongst young voters and liberals who voted in mass for him to go fin a candidate that has deep-rooted convictions. Ron Paul's public image screams that everywhere he goes. Many say he is crazy, but at least he stays on principle.

What is a good measure of liberal thinking in America? The Huffington Post. And many regular writers are basically endorsing him through the HuffPost. Look:

Robin Koerner: Ron Paul Can Win (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html)

Andy Horowitz: A Natural Disasters History Lesson By Ron Paul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-horowitz/ron-paul-hurricane-irene_b_942350.html)

Anthony Anderson: I voted for Obama, now I'm voting for Ron Paul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-anderson/i-voted-for-obama-now-im-_b_944097.html)

Laura Trice: The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is The Only Rational Choice (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-elections_b_939004.html)

The top 10 reasons why Dr. Ron Paul is the only rational presidential choice for Americans, Democratic, Republican and Independent:

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up -- for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be "hypocritical and immoral."

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

4. Dr. Paul doesn't care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

2. Dr. Paul will bring practical wisdom, cut spending, balance the budget, stabilize the economy and probably be able to do away with the IRS and income tax, a tax that is not constitutional and was started to fund the civil war and supposed to stop after the civil war. He wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, giving the states and parents back control. He wants to do away with other large government agencies, restoring the rightful power to the states.

1. Dr. Paul's old-fashioned decency, integrity, honor and real-life experience are exactly what our country needs after hiring actors, puppets, oil and other group-connected slick sales men and marketers. He's been married to the same woman, Carol, for 54 years (married 1957).

Electing dishonorable, irresponsible, good-looking, smooth-talkers over the past several decades has eroded our country's stability.

Are Americans finally ready to elect an honest, decent man who will not listen to non-sense from regular Americans, politicians or corporations? A president who will be accountable and hold us all accountable? I hope so.

"Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic." -- Dr. Paul

"He does not take money from corporate PACs. Lobbyists cannot sway him; to try is a waste of time. He never bargains with his own deeply held beliefs, nor does he cut backroom deals. Because his political views and his personal convictions are in complete harmony, he seldom faces a "tough" vote. And when the politicking for the week is over, he returns to his district to take up his lifelong occupation, which has nothing to do with politics." -- S. C. Gwynne

The guy has a very committed and ever-expansive campaign with an astounding volunteer-recruiting and fundraising machinery. He even was reported to have more campaign contributions from active duty military than all the other GOP candidates combined or Obama himself (the actual commander-in-chief).

So, yes, the real challenge is getting his voice heard over the blackouts of the mainstream media and the prejudices of the GOP. After that? Piece of cake.

 

[Faramir]

- double post -

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Ron Paul has claimed in the past that social security, medicare and medicaid are unconstitutional. That doesn't sound like something that will go over well with seniors. Yes, he even compares social security to slavery. So he can pivot during a debate, but we know where his heart is. From Wikiquote:

Chris Wallace: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
Ron Paul: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse — that very notion that you're presenting.
Chris Wallace: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Ron Paul: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal, too, and we had to reverse that.

Paul would like to see the following disappear or be seriously defanged and defunded:

Social security
Medicare
Compulsory Public education
Environmental law
Labor law
Work place safety law
Product Safety law (cars, drugs, food, etc.)
Business and financial regulation
Zoning law and code enforcement
Parks and Public spaces
Publicly funded infrastructure
Public Health programs
Publicly funded research
Higher Education assistance
Currency control and economic governance

That's WHY he can't win a general.


But if you're that bent on a libertarian utopia, you could always move to Somalia.

I swear it's so ironic you guys lambast liberals for worshipping Obama, when you Paulites are the real blind followers. I don't agree with about 30-40% of what Obama does and I'm disappointed in him and criticize him often, but in some of the minds of the people who post here Paul is a deity that can do no wrong. It's creepy how some of you guys crush on him like lovesick teenage girls, when his policies would lead us to tribalism between states, a complete gutting of our infrastructure and a collapse in the "United" part of the USA.

 

[StorminNorman]

They ensure a minimum level of income, dignity and lifestyle in the U.S. that we would not have without it. It helped (along with other pro-worker laws you despise) build the foundation of the modern middle class. There would be more employment if there was no minimum wage. There would also be a much smaller (if existent) middle class and a poorer country with gaping income disparity in the process.

Oh yes, the rhetoric! Awesome. Again minimum wage laws don't ensure a minimum level of anything, including income. If I can afford to pay you 20 bucks, then I may hire you for 3 hours instead of 4. Now yes, that means you get to work less - but you aren't making more. (This also means less labor for the business, which means less production, which means less profit, which means less funds to reinvest in the business - possibly by hiring you to more hours.)

You are pulling talking points out of your ass.

Paul would like to see the following disappear or be seriously defanged and defunded:

Social security
Medicare
Compulsory Public education
Environmental law
Labor law
Work place safety law
Product Safety law (cars, drugs, food, etc.)
Business and financial regulation
Zoning law and code enforcement
Parks and Public spaces
Publicly funded infrastructure
Public Health programs
Publicly funded research
Higher Education assistance
Currency control and economic governance

That's WHY he can't win a general.

Agreed, it is difficult to get the public to support good policy when it challenges the status quo. That is why the movement needs an Obama-like populist leader.

But if you're that bent on a libertarian utopia, you could always move to Somalia.

I swear it's so ironic you guys lambast liberals for worshipping Obama, when you Paulites are the real blind followers. I don't agree with about 30-40% of what Obama does and I'm disappointed in him and criticize him often, but in some of the minds of the people who post here Paul is a deity that can do no wrong. It's creepy how some of you guys crush on him like lovesick teenage girls, when his policies would lead us to tribalism between states, a complete gutting of our infrastructure and a collapse in the "United" part of the USA.

A libertarian utopia isn't a lawless land.

Good people deserve to be respected. The difference between Obama and Ron Paul is that one is a spineless wimp while the other is a rare statemen of principle (find anyone in Congress who has his record of consistency). Then once you get past that, one guy believes in liberty while the other guy believes that we should be our brothers keeper.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. I disagree with his views on tax credits, for example. But he is right on principle and right in action.

 

[Faramir]

I swear it's so ironic you guys lambast liberals for worshipping Obama, when you Paulites are the real blind followers.

Look, I used to like Obama a lot and considered him a great president, a very intelligent man who would know and do what was correct. He had the chance to change so much in Washington, only to screw it. I was not even expecting him to become a strictly constitutional president. I just wanted him to do some obvious basic stuff already there in the liberal platform. Stuff already there in his stomp speeches, in his campaign. Stuff like:

- Zero corporatism...

Yet he... relied on the failed and false advices of Greenspan, Summers, Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke, putting them at the helm of his economic policy... bailed-out many failed financial conglomerates, accelerating inflation and the deficit dramatically... did nothing to repeal Bush's Medicaid and Medicare's act, allowing Big Pharma and privileged HMO's to continue their reign... was undoubtedly too soft on BP and let them go with a 20 million fine when he signs YEARLY on "stimulus" plans of billions...

- Complete transparency in Washington...

Yet he... didn't support an audit of the Federal Reserve... devised follow-up plans on his Wall Street bailouts that left his regulatory agencies blind and unaware of where all the money went to... pushed for the 'closed-doors' Supercommittee... signed bills that weren't disclosed to the public first (like he promised during his campaign)...

- Respect civil liberties...

Yet he... did not push for a repeal of the Patriot Act... was exposed by Wikileaks on UN wiretapping... did not destroy the Homeland Security Department... was lukewarm on his support of gay rights...

- Raise taxes on the richest 1%...

He didn't. He cut their taxes instead...

- End the wars...

Yet he... didn't... and he expanded troops in Afghanistan... and he went to another military strike in Libya, a bomb raid in Yemen, a mid-size intervention in Somalia, all undeclared by Congress...

- Be impervious to Washington lobbysts...

Yet he... did nothing to help public education reformer combat gridlocks devised by the Teacher's Union... extended several expensive military industry contracts, even paying more private military groups to secure hotbeds in Afghanistan... and don't even get me started on the corporate welfare bailouts.


So, yeah, I want a guy with an outstanding record of being consistent with his views. I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, but at least the guy is illuminating on his views and has changed my stance on many different things. I've read different libertarian authors (who, by the way, are called 'liberals' in Europe and Latin America) and I've come to understand the logic, the goal and the process of many libertarian views. That's something I didn't have with Obama. I didn't check his record. I just checked his rethoric. Excuse me if I support a guy who radically stands apart in Washington (which is undeniable).

I don't agree with him 100%, but he does not agree with himself a 100% either... he doesn't want most federal programs, but he knows many people depend on them and wants a gradual phase-out that will definitely outlast his terms. He opposes abortion personally, but is strongly against any mandate on the subject on a federal level. He also believes that marriage should be between a man and woman but does not agree on dictating that view on a Federal level. He does not suggest marijuana use yet he strongly supports its legalization.

He just says what is his personal view on the matter, not what his policies will be. And that is something to admire. A democratic president is not an enforcer. Cannot be an enforcer.

And while on the matter, he is the only candidate, INCLUDING Obama, who has a clue on what the enumerated powers tell him what he can and cannot do, and respects his audience enough to be candid about it instead of filling balloons of empty promises. He is the only guy with a detailed and realistic plan: http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/plan-for-a-freedom-president

Come on. Even you must know that the clues are overwhelming: guys like this come once in a lifetime. A guy with convictions strong enough to not play the usual game of politics, even when it can cost him an election? A guy who is willing to educate the public on his unorthodox views? A guy who actually combats special interests and has an experience of thirty years in doing so? ... Of course his supporters are crazy about him! Really!

Look, my favourite president of all time is FDR. I wouldn't want to see his grandest creation, Social Security, cut. But I do want to see it saved, and needs great reform, even discouraging people of depending so much on it. America is stagnating and needs to be shaken off dependency on the government, because we all have seen the government can't fix this. The government needs to get out of the way and just let people work in a free market, non-corporate environment. Paul has been smart and sensible enough in saying he won't cut everything in a day, because people depend on it. And if seniors are intelligent enough, they will listen. If not... well, there probably won't be a Social Security to save.

 

[StorminNorman]

If you care about principle, integrity and honor, then Ron Paul is the only Presidential contender you can support. It's that simple.

 

[Marx]

Ahh political opportunism.

This crowd is supposed to represent the face of the Tea Party (i.e. GOP base) right?

They....

-Cheered and rejoiced at the word execution. That rejoicing gave way to ecstacy when Rick Perry dropped the 2-3-4 corpse number on 'em.

-Cheered at a hypothetical man dying because he was uninsured and the state refusing to cover it. They even yelled "Let him die!"

-Furiously boo-ed Rick Perry because he stood by his Texas law that...allows the children of illegal immigrants to go to college if they pay their fair share and/or serve their country....

-Furiously boo-ed Ron Paul because he suggested taking a view of nuance on the Middle East instead of Santorum's fluffy and pandering "American exceptionalism" ass-kissing. Paul said we are "unfair" to Palestinians and it sounded like they were ready to lynch him.

....This is the Tea Party and modern Republican Party ladies and gentlemen. They have a good shot at picking our next president. God help us all.

It was a truly disgusting display.