Republican nominations - Page 140

On November 13 2011 11:11 Attican wrote:
The crowd at the Republican debate is clapping for enhanced interrogation, i.e. torture. I don't understand Republicans.
Live stream of debate (didn't see a link in the last few pages so I thought a link would help): http://nationaljournal.com/cbs-nj-foreign-policy-debate

So, from the debate I gathered that "top-tier" candidates support torture, and they don't respect the Rule of Law, and support the idea that if you aren't American, you don't deserve human rights. Apparently even if you are an American citizen, a president should have the ability to execute you without a trial, should he consider you a threat to our national security.

What have we become?

On November 13 2011 11:47 dOofuS wrote:
I will relay something I posted to my facebook wall just after watching the debate:


Honestly, Herman Cain can say "I don't support torture." and in the same breath say if his military officials feel it's necessary that they should do it. What is wrong with us?

On November 13 2011 11:55 Adila wrote:

They are pandering to the extreme right of the Republican base. Just imagine the outrage when Al-Qaeda or Iran or whoever livestreams an "enhanced interrogation" of a US POW. I can already imagine the hypocrisy spilling from these jokers.

At least there were some in the crowd who cheered against torture.

On November 13 2011 12:09 xenofox wrote:
I voted for Bachmann because she's the most likely to lose in a general election (and I think Obama is marginally less evil). I was wondering though - why leave Ron Paul out of the poll? Sure, the guy's ideas about the economy are completely insane, but I'd vote for him over any other D or R any day, simply because he would dismantle the empire, which would result in enough money being saved to more than counteract the damage he'd do to the economy (and introduce some elementary morality into America's foreign relations).

On November 13 2011 12:11 Senorcuidado wrote:
Is the debate still happening? Who is winning?

You know, the "anybody but Romney" movement has to eventually come around to Huntsman or Paul, right? RIGHT? Probably after Santorum though T_T

Maybe even Buddy Rohmer? I'd at least like to see him in debates. Colbert bump!

On November 13 2011 12:14 dcemuser wrote:


It's ironic because the only one who has a chance of winning over the extreme right and the mid right and the moderates is Mitt Romney... and he's fucked because he isn't "the right religion" (something like 30% won't vote for a Mormon).

Sad, but the bigotry and intolerance of the Republican core actually cost them this election.

Not surprisingly, the debate kicked off with a question on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Mitt Romney declared that if Barack Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. But, he said, in a Mitt Romney administration Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. This isn’t the first time he’s made such a sweeping proclamation, but he has yet to explain how exactly he’ll ensure this. Everything the candidates said was either a reiteration of the administration’s current Iran policy or a poor attempt to find a quick fix. Military action would have disastrous consequences for the U.S. and is far from a guaranteed way to stop Iran’s nuclear program, yet each candidate seemed to think it was a panacea for dealing with Iran. Here’s a break-down of what they got right (by which I mean what the U.S. is already doing) and what they got wrong:

On November 13 2011 12:36 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I would never support or vote for Romney, and it has nothing to do with his religion.

Conservatives know that Romney will just be another George W. He will expand the federal government and increase federal spending and debt just like W, he will advocate more of the same foreign policy as W.

If you look at the debates running now, a lot of the candidates are being forced to take a more fiscally conservative/libertarian stance than they would used to, because conservatives got so fed up with the neo-con and moderate (liberal) republicans. That's part of the reason the tea party gathered so much steam.... not entirely because of Obama, but also because there was no one truly representing the conservative ideals in the republican party.

So in a way, it's better in the long run if we keep getting shit candidates like Romney, to eventually destroy or reform the current republican party as we know it. In the short run though, conservatives will take anyone over Obama. Still, I'd rather "throw away" my vote for someone like Paul to effect long-term progress in the party than to keep supporting people like Romney.

On November 13 2011 12:14 dcemuser wrote:


It's ironic because the only one who has a chance of winning over the extreme right and the mid right and the moderates is Mitt Romney... and he's fucked because he isn't "the right religion" (something like 30% won't vote for a Mormon).

Sad, but the bigotry and intolerance of the Republican core actually cost them this election.

On November 13 2011 12:14 Senorcuidado wrote:

that poll was formatted really strangely. If you look at it again you'll see that Ron Paul is there, and way ahead of Bachmann in total votes. I think anyway, I haven't looked at the OP in forever.

Edit: yeah, 794 for Ron Paul. That's a massive lead, even though quite a few people didn't see him there because of how the poll was made. It is just TL though, and you could say that Ron Paul is just very popular on the Internet. Those numbers unfortunately don't translate nationally. Republican primaries are closed elections too, so he has to win among Relublicans, not the moderates and liberals that support him online and nationwide.

90 seconds.

That's how much of the first hour of tonight's GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds.

The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:

** Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;

** Rehashing their support for torture;

** Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;

** Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election. The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government.

On November 13 2011 14:22 dOofuS wrote:
I just got an email from the Ron Paul campaign....



Beyond sad how true it is.

When Ron Paul opposed torture, he got a few cheers and a few boos from the crowd. And CBS moderator Scott Pelley was forced to address the audience at one point, saying, “Applause is lovely, but we will not have booing. We will have respect for everyone on stage.”