EPTRepublican nominations - Page 331
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On January 21 2012 11:29 BlackJack wrote: I think it will be bad for Paul for a non-Romney to win. It will turn it into a 2-man race with Paul left on the sidelines as usual. I also think Paul is the most stubborn about dropping out, so if Romney wins South Carolina and then Florida then maybe Santorum or Gingrich will drop out and then we will see who gets their votes. I actually think Paul could do potentially well in Florida. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:06 ryanAnger wrote: I'm watching the debate from last night now. It seems like they are starting to attack each other less, and attacking Obama more now. Interesting transition. Ron Paul was the only one who didn't attack Obama and stayed on the issues. You also notice how the camera pans towards the rest of them ignoring Paul for 30 minutes during the debate.... | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
| ||
|
NtroP
United States174 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: I actually think Paul could do potentially well in Florida. He's not focusing on Florida because there is basically no accountability as far as vote counting goes. He's putting his money into states that have more open voting methods. Don't be surprised if the results in florida look completely different from what we've seen so far. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
Powerpill
United States1692 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:32 Sanctimonius wrote: Paul is boring. The cameras want to see interesting things, and Gingrich's hypocrisy and Romney's taxes are far more interesting than the fact Paul is trying to have a debate. Politics is a side show. 10 years ago I would agree with you completely, and I would have probably been eating Nacho's laughing at the attacks and banter, but now I, and I believe most people over age 20, are tired of the "Springerish" drama, and are actually worried about the degradation and state of the country. Thus, roll our eyes and yearn for somebody to say something useful and constructive during the back and forth character attacks seen in basically every debate. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm wondering why the left isn't targeting Romney now. I think Romney is the most balanced when you put together the political spectrum (moderate liberals can relate to him) and economics (Paul is just being retarded), seems like he'd be the big threat to the Obama administration. Wouldn't the left attacking Romney just strenghten him in the eyes of republicans? | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:48 Powerpill wrote: 10 years ago I would agree with you completely, and I would have probably been eating Nacho's laughing at the attacks and banter, but now I, and I believe most people over age 20, are tired of the "Springerish" drama, and are actually worried about the degradation and state of the country. Thus, roll our eyes and yearn for somebody to say something useful and constructive during the back and forth character attacks seen in basically every debate. Absolutely. We just need the media to realise that fact. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:53 nihlon wrote: Wouldn't the left attacking Romney just strenghten him in the eyes of republicans? But the whole appeal of Romney is that he looks good the the midleft and the midright. Left attacks on him would shift that to the right, and you'd get John McCain round 2. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:48 Powerpill wrote: 10 years ago I would agree with you completely, and I would have probably been eating Nacho's laughing at the attacks and banter, but now I, and I believe most people over age 20, are tired of the "Springerish" drama, and are actually worried about the degradation and state of the country. Thus, roll our eyes and yearn for somebody to say something useful and constructive during the back and forth character attacks seen in basically every debate. We keep buying it, they keep doing it  | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 21 2012 11:36 Roe wrote: I'd give my life to stop the genocide in Darfur. I'd give my life to stop Qaddafi's regime and help the Lybians at least attain some kind of chance at freedom. I doubt that, considering you almost certainly wouldn't be posting here if it was really true. Instantly gives you the moral high ground by saying it though, right? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 21 2012 12:32 Sanctimonius wrote: Paul is boring. The cameras want to see interesting things, and Gingrich's hypocrisy and Romney's taxes are far more interesting than the fact Paul is trying to have a debate. Politics is a side show. With the casting of the audiences, as described earlier, there can be no doubt that the TV-stations are seeing it as a show. In that context, the political ideas are not worth very much, while humour and personal attacks are the primary sellingpoints. Basically: The more you can get the candidates to attack each other and spew jokes and the louder a response from the audience, the better chance for catching the TV-viewers. It is not only an american problem, but I think it is nearly the only place where this has become a true game-changer. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 21 2012 10:07 Meta wrote: The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else. One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough. Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none. Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs. I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive. Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea. | ||
|
NtroP
United States174 Posts
On January 21 2012 14:01 DoubleReed wrote: Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs. I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive. Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea. Well, that's like saying that communism will work. Unfortunately, people mess it up and it ends up being a clusterfuck. The best intentions will get you nowhere when you are trying to force those intentions through a medium like our government. Regardless, we shouldn't engage in nation building. What we should do is provide the people of nations with a voice, and let them build their own damn nation. (as is already happening around the world via various social networking platforms) | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SC_1201023.pdf Gingrich: 37% Romney: 28% Santorum:16% Paul:14% | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 21 2012 14:18 NtroP wrote: Well, that's like saying that communism will work. Unfortunately, people mess it up and it ends up being a clusterfuck. The best intentions will get you nowhere when you are trying to force those intentions through a medium like our government. Regardless, we shouldn't engage in nation building. What we should do is provide the people of nations with a voice, and let them build their own damn nation. (as is already happening around the world via various social networking platforms) What? What makes you say that? I'm not suggesting anything that ridiculously idealistic. I'm trying to be realistic here. Look, Pax Americana essentially means that no country in the world can realistically declare war except America. Essentially, America would step in for any formal war and no one wants to mess with us. That means as long as America shows restraint and sensibility, then there basically is no war. In the meantime we should be trying to help other countries get stronger and promote human rights globally. We're trying to do this now. It's a good thing. It's only bad when we have really flippant reasons for going to war like Iraq. That undermines our own authority (and pisses people off and a bunch of other stuff). We shouldn't do that. | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On January 21 2012 14:18 NtroP wrote: What we should do is provide the people of nations with a voice, and let them build their own damn nation. (as is already happening around the world via various social networking platforms) You're right look what a great country Egypt is now after no support except trying to provide internet to people... (not) | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 21 2012 18:36 wBsKillian wrote: You're right look what a great country Egypt is now after no support except trying to provide internet to people... (not) Oh come on, if the U.S. never interfered from the get go there wouldn't be a problem. Mubarak was a dictator for 30 years, supported by the U.S. Yes, it isn't good what is happening in Egypt at the moment, but when you've had a poisonous government there needs to be some rehab to restore order in the country. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
| ||
