|
Well my grades for this debate:
Ron Paul-(A-)-Has good ideas but can't convey them. He needs to, as someone on Teamliquid said before, "memorize one-liners".
Mitt Romney-(B)-Attacked Gingrich early on and focused his efforts on attacking Obama later on. Good overall debate for him (strategy wise). Although he could of attacked Gingrich more on the housing issue as the guardian points out.
Newt Gingrich-(B-)-I feel that he didn't get his usual "swagger" on tonight. Usually he was the one attacking but today it was Romney.
Rick Santorum(C+)-I hate him. He's a fucking idiot.
|
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa!
|
Oh and Ron Paul has to do good in Nevada, Minnesota, and Maine if he has any chance of winning. He's concentrating a big amount of effort and money into them, even skipping the day of the Florida primary to make sure he can campaign there.
|
I don't like him, but I think Romney technically won that debate. Paul had good points as usual, but they aren't going to be enough.
|
On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa!
Paul definitely didn't win the debate, nor the previous one. That being said his ideas are sound (depending on your political opinions and goals) he just is AWFUL at conveyance. I feel like he'd do better in a 1 on 1 debate.
|
On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa!
Since winning the debate is more about one liners and sounding like you're right I dont think Ron could ever win, but he's probably one of the few that could do well on a history test.
|
On January 24 2012 13:20 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa! Since winning the debate is more about one liners and sounding like you're right I dont think Ron could ever win, but he's probably one of the few that could do well on a history test.
You have to win the election to become president, not a history test, though one could argue a strong understanding of history would aid you in your campaign. Ron Paul knows he can't win the nomination, and I doubt he is doing anything except try to influence the race. But to be honest, so far he has not polled well enough to force the other candidates to address him that much.
P.S. I can't believe no one has responded to the first part of my post that keeps getting quoted. The man leading the race for the nomination proposed a tax plan that would involve many millionaires, including Romney, paying little or literally ZERO in taxes, while Romney has proposed a tax plan that raises taxes for the average household tremendously, while slashing the tax rates of millionaires, some saying his own tax payments would decline by as much as 40%.
|
On January 24 2012 12:02 Kimaker wrote:
...wtf Santorum...."Iran with nukes=Al-Qaeda with nukes?"
Iran is a Shiite state, Al-Qaeda is Sunni filtered through Salafiyyah and Qutbism. Not even close ideologically....
Come on, there's no way that Santorum or 95% of his supporters even understand the difference you're raising  .
|
On January 24 2012 13:23 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 13:20 Serpico wrote:On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa! Since winning the debate is more about one liners and sounding like you're right I dont think Ron could ever win, but he's probably one of the few that could do well on a history test. P.S. I can't believe no one has responded to the first part of my post that keeps getting quoted. The man leading the race for the nomination proposed a tax plan that would involve many millionaires, including Romney, paying little or literally ZERO in taxes, while Romney has proposed a tax plan that raises taxes for the average household tremendously, while slashing the tax rates of millionaires, some saying his own tax payments would decline by as much as 40%.
What are we supposed to say? I think most of us realize how stupid this idea is. Warren Buffet wrote a letter 5 months ago to the New York Times about capital gains tax rates, and called for almost the exact opposite of what Gingrich proposed.
Since 2009, when Germany introduced its capital gains tax of 25%, the savings rate in Germany has remained steady, and their economy has grown, they are currently at a 30 year low in unemployment.
Gingrich is crazy, and I don't think we need to validate his crazier comments by having a discussion about them.
|
On January 24 2012 13:33 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 13:23 Saryph wrote:On January 24 2012 13:20 Serpico wrote:On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa! Since winning the debate is more about one liners and sounding like you're right I dont think Ron could ever win, but he's probably one of the few that could do well on a history test. P.S. I can't believe no one has responded to the first part of my post that keeps getting quoted. The man leading the race for the nomination proposed a tax plan that would involve many millionaires, including Romney, paying little or literally ZERO in taxes, while Romney has proposed a tax plan that raises taxes for the average household tremendously, while slashing the tax rates of millionaires, some saying his own tax payments would decline by as much as 40%. What are we supposed to say? I think most of us realize how stupid this idea is. Warren Buffet wrote a letter 5 months ago to the New York Times about capital gains tax rates, and called for almost the exact opposite of what Gingrich proposed.Since 2009, when Germany introduced its capital gains tax of 25%, the savings rate in Germany has remained steady, and their economy has grown, they are currently at a 30 year low in unemployment. Gingrich is crazy, and I don't think we need to validate his crazier comments by having a discussion about them.
But Warren Buffet is hippy socialist who wants to burn the constitution and create a communist dictatorship!
|
On January 24 2012 12:48 Housemd wrote:
Well my grades for this debate:
Ron Paul-(A-)-Has good ideas but can't convey them. He needs to, as someone on Teamliquid said before, "memorize one-liners".
Mitt Romney-(B)-Attacked Gingrich early on and focused his efforts on attacking Obama later on. Good overall debate for him (strategy wise). Although he could of attacked Gingrich more on the housing issue as the guardian points out.
Newt Gingrich-(B-)-I feel that he didn't get his usual "swagger" on tonight. Usually he was the one attacking but today it was Romney.
Rick Santorum(C+)-I hate him. He's a fucking idiot.
I was going to comment on your claim of Gingrich having "swag", but then I realize that he's had more women than Gene Simmons. I wouldn't have expected him to have displayed that side of his personality in a debate though. "Hey moderator, wanna come back to my room and learn what a Majority Leader tastes like".
On a more serious note, is there any chance of getting a VOD of this? I'm really bummed that I missed it and the only semi-formal article I could find on it included the word "maked" instead of "made"...
|
|
|
Shit's about to hit the fan again for Romney he only paid 13.9% in taxes....?!
(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $45.2 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011.
Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.
Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners.
Source
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 24 2012 12:49 Saryph wrote:
I still can't believe Gingrich proposed a tax plan in which he admitted that Mitt Romney wouldn't pay a cent in taxes.
Edit: Ron Paul supporters claim Ron Paul won debate, just like how they claim he has won every debate, and was cheated out of Iowa!
ummm, he's a republican? To be expected or something like that. I found it flabbergasting myself. How Newt could be leading in any kind of race boggles the mind.
|
On January 24 2012 13:49 Mordanis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 12:48 Housemd wrote:
Well my grades for this debate:
Ron Paul-(A-)-Has good ideas but can't convey them. He needs to, as someone on Teamliquid said before, "memorize one-liners".
Mitt Romney-(B)-Attacked Gingrich early on and focused his efforts on attacking Obama later on. Good overall debate for him (strategy wise). Although he could of attacked Gingrich more on the housing issue as the guardian points out.
Newt Gingrich-(B-)-I feel that he didn't get his usual "swagger" on tonight. Usually he was the one attacking but today it was Romney.
Rick Santorum(C+)-I hate him. He's a fucking idiot. I was going to comment on your claim of Gingrich having "swag", but then I realize that he's had more women than Gene Simmons. I wouldn't have expected him to have displayed that side of his personality in a debate though. "Hey moderator, wanna come back to my room and learn what a Majority Leader tastes like". On a more serious note, is there any chance of getting a VOD of this? I'm really bummed that I missed it and the only semi-formal article I could find on it included the word "maked" instead of "made"...
You didn't miss much.. I felt like I lost a few IQ points after watching it. I think these debates need moderators who are smarter, more courageous and definitely more persistant.. otherwise the pols just have their way with them, they don't even care what they are asked.
|
All Romney has to do is spin it as a hit job from the liberal media. Gingrich wasn't even phased by the negative story from his ex-wife.
|
Still hope paul wins but it looks like romney has this in the bag.
He looks good and he seems to be a bit in the middle.
Gingtrich and paul are to extreme.
taking 1-1 bets romney will win
|
|
|
I've always thought that if you're pro-life you should be pro-life in ALL circumstances, including rape. If you believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder you can't say that "murder is okay if you were raped."
|
On January 24 2012 15:51 BlackJack wrote:
I've always thought that if you're pro-life you should be pro-life in ALL circumstances, including rape. If you believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder you can't say that "murder is okay if you were raped."
I know I'm being facetious here, but wouldn't that mean they couldn't eat meat or vegetables or plants? Those are alive right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
