|
On the debate tonight:
Romney: Very strong showing. Was spot on with all of his answers and appeared presidential as usual. I believe that he was the clear winner of the debate.
Perry: Perry was Perry. He was combative and aggressive. This was exemplified by his insistence upon labelling social security a ponzi scheme. While he is absolutely correct in labelling it a ponzi scheme, he is taking an unnecessary political risk by doing so because it opens himself up to criticism. Romney was more than happy to take shots at Perry on this point during the debate and score political points for doing so. The irony, however, is that Perry and Romney really don't disagree either on the proposition that social security is in trouble or on what should be done to fix social security (a point that the idiot analysts on MSNBC completely missed). Nevertheless, the public got a clear look at who Perry is tonight. I suspect that he's going to turn a lot of republicans off, and his poll numbers will drop. Personally, I didn't mind most of what Perry had to say. However, I did not like him pursuing that ludicrous line of attack on Romney that Romney had a poor a job creation performance as governor of Massachusetts. What Perry, Huntsman (who repeated it during the debate), MSNBC, and Fox (in the last debate) all inexplicably fail to understand is that you can't really create jobs when your state is already at full employment, and Massachusetts had a sub-5% employment rate during most of Romney's term (if not all of it). =|
Bachmann: The biggest loser of the debate. I barely even noticed Bachmann at this debate. I can't recall one of her answers. Her star clearly is fading. The republican nomination is a two-man race right now.
The other candidates: No one else is really worth discussing in detail at this point. I will say that Paul, Huntsman, and Santorum really went after Perry, effectively doing Romney's dirty work during the debate. Gingrich continued to refuse to attack the other candidates, opting instead to chide the media. Herman Cain gave more solid answers. I think he'd make a decent VP pick for Romney, giving him some additional tea party cred and being someone to whom Romney could delegate some duties.
|
DISCLAIMER - Following is a synopsis of the MSNBC debate from someone who actually plans to vote conservative in 2012.
Eh, I think that the Hermanator won it tonight, he only had 5 chances to speak (4 given) and used them to turn questions into solid solutions.
"If 10% is good enough for God, 9% ought to be good enough for the U.S. Government" - Herman Cain
Gingrich did very well also on his responses, major props at calling out the moderator.
I loled when one of the mods asked Perry about the death penalty and the audience cheered, although I'm sure that quite a few of you /facepalmed at that fact. 
Huntsman probably killed his chances entirely tonight; he was way too nice and the pro-manmade climate change stuff is just not going to fly with us.
Ron Paul - not much to say, he did not say anything new. He has never had a chance with his old talking points and outdated views on how to best achieve national security; one would think that he would try another route to win more interest. He also said some dumb stuff, like that letter that Perry wrote to Hillary when he was still a Democrat (albeit a conservative one).
Bachman - I agree with the above poster. All I heard was talking points.
Perry / Romney - spent the majority of their time fighting each other under direction of mods. Not sure who came out on top, to be honest. Personally hope that it was Perry, he has the lesser chance of the two to be a "compassionate Republican" POTUS if he gets the nomination.
Final thoughts - you'd have to be blind to not see that there was a clear agenda by moderators to (1) try to trip up Perry, (2) give Romney room to shine, and (3) suppress everyone else, particularly Cain. Looking forward to hearing a debate that is not moderated by a left-wing news network.
EDIT: forgot about Santorum, how could I? Oh wait...
|
Canada11410 Posts
On September 06 2011 12:26 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 07:40 Falling wrote:
One thing I do like about Romney's position on illegal immigrants is he also wants to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants. I've debated with people that somehow thought if businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants then the immigrant is at fault, but not the business owner.
To me if you really want to deal with illegal immigrants, then it makes sense to cut-off the opportunity. It's the supply/demand thing. If there is a demand for illegal immigrants as long as you can get across the border, then you're home free. But if businesses have a heavy interest in hiring legal immigrants, then it adds another layer of defence and cuts off demand at the source. Hopping the border isn't nearly so attractive if you can't make any money. Better to hire illegal immigrants than to outsource jobs, at least in terms of boosting the U.S. economy. If we're going to crack down on hiring illegal immigrants, we'd better do something about the job outsourcing issue first.
Ok, but that's not exactly a Republican talking point. I don't particularly like how obsessed the Republicans are with eradicating the foreigner amongst us. But assuming that illegal immigration will continue to dominate talking points, Romney's position seems to be a more moderate position.
Regarding the debate. I'd agree with xDaunt that Romney comes out the main winner. I still don't like him too much as he somehow reminds a bit too much of our Mulroney (slick salesman.) But by the same measure, he always comes out looking very presidential and the most Reagan-esque if that's what Republicans are looking for.
Perry doesn't particularly impress me and Paul didn't get all that many questions. I'd put my money on Romney becoming the Republican's nominee, but this leadership race is such a lengthy ordeal that who knows. Perry might have a shot, but I'd also agree that attacking Social Security creates a vulnerability to be exploited by Romney and Obama.
Nobody else really seems to be making headway. Paul- maybe if he were a decade or two younger he might have more time to create a new wave of conservatism. His following is passionate, but I don't think it's enough. Perhaps, I'm wrong in reading this, but I think he's made a little more headway within the public debates- as a familiar face, closer to the centre he seems a little less like an outlier- compared to Huntsman or Cain. Last leadership race was more, who is this guy and why is he beating to his own beat? His beat hasn't changed, but the hearing is a little easier the second time around. Perhaps if the current disaffection continues, he could gain traction in the next leadership race, but by then his age may become a liability (ala reservations on McCain running.)
Gingerich gives intelligent answers, but I don't see him going for anymore than Biden or Dodd did for the Democrats.
|
|
|
On September 08 2011 13:13 Letho wrote:"If 10% is good enough for God, 9% ought to be good enough for the U.S. Government" - Herman Cain
Rofl. He really said that?
|
On September 08 2011 13:13 Letho wrote:
Gingrich did very well also on his responses, major props at calling out the moderator. .
You must be one of those fools who think Gingrich is making a reasonable point when he attacks the moderators. The fact you think that it isn't ok for the "liberal media" to ask hard questions, and instead want a conservative debate with softballs, says a lot.
Gingrich has nothing to stand on so he has been going for this "attack the media and the questions" bullshit the last few debates. Every single question they have asked is legitimate. Saying that something is a "gotcha" question doesn't mean jack shit when you actually did say/do the bullshit hypocritical shit that they are asking you about. Just because they are calling you on your bullshit and you don't want to answer it doesn't mean you can just shrug it off as a gotcha question. You, the idiot (gingrich) set up the gotcha question by doing so much dumb shit.
Also, saying something like "we don't accept the media turning us on eachother" is another bullshit claim because only one of you can win the primary. Gingrich must not have gotten the memo but everybody else spent the entire night attacking eachother, as they should have.
Romney won the debate again. Perry won't be able to stand up under the scrutiny of his real record and ideals. He can't actually win a debate against Obama when they ask shit like "so you're going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as soon as you get presidency eh? Lol..."
Not even Republicans can think anything Gingrich has said is anything close to rational. He gives talking points (which most of what was said tonight were) a bad name.
|
|
|
On September 08 2011 13:44 KSMB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 13:13 Letho wrote:"If 10% is good enough for God, 9% ought to be good enough for the U.S. Government" - Herman Cain Rofl. He really said that?
Because... the US government is 11% more efficient than God? :p
|
Canada11410 Posts
Speaking of Perry moments, my favourite (I posted this elsewhere) was this part:
And as governor, you oversaw 238 deaths- *applause*
Everyone's like- Yay! Kill people!
I get that they're defiantly supporting the death penalty, but it looks and sound very funny all the same.
|
Sadly Huntsman is far too reasonable to win this primary.
As for the moderators focusing attacks on Perry, it only makes sense. He joined the race in a huge storm of activity, is the heavy poll fav and nobody has gotten a chance to debate him in the two previous debates. It only makes sense that he becomes the focus on this debate. Why shouldn't we question the person leading the polls/
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
What is it with every right-wing christian anti-evolution politician having a massive hard on for Galileo. It was the church who persecuted him and science in it's current form really didn't exist at that time.
|
Lol @ galileo. You can tell he knew what he was saying was going to come out wrong but it was too late.
|
On September 08 2011 13:52 Falling wrote:
Speaking of Perry moments, my favourite (I posted this elsewhere) was this part:
And as governor, you over saw 238 deaths- *applause*
Everyone's like- Yay! Kill people!
I get that they're defiantly supporting the death penalty, but it looks and sound very funny all the same.
tbh this makes me sick, and I say this as somebody who is only apathetically against the death penalty now, in the past pretty much held Perry's views on it, and still believes that it has some more limited use (terrorists, genocidal dictators, serial killers) in our justice system.
But you're not supposed to be f*cking happy about people being executed. The state has executed people who under some metrics are mentally handicapped during Perry's tenure -- okay, maybe you think that's defensible, but something to cheer? The people who attended this debate mostly consider themselves Christians - "real" Christians they'd say (as opposed to those fake ones who want to teach evolution or leave gays alone or whatever) - but this is so blatantly against that creed, or any life-affirming creed... ugh.
And that's just for 238. I wonder how loudly they'd cheer for a million?
|
On September 08 2011 13:46 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 13:13 Letho wrote:
Gingrich did very well also on his responses, major props at calling out the moderator. . You must be one of those fools who think Gingrich is making a reasonable point when he attacks the moderators. The fact you think that it isn't ok for the "liberal media" to ask hard questions, and instead want a conservative debate with softballs, says a lot. Gingrich has nothing to stand on so he has been going for this "attack the media and the questions" bullshit the last few debates. Every single question they have asked is legitimate. Saying that something is a "gotcha" question doesn't mean jack shit when you actually did say/do the bullshit hypocritical shit that they are asking you about. Just because they are calling you on your bullshit and you don't want to answer it doesn't mean you can just shrug it off as a gotcha question. You, the idiot (gingrich) set up the gotcha question by doing so much dumb shit. Also, saying something like "we don't accept the media turning us on eachother" is another bullshit claim because only one of you can win the primary. Gingrich must not have gotten the memo but everybody else spent the entire night attacking eachother, as they should have. Romney won the debate again. Perry won't be able to stand up under the scrutiny of his real record and ideals. He can't actually win a debate against Obama when they ask shit like "so you're going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as soon as you get presidency eh? Lol..." Not even Republicans can think anything Gingrich has said is anything close to rational. He gives talking points (which most of what was said tonight were) a bad name.
Honestly, I think that you are a bit jaded, or may not have caught the entirety of the debate. Newt made some very good answers, particularly towards the end. And yes, I thought that "attacking the moderators" was a good move by him, particularly to elevate his energy and raise interest (sup, I'm still here, etc); also his point was valid as the moderators were clearly trying to pit Perry vs Romney at that point.
Just remember that the objective of the candidates at this point is to become the nominee, therefore they are fighting for the favor of conservative voters (and independents who are fiscal conservatives). It's a given that people who are planning on giving Obama another whirl are not going to be happy with anyone tonight (except maybe Huntsman and a bit of Romney and Paul).
As for the gay marriage thing, the nominee's response would be "no, I would leave it to the States."
On September 08 2011 14:10 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 13:52 Falling wrote:
Speaking of Perry moments, my favourite (I posted this elsewhere) was this part:
And as governor, you over saw 238 deaths- *applause*
Everyone's like- Yay! Kill people!
I get that they're defiantly supporting the death penalty, but it looks and sound very funny all the same. tbh this makes me sick, and I say this as somebody who is only apathetically against the death penalty now, in the past pretty much held Perry's views on it, and still believes that it has some more limited use (terrorists, genocidal dictators, serial killers) in our justice system. But you're not supposed to be f*cking happy about people being executed. The state has executed people who under some metrics are mentally handicapped during Perry's tenure -- okay, maybe you think that's defensible, but something to cheer? The people who attended this debate mostly consider themselves Christians - "real" Christians they'd say (as opposed to those fake ones who want to teach evolution or leave gays alone or whatever) - but this is so blatantly against that creed, or any life-affirming creed... ugh. And that's just for 238. I wonder how loudly they'd cheer for a million?
Just remember which state they are talking about. Texas is not only one of the biggest (more than 8% of the US population), but also has the biggest stretch of the Mexico border and a very high Hispanic population. Unfortunately, the facts are that Hispanics commit more violent crimes than other demographics. If someone did a true statistical analysis of this instead of throwing out a conveniently high number as a weapon, I imagine that it would show that executions in Texas are well within the bell curve for the entire US.
As for the Christians and the death penalty, this is a difficult question. Of course, there is Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 22:21, but then there is also John 8: 7. I am not a theologist, but if I were, I would conjecture that the writers of the New Testament did not have significant frame of reference to discuss the death penalty, as they had no control over Roman law at the time.
|
Consolidating a double post, sorry.
|
What is it with every right-wing christian anti-evolution politician having a massive hard on for Galileo. It was the church who persecuted him and science in it's current form really didn't exist at that time.
Ummm well the history is a bit more complex than that...
tbh this makes me sick, and I say this as somebody who is only apathetically against the death penalty now, in the past pretty much held Perry's views on it, and still believes that it has some more limited use (terrorists, genocidal dictators, serial killers) in our justice system.
But you're not supposed to be f*cking happy about people being executed. The state has executed people who under some metrics are mentally handicapped during Perry's tenure -- okay, maybe you think that's defensible, but something to cheer? The people who attended this debate mostly consider themselves Christians - "real" Christians they'd say (as opposed to those fake ones who want to teach evolution or leave gays alone or whatever) - but this is so blatantly against that creed, or any life-affirming creed... ugh.
And that's just for 238. I wonder how loudly they'd cheer for a million?
I wonder if you understand that they cheer precisely because it makes people angry that they enjoy making angry.
They trollin libs man. For teh lulz n shit.
Anyway, Perry reinforced his image in Texas as a hit-and-miss debater who gets kinda better as the debate goes along.
I simply can't understand these:
Perry doesn't particularly impress me and Paul didn't get all that many questions. I'd put my money on Romney becoming the Republican's nominee, but this leadership race is such a lengthy ordeal that who knows. Perry might have a shot, but I'd also agree that attacking Social Security creates a vulnerability to be exploited by Romney and Obama.
Perry: Perry was Perry. He was combative and aggressive. This was exemplified by his insistence upon labelling social security a ponzi scheme. While he is absolutely correct in labelling it a ponzi scheme, he is taking an unnecessary political risk by doing so because it opens himself up to criticism. Romney was more than happy to take shots at Perry on this point during the debate and score political points for doing so. The irony, however, is that Perry and Romney really don't disagree either on the proposition that social security is in trouble or on what should be done to fix social security (a point that the idiot analysts on MSNBC completely missed). Nevertheless, the public got a clear look at who Perry is tonight. I suspect that he's going to turn a lot of republicans off, and his poll numbers will drop. Personally, I didn't mind most of what Perry had to say. However, I did not like him pursuing that ludicrous line of attack on Romney that Romney had a poor a job creation performance as governor of Massachusetts. What Perry, Huntsman (who repeated it during the debate), MSNBC, and Fox (in the last debate) all inexplicably fail to understand is that you can't really create jobs when your state is already at full employment, and Massachusetts had a sub-5% employment rate during most of Romney's term (if not all of it). =|
Perry has the money, Perry has the motivation, Romney has... the "Republican establishment," whatever that is. Perry's lead will stay the same or increase.
"Romneycare"
"Obamacare"
"Unemployment"
Use the first theme to beat Romney, use the second two to beat Obama. Or at least if Perry's campaign managers are smart those are what they will stick to.
Romney needs to go after Perry and with all these second-tier and vanity candidates cluttering up the stage he can't do that.
And Romney's already a loser. He lost to John McCain, for God's sake. John McCain. Can the GOP please nominate a winner this time?
|
On September 08 2011 14:17 Letho wrote:
Just remember which state they are talking about. Texas is not only one of the biggest (more than 8% of the US population), but also has the biggest stretch of the Mexico border and a very high Hispanic population. Unfortunately, the facts are that Hispanics commit more violent crimes than other demographics. If someone did a true statistical analysis of this instead of throwing out a conveniently high number as a weapon, I imagine that it would show that executions in Texas are well within the bell curve for the entire US.
As for the Christians and the death penalty, this is a difficult question. Of course, there is Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 22:21, but then there is also John 8: 7. I am not a theologist, but if I were, I would conjecture that the writers of the New Testament did not have significant frame of reference to discuss the death penalty, as they had no control over Roman law at the time.
Texas is where I lived most of my life 
The first numbers I found said that Texas has executed 50 people from 2009-11 (not the period that was discussed during the debate, but this isn't about that specifically). The entire rest of the US has executed 80 people during that same span. Since 1976, Texas has executed 473 people versus 793 for the rest of the US. While Texas does have higher rates of crime than the national average (or at least, did when I lived there), there is no way 1/3 of the murders in the nation take place in Texas. But fwiw, it looked like Virginia and Oklahoma might have similar rates of execution, so while Texas is way above average they are not truly alone.
To clarify, I'm not saying Christians should oppose the death penalty. I'm saying Christians shouldn't celebrate executions.
|
Ron Paul would be an amazing president.
|
On September 08 2011 14:41 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:17 Letho wrote:
Just remember which state they are talking about. Texas is not only one of the biggest (more than 8% of the US population), but also has the biggest stretch of the Mexico border and a very high Hispanic population. Unfortunately, the facts are that Hispanics commit more violent crimes than other demographics. If someone did a true statistical analysis of this instead of throwing out a conveniently high number as a weapon, I imagine that it would show that executions in Texas are well within the bell curve for the entire US.
As for the Christians and the death penalty, this is a difficult question. Of course, there is Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 22:21, but then there is also John 8: 7. I am not a theologist, but if I were, I would conjecture that the writers of the New Testament did not have significant frame of reference to discuss the death penalty, as they had no control over Roman law at the time. Texas is where I lived most of my life The first numbers I found said that Texas has executed 50 people from 2009-11 (not the period that was discussed during the debate, but this isn't about that specifically). The entire rest of the US has executed 80 people during that same span. Since 1976, Texas has executed 473 people versus 793 for the rest of the US. While Texas does have higher rates of crime than the national average (or at least, did when I lived there), there is no way 1/3 of the murders in the nation take place in Texas. But fwiw, it looked like Virginia and Oklahoma might have similar rates of execution, so while Texas is way above average they are not truly alone. To clarify, I'm not saying Christians should oppose the death penalty. I'm saying Christians shouldn't celebrate executions.
Good points. I did some research myself and murders per capita in Texas is about average. It does seem like they are quite a bit more serious about the death penalty than other states, which to me personally is a good sign about Perry as it shows that he respects the laws of his land and will make tough decisions to enforce them.
Yeah, I agree about not celebrating executions, although I think that we should bear in mind the setting, and the fact that the crowd was undeniably fired up at that point. Also, people are lemmings, it only takes a few people to start a cheer.
On September 08 2011 14:47 Shamrock_ wrote:
Ron Paul would be an amazing president.
My ONE problem with him (albeit a very serious one) is that he simply does not understand that it's not enough anymore to have secure borders. I have not been able to get a single Ron Paul supporter to explain to me how withdrawing support / alliance with Israel is a good idea, and how secure borders will stop terrorism within the US (which will indubitably occur once again if we allow the extremists to regain their strength).
Also, he is, well, not very Presidential. I winced when he let his voice get shrill tonight; if he ever ran against Obama, they could destroy him with just that one clip. Maybe if he were younger, more charismatic, and had a more palpable view on foreign affairs...
|
Canada11410 Posts
On September 08 2011 14:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What is it with every right-wing christian anti-evolution politician having a massive hard on for Galileo. It was the church who persecuted him and science in it's current form really didn't exist at that time. Ummm well the history is a bit more complex than that... Show nested quote +tbh this makes me sick, and I say this as somebody who is only apathetically against the death penalty now, in the past pretty much held Perry's views on it, and still believes that it has some more limited use (terrorists, genocidal dictators, serial killers) in our justice system.
But you're not supposed to be f*cking happy about people being executed. The state has executed people who under some metrics are mentally handicapped during Perry's tenure -- okay, maybe you think that's defensible, but something to cheer? The people who attended this debate mostly consider themselves Christians - "real" Christians they'd say (as opposed to those fake ones who want to teach evolution or leave gays alone or whatever) - but this is so blatantly against that creed, or any life-affirming creed... ugh.
And that's just for 238. I wonder how loudly they'd cheer for a million? I wonder if you understand that they cheer precisely because it makes people angry that they enjoy making angry. They trollin libs man. For teh lulz n shit.
If they consider themselves evangelicals, I would consider this an unacceptable reaction. But then I have a big problem with how closely evangelicals have tied themselves to the Republican party. Most people have an issue because of the influence the church on the GOP. My problem is the influence the GOP has on the church where the church winds up supporting politicians they never should simply because they can talk just enough Christianese to get the evangelicals on board. The church itself has become way too politicized, aggressive, and quite frankly un-Christlike.
Someone, posted the issue of no-true Scotsman fallacy. Thing is, there are some pretty good defining characteristics of Christians (if you love me, you'll obey my commands. How can a man say he loves God but hates his brother? True religion is taking care of the orphan, widow, and alien- aka the dis-enfranchised.) Having said that, I actually agree that the North American church has embraced far too much health-wealth gospel and has become all together uncaring. Not all, but I'd say it's a continuing trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
