Nothing to retract. I wasn't referring to the Daniels comment. I was referring to the fact that people can say anything down here, it's ET. There are more facts laying around on a pre-school playground then there are down here in the basement of ET.
Debates!!!
- Thread starter Epic
- Start date
Nothing to retract. I wasn't referring to the Daniels comment. I was referring to the fact that people can say anything down here, it's ET. There are more facts laying around on a pre-school playground then there are down here in the basement of ET.
Quote from Brass:
Yes, but your remark was in response to a comment I had made to which Epic referred. There was some implied specificity there, boyo.
And I thought you prided yourself on being a trader who readily admits his errors.
It was my error. I made an accusation that I shouldn't have made before enough fact checking. I perceived Mav's comment as simply a statement regarding a general condition on ET, not necessarily pointed at you.
Quote from Brass:
Yeah, I know the chronology. Just the Mav was quick to comment "generally" in a way that wasn't "generally" favorable to me after you and I had our exchange.
Look, I wasn't offended or anything. What we have here is just a little tit for tat.
yeah, I just do my best to try to keep things civilized in here to a certain extent. There can be good discussions, but once the attacks get started, the thread is done.
Back on topic..
My prediction is that Newt dominates the debate tonight and edges out Romney in FL because of it.
Romney threw his best punches on Monday. Newt is too skilled in the debates to let him do that again tonight. The only thing that Romney can do is call him out on it when Newt starts spinning things.
Like on Monday when Newt started spinning his resignation from the speakership as a conscious effort to allow other GOP stars to shine, thereby turning himself into a martyr.
Ron Paul called him on it, but he wasn't very aggressive. He just pointed out that Newt didn't have the votes to stay.
Romney must take it one step further, even interrupting Newt mid sentence if he must. Something like, "Newt, you can sit here with beautiful rhetoric all night trying to turn it into a positive, but everyone here can see through it. You were so erratic and ineffective as a leader during your time as speaker that you were forced out. We've all worked with people who have "voluntarily resigned" before they were fired, but let's face it, you got fired."
Then turn to the audience, "All good managers know that it's great to have a "big idea" guy like Newt on your team. As a team member, guys like Newt are incredibly valuable and provide wonderful input. Good managers also know that these "big idea" guys make terrible managers. They have no ability to differentiate between an idea worth pursuing, and one that should be discarded. Newt would make a wonderful consultant, but a terrible President."
If I were his debate prep, that's the route I'd take. But Romney is probably going to stick to his prepared lines about resigning in disgrace. Newt is going to have prepped a response just for that exact statement. And there goes Romney's chance to point out that Newt perceived strength is actually his biggest weakness, which is Debate 101.
My prediction is that Newt dominates the debate tonight and edges out Romney in FL because of it.
Romney threw his best punches on Monday. Newt is too skilled in the debates to let him do that again tonight. The only thing that Romney can do is call him out on it when Newt starts spinning things.
Like on Monday when Newt started spinning his resignation from the speakership as a conscious effort to allow other GOP stars to shine, thereby turning himself into a martyr.
Ron Paul called him on it, but he wasn't very aggressive. He just pointed out that Newt didn't have the votes to stay.
Romney must take it one step further, even interrupting Newt mid sentence if he must. Something like, "Newt, you can sit here with beautiful rhetoric all night trying to turn it into a positive, but everyone here can see through it. You were so erratic and ineffective as a leader during your time as speaker that you were forced out. We've all worked with people who have "voluntarily resigned" before they were fired, but let's face it, you got fired."
Then turn to the audience, "All good managers know that it's great to have a "big idea" guy like Newt on your team. As a team member, guys like Newt are incredibly valuable and provide wonderful input. Good managers also know that these "big idea" guys make terrible managers. They have no ability to differentiate between an idea worth pursuing, and one that should be discarded. Newt would make a wonderful consultant, but a terrible President."
If I were his debate prep, that's the route I'd take. But Romney is probably going to stick to his prepared lines about resigning in disgrace. Newt is going to have prepped a response just for that exact statement. And there goes Romney's chance to point out that Newt perceived strength is actually his biggest weakness, which is Debate 101.
Without a single doubt the most Constitutional and completely honorable candidate of our times! Untouchable in his convictions to follow the already proven foundation of the great US Constitution!
All other candidates left are globalist influenced and highly dishonorable scum - just like many of you like! People tend to vote for what they have already accepted within themselves - mirror time for many of you!
You get in life what you accept!
I dunno Epic.
It has been very quiet on the right since the SOTU.
That little speech, and pspr is right, it was a campaign speech, reminded the GOP that they will be facing a very well spoken incumbent in the fall.
They know deep down that Mittens cannot compete at this level.
But Newt CAN.
Yes, Newt has the baggage of a Mayflower moving van, but he will not be cowed by Obama in the debates.
The GOP is in a tough spot. Mittens is the electable candidate, but Newt is skilled in political Mortal Kombat.
Finish Him! Is not something you can picture Mittens, saying.
Eh, whatevs. It's all academic.
If Christie had decided to run, then we'd have a real race. These guys? Mitt suffers from the exact same thing his father did when he tried running in 1968: he can't figure out how to say things that don't wind up offending some large slice of the electorate he needs to win.
Newt doesn't care, but he's the definition of baggage. He can try all he wants to indirectly play the race card by calling the Prez the "food stamp President" and all that, but it'll just backfire on him with everyone who isn't a braindead loser white man who really thinks his skin is a badge of superiority.
Against Gingrich, it'll be around 60/40. With Mitt, it'll be more normal: 53/47 and tight in the Electoral College, because even though Mitt doesn't really understand that politics is a contact sport, he is at least sane.
Had it been Christie, Obama wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in that warm place we're all headed. Which makes me feel sorry for whoever gets the Dem nod in '16, but that's another election entirely.
If Christie had decided to run, then we'd have a real race. These guys? Mitt suffers from the exact same thing his father did when he tried running in 1968: he can't figure out how to say things that don't wind up offending some large slice of the electorate he needs to win.
Newt doesn't care, but he's the definition of baggage. He can try all he wants to indirectly play the race card by calling the Prez the "food stamp President" and all that, but it'll just backfire on him with everyone who isn't a braindead loser white man who really thinks his skin is a badge of superiority.
Against Gingrich, it'll be around 60/40. With Mitt, it'll be more normal: 53/47 and tight in the Electoral College, because even though Mitt doesn't really understand that politics is a contact sport, he is at least sane.
Had it been Christie, Obama wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in that warm place we're all headed. Which makes me feel sorry for whoever gets the Dem nod in '16, but that's another election entirely.