Regarding the Debate

[achilles28]

America will go bankrupt sometime around 2016. Everyone who longs for a military empire or socialist utopia will have about 4 more years to enjoy it (depending on which side wins) before the entire Country falls apart. This will be the last Presidential election arm-chair pundits will have to revel in the fanfare and debate the normal partisan politics. Enjoy...

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

I don't believe that.

That's your prerogative. But your chosen beliefs don't change the facts or reality, only your perception of them.

You preference for beliefs over facts simply confirms why you're a liberal.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The commentators were disappointed the candidates didn't go after each other, but I think it was the right way to handle it. Reagan's 11th Commandment was not to attack fellow republicans, and it's generally a good rule. Romney tried attacking McCain last time and it blew up in his face. Also, they know that the VP candidate will likely come from their ranks, so why needlessly antagonize someone who could select you?

I tend to agree with the general consensus that the winners were Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich. Romney seemed presidential and fully ready to take on Obama. Bachmann has some of the Palin charisma but is also very informed in detail on numerous issues and has a solid record. Gingrich cut to the chase several times and exposed fallacies or hidden assumptions in the questions. I'm not a big fan but he came across as very capable.

I thought Paul's best moment was when he replied to Romney's typically cautious answer about withdrawal from afghanistan by saying that he would be Commander in Chief and would tell the generals what to do, not the other way around as Romney suggested. We know the generals plan on being there for decades and spending trillions of dollars nation-building. Time to recognize they were wrong and cut our losses.

Cain seemed a little out of his depth. I thought he would be one of the candidates who had traction, but now I'm not so sure. Bachmann is clearly more polished and capable and appeals to the same constituency.

Pawlenty looked foolish and weak when he wouldn't stand behind his "obamney" care remark from the day before. He and Santorum scare me because neither seems to recognize any limit on using military force. It's like they've been asleep the past 10 years.

I agree with just about every word in this editorial.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

You didn't know that on social issues democrats are closer to libertarians then republicans ?

You're not that terribly bright are you? No democrat would ever vote for Paul because of "social" issues. Why? Because almost every democrat is already liberal on social issues. They supported Paul because of Iraq.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Lucrum:

That's your prerogative. But your chosen beliefs don't change the facts or reality, only your perception of them.

You preference for beliefs over facts simply confirms why you're a liberal.

Facts say that democrats like balanced or near balanced budgets ,the last 2 presidents who did that were Clinton and Carter,democrats

Facts say Democrats are anti war.Obama got the nomination because he was against Iraq and Hilary supported it .Democrats want all the wars to end now,a Ron Paul position.Clinton and Carter also kept us out of major wars

democrats are against the patriot act,homeland security etc,like Paul

Paul wants drugs legalized,so do many democrats especially the pot heads and hippies .Ron Paul has taken a strong position against harsh drug sentences ,a big issue in the black community

There are to many things that democrats and Paul have in common to believe that only 10 % of democrats would vote for him

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Lucrum:

You didn't know that less than 10% of democrats support Ron Paul?

Key word there is support. Most of those would not even vote for him in a real election. They simply support some of his policies. Very few actual registered voters would vote for Paul over Obama.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Facts say that democrats like balanced or near balanced budgets ,the last 2 presidents who did that were Clinton and Carter,democrats

Facts say Democrats are anti war.Obama got the nomination because he was against Iraq and Hilary supported it .Democrats want all the wars to end now,a Ron Paul position.Clinton and Carter also kept us out of major wars

democrats are against the patriot act,homeland security etc,like Paul

Paul wants drugs legalized,so do many democrats especially the pot heads and hippies .Ron Paul has taken a strong position against harsh drug sentences ,a big issue in the black community

There are to many things that democrats and Paul have in common to believe that only 10 % of democrats would vote for him

Almost all of this is pure bullshit and you know it. Where do you come up with this stuff? The basement of your mom's house or your dorm room?

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Maverick74:

Because almost every democrat is already liberal on social issues.

Are they as liberal as Paul ?Ok then

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Maverick74:

Almost all of this is pure bullshit and you know it. Where do you come up with this stuff? The basement of your mom's house or your dorm room?

Whats bull shit dumb ass? What part of that post is incorrect ?

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Maverick74:

Key word there is support. Most of those would not even vote for him in a real election. They simply support some of his policies. Very few actual registered voters would vote for Paul over Obama.

Me and other democratic ET posters have said we would vote for Paul over Obama,whats so hard to understand ?