PoliGAF Jan 26 Debate/Florida Primary Topic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
But debate is also a skill and Obama is out of practice. Also, he tends to lose his tongue a lot when asked questions. It's not his strong point.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he'll practice before there are actual debates. Obama's no Hillary but he should be able to handle Mitt without much trouble.

Debates don't usually matter anyway.
 
Article quoted by Bilbo said:
Mitt Romney responded today to a call for a tougher stance against Muslims by saying that most Muslims are peaceful people who deserve respect.

The issue came up during a question-and-answer session at a campaign stop here this morning. A man rose from the audience, claimed he had many Muslim friends, but said, “I have never heard one Muslim condemn Islamic jihad or terrorism. I see Islamic jihad as one of the greatest threats to America and the western world. Are you going to continue to give Islam and Islamic jihad in this country a pass like everybody before you continues to do? The only people that call Islam a religion of peace are the Muslims, and they are the most violent religion in the world.”

Romney said radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world. However, he said, “they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He noted that he was raised in the Detroit area, which has a large Muslim population. “They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.”
Click to expand...

:lol
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
But debate is also a skill and Obama is out of practice. Also, he tends to lose his tongue a lot when asked questions. It's not his strong point.
Click to expand...

It isn't his strongest point, but he's a far better debater than anyone the GOP has running right now.

I assume this is why the GOP is holding a billion debates this year. They need someone who can stand on a stage with Obama and not look lost. Clinton and Obama quickly separated themselves from the pack last time for the dems and then Obama dismantled McCain come the pres. debates. None of these guys have the debate experience of McCain who was also an active senator at the time on multiple committees, as versed in the specifics as you can get.

All of the "outsider" cheering doesn't do any good when Obama is the one with the facts on his side.
 
I can't believe the woman in red who asked a question on Latin American, and their left-leaning governments, implying that we should do something to promote free market democracy.

HOLY SHIT some people are batshit insane. Our government has meddled in those countries in the past, and we royally fucked up big time. People like her are scary.
 
NBCWSJ_1_26_2012b-420x281.png

awesome poll
overall Republican voters prefer Newt while he fares worse against Obama according to overall US voters
 
February belongs to Mitt Romney and in the end he will win the nomination, but it's funny how the Tea Party faction are gonna stretch this out until the convention
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Some good points but I'd like to see some examples of Romney (you can include Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, etc, also) attacking Muslims and equating them with terrorists. Otherwise you are just smearing the entire Republican party.

http://www.crescentpost.com/2011/12/newspaper-mitt-romney-says-muslims-are-peace-loving-people/
Click to expand...

I was responding to the American Palestinian Republican who Romney responded to.

And while Obama and the Democrats are no better when it comes to Israel they don't cater to the ill informed bigots who can't differentiate between terrorists and the mass majority of Muslims who don't believe in or practice terrorism.

The right, in general, seems more than happy to cater to the types of people who think all Muslims are jihadists out to enforce Sharia law in America. That there should be something done to them in this country. The likes of Pamela Geller appeal to and are given support by the right not the left.
 
gutter_trash said:
February belongs to Mitt Romney and in the end he will win the nomination, but it's funny how the Tea Party faction are gonna stretch this out until the convention
Click to expand...

What tea party faction? If Romney takes Florida, I think the saying about Republicans falling in line will have been proved truer than ever. The options to Romney's right weren't particularly palatable, but that didn't stop Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle from getting their shot in a general election. The Tea Party is dead.
 
Politics in general don't interest me but America is the exception. You guys be crazy. In Sweden the political climate is boring and I don't think I've ever heard a Swedish politician talk about gay marriage nor abortion while in the USA those are some of the most important political issues that exist, except for the economy (do correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it just seems like that for an outsider). And as for the republican candidates it's hard to pick out who's the bigger douche. Obama may be a pussy that hasn't gotten a lot of "change" done but there really isn't much of a doubt in my mind that out of the people you guys can pick, he's the best choice.

Will follow the debates as much as I can, it's great entertainment.
 
Cobano said:
Politics in general don't interest me but America is the exception. You guys be crazy. In Sweden the political climate is boring and I don't think I've ever heard a Swedish politician talk about gay marriage nor abortion while in the USA those are some of the most important political issues that exist, except for the economy (do correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it just seems like that for an outsider). And as for the republican candidates it's hard to pick out who's the bigger douche. Obama may be a pussy that hasn't gotten a lot of "change" done but there really isn't much of a doubt in my mind that out of the people you guys can pick, he's the best choice.

Will follow the debates as much as I can, it's great entertainment.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue. Abortion laws are a little trickier. But, we have much bigger fish to fry (do you fry fish in Sweden or just eat that pickled shit?). Unfortunately, those issues are used to drum up support from social conservative types in lieu of discussing the serious issues this country faces.
 
Santorum trying to help Newt?

PUNTA GORDA, Fla. (AP) — Rick Santorum is tired, almost broke — and going home.
The former Pennsylvania senator is taking a pause from Florida campaigning just days before the Tuesday primary that even he expects to deal him a third consecutive loss.

Santorum says he would rather spend his Saturday sitting at his kitchen table doing his taxes than campaigning in a state where the race for the Republican presidential nomination has become a two-man fight between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

The cash-strapped candidate acknowledges that he simply can't keep up with the GOP front-runners in Florida.

"We're going to talk about the Constitution and talk about being a strong conservative," Santorum said at an event here this week. "And that's all we can do."

Outside advisers are urging him to pack up in Florida completely and not spend another minute in a state where he is cruising toward a loss. But Santorum insisted on Friday that he would return once he has readied his taxes for public release.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/tired-broke-santorum-heads-home-taxes-084655933.html
 
Cobano said:
Politics in general don't interest me but America is the exception. You guys be crazy. In Sweden the political climate is boring and I don't think I've ever heard a Swedish politician talk about gay marriage nor abortion while in the USA those are some of the most important political issues that exist
Click to expand...

Those are a few of the wedge issues Republicans bring up in order to get elected, which they wouldn't otherwise if they didn't. There would be a huge Democratic majority in this country if Republicans didn't appeal to the religious nuts. It started with Reagan, Republicans had the bright idea to court evangelicals for votes. Before Reagan, churches urged their flocks not to vote or get involved in politics.
 
Looks like the two-party system is broken to me. There is no reason for the opposing party to ever work with a President. There is no net gain for them politically.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Looks like the two-party system is broken to me. There is no reason for the opposing party to ever work with a President. There is no net gain for them politically.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. There is a net gain for Democrats: inherent in their message is that government can work well for the people. For example, this is why they advocate things like universal health care; they believe the government can accomplish the task better than private industry.

But constant bickering and gridlock implies to most viewers that the government is not efficient and incapable of handling complex tasks in a responsible, timely manner. Everyone involved points fingers, and most of the public is left disgusted with both sides. This does not benefit you if your message is that the government can be good and helpful in many circumstances.

I absolutely agree that this is true for Republicans, though. Opposing Obama produces one of two possible outcomes: 1) Obama relents to the Republican pressure and gives them what they want, or 2) Obama does not relent, and the government is gridlocked, reinforcing the notion that the government is ineffective. Either way, Republicans win.
 
Opiate said:
There definitely is for Democrats: inherent in their message is that government can work well for the people. This is why the advocate things like universal health care, for example; they believe the government can accomplish the task better than private industry.

In general, if Democrats choose not to work with Republicans, it produces an apparent inefficiency and bitterness inside the govenrment; everyone involved points fingers, and most of the public is left disgusted with both sides. This does not benefit you if your message is that the government can be good and helpful in many circumstances.

I absolutely agree that this is true for Republicans, though. Opposing Obama produces one of two possible outcomes: 1) Obama relents to the Republican pressure and gives them what they want, or 2) Obama does not relent, and the government is gridlocked, reinforcing the notion that the government is ineffictive. Either way, Republicans win.
Click to expand...

That's page one of the Republican playbook. Everything they do is predicated on it.
 
Opiate said:
I strongly disagree. There is a net gain for Democrats: inherent in their message is that government can work well for the people. For example, this is why they advocate things like universal health care; they believe the government can accomplish the task better than private industry.

So constant bickering and gridlock implies to most viewers that the government is not efficient and incapable of handling complex tasks in a responsible, timely manner. Everyone involved points fingers, and most of the public is left disgusted with both sides. This does not benefit you if your message is that the government can be good and helpful in many circumstances.

I absolutely agree that this is true for Republicans, though. Opposing Obama produces one of two possible outcomes: 1) Obama relents to the Republican pressure and gives them what they want, or 2) Obama does not relent, and the government is gridlocked, reinforcing the notion that the government is ineffictive. Either way, Republicans win.
Click to expand...

Opiate
Depressingly Realistic
 
Opiate said:
I strongly disagree. There is a net gain for Democrats: inherent in their message is that government can work well for the people. For example, this is why they advocate things like universal health care; they believe the government can accomplish the task better than private industry.

So constant bickering and gridlock implies to most viewers that the government is not efficient and incapable of handling complex tasks in a responsible, timely manner. Everyone involved points fingers, and most of the public is left disgusted with both sides. This does not benefit you if your message is that the government can be good and helpful in many circumstances.

I absolutely agree that this is true for Republicans, though. Opposing Obama produces one of two possible outcomes: 1) Obama relents to the Republican pressure and gives them what they want, or 2) Obama does not relent, and the government is gridlocked, reinforcing the notion that the government is ineffictive. Either way, Republicans win.
Click to expand...

hmmm.. not sure I agree. If you look at the split over the last 20 years, it looks like there aren't that many people willing to even consider the opposing party's point of view. People are entrenched. There just aren't enough people to woo over to your side to worry about what they think.
 
Opiate said:
I strongly disagree. There is a net gain for Democrats: inherent in their message is that government can work well for the people. For example, this is why they advocate things like universal health care; they believe the government can accomplish the task better than private industry. Then they get political benefit from it failing by blaming the other party for obstruction.
Click to expand...

They advocate it (to get your vote and your support), but ultimately do NOTHING about it. They have had two (possibly three) solid swipes at it and have whiffed every time. They are still beholden to the powerful lobbies that help write the legislature.

So constant bickering and gridlock implies to most viewers that the government is not efficient and incapable of handling complex tasks in a responsible, timely manner. Everyone involved points fingers, and most of the public is left disgusted with both sides. This does not benefit you if your message is that the government can be good and helpful in many circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, I think most people see through the bullshit and realize that these people only stand for things when they benefit from them (either through donations or votes). It's almost never about what's good for America.

The Democrats didn't oppose ANWR because of some principled belief. It's because it would be a boon to an area that is largely Republican. They've approved vast areas of land to be drilled in other parts of the country (and oceans) in the same timeframe. The Democrats didn't support PIPA and SOPA because it was good for the people, it was because they have a powerful lobby they need to placate.

I absolutely agree that this is true for Republicans, though. Opposing Obama produces one of two possible outcomes: 1) Obama relents to the Republican pressure and gives them what they want, or 2) Obama does not relent, and the government is gridlocked, reinforcing the notion that the government is ineffictive. Either way, Republicans win.
Click to expand...

These two parties have been involved in this tit-for-tat game for decades now. The Republicans seem to be the party that raises the stakes everytime, but the Democrats will get them back next time they need to. Just wait until the Republicans are back in power. The lifers on the Hill won't forget.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
I can't believe the woman in red who asked a question on Latin American, and their left-leaning governments, implying that we should do something to promote free market democracy.

HOLY SHIT some people are batshit insane. Our government has meddled in those countries in the past, and we royally fucked up big time. People like her are scary.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons why there are so many left-leaning governments down there is BECAUSE of our meddling. It is policy backlash . . . . people are not really happy to adopt policies, even if they are good ones, coming from someone that has brutalized you.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Looks like the two-party system is broken to me. There is no reason for the opposing party to ever work with a President. There is no net gain for them politically.
Click to expand...

Yeah, our system is pretty broken. We were one of the first modern democracies . . . and that is a proud history but we are kinda stuck with democracy 1.0 and we can't update it. The existing winners won't change the system because that means others might displace them. The Ds & Rs are quite content with just going back & forth.

It would be much nicer if we had things like proportional representation, instant run-off voting, and other things that allow more parties to be involved.
 
ToxicAdam said:
They advocate it (to get your vote and your support), but ultimately do NOTHING about it. They have had two (possibly three) solid swipes at it and have whiffed every time. They are still beholden to the powerful lobbies that help write the legislature.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember a universal health care legislation was enacted a few years ago. That was a big part of the Democratic platform, and they did it. It could have been a lot better, but we have Republicans to thank for that.

ToxicAdam said:
No, I think most people see through the bullshit and realize that these people only stand for things when they benefit from them (either through donations or votes). It's almost never about what's good for America.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of voters who have some optimism left in the tank. Wait until the past few years of GOP obstructionism is front and center during the election. People will take notice, and see who has been at least trying to do work for the people.
 
DeathbyVolcano said:
I'd personally like term limits for Congress members. But that'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Term limits will never work unless there's only a single term allowed.
In any other scenario, the lobbyist just gain more power as they become the knowledge stores of Capitol Hill.

I could get behind this so long as we had verifiable, instant runoff voting, 4 year House terms, 6 year Presidential, and no Senate.
 
DasRaven said:
Term limits will never work unless there's only a single term allowed.
In any other scenario, the lobbyist just gain more power as they become the knowledge stores of Capitol Hill.

I could get behind this so long as we had verifiable, instant runoff voting, 4 year House terms, 6 year Presidential, and no Senate.
Click to expand...

I don't see how limiting it to one term doesn't have the same result...
 
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I seem to remember a universal health care legislation was enacted a few years ago. That was a big part of the Democratic platform, and they did it. It could have been a lot better, but we have Republicans to thank for that.
Click to expand...

It's not really 'universal' health care in a conventional sense. It's health care reform. Also, there's still a legal question if health care (insurance) can be mandated to all people.

There are plenty of voters who have some optimism left in the tank. Wait until the past few years of GOP obstructionism is front and center during the election. People will take notice, and see who has been at least trying to do work for the people.
Click to expand...


Maybe. It just depends on the dynamics and the actors involved. If Reid is still head of the Senate, there will still be a lot perceived 'gridlock'.
 
PoliGAF Community Thread

Remember, lets keep general politics in the community thread, debate/primary talk in here. Otherwise, we will have to revolt against Evilore (what, does he think he owns this information website, or what?!!?) or have these threads turn into megathreads with misleading titles and have them get locked, frequently.

think_of_the_children-thumb-260x215-18848.jpg
 
speculawyer said:
One of the reasons why there are so many left-leaning governments down there is BECAUSE of our meddling. It is policy backlash . . . . people are not really happy to adopt policies, even if they are good ones, coming from someone that has brutalized you.
Click to expand...

Can you post or PM me some information about what the US did to Latin America?


I'd be very interested.
 
speculawyer said:
One of the reasons why there are so many left-leaning governments down there is BECAUSE of our meddling. It is policy backlash . . . . people are not really happy to adopt policies, even if they are good ones, coming from someone that has brutalized you.
Click to expand...

true dat, Cuba under Batista was a Mafia whore house ruled by mob guys and rich American overlords who controlled their resources and paid Cuban employees like shit

the Golden Phone in the Godfather II actually was true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Florida Gators 2025 national champions in Basketball.
19
574
HoodWinked replied
Florida could let homeowners shoot down drones over their property
35
136
DeepEnigma replied
Debate, Is Dragon Ball Z an RPG adapted to television?
26
1K
CoreyFlawless replied
Max only has 26 movies that support Dolby Atmos (in my country).
9
739
nush replied
  • Poll
UFC 308: Topuria vs. Holloway - Abu Dhabi - October 26
Poll Event  2
77
3K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom