Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    11 Aug '11 22:21
    Debate tonight and straw poll Saturday mean a big weekend for presidential hopefuls.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/crucial-three-days-in-iowa/?hpt=hp_c1

    Thoughts or predictions?

    If this will truly make-or-break candidates, I anticipate Gingrich for one will be out if he doesn't do well, and maybe the same can be said regarding Pawlenty. Selfishly I hope Huntsman does well, but that appears unlikely.
  2. 12 Aug '11 02:01
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Debate tonight and straw poll Saturday mean a big weekend for presidential hopefuls.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/crucial-three-days-in-iowa/?hpt=hp_c1

    Thoughts or predictions?

    If this will truly make-or-break candidates, I anticipate Gingrich for one will be out if h ...[text shortened]... an be said regarding Pawlenty. Selfishly I hope Huntsman does well, but that appears unlikely.
    Yawn...zzzzzzz
  3. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    12 Aug '11 02:03
    http://www.barackobama.com/gopdebatewatch#card-24

    Some quick quotes...

    Bachmann: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage... we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."

    Gingrich: “I want to replace, not reform EPA, because the EPA is made up of self selected bureaucrats, who are anti-American jobs, anti-American business, anti-state government..."

    Gingrich: "Candidly, it wouldn’t be bad to have a[n American history test] for young Americans before they start voting."

    Pawlenty (on federal funding to the states): “The federal government is basically a drug dealer trying to give out free samples or give people a taste, get them further addicted.”

    You can't make this stuff up.
  4. 12 Aug '11 02:30
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Debate tonight and straw poll Saturday mean a big weekend for presidential hopefuls.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-debates/index.html

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/crucial-three-days-in-iowa/?hpt=hp_c1

    Thoughts or predictions?

    If this will truly make-or-break candidates, I anticipate Gingrich for one will be out if h ...[text shortened]... an be said regarding Pawlenty. Selfishly I hope Huntsman does well, but that appears unlikely.
    Why Huntsman? I am a democrat living in Utah. I saw him speak at a banquet hall I was running and he was great. If I didn't know what party he belonged to I would'nt have been able to tell. He was not left or right, he was just correct. Becouse of this I hope he is terrible tonight. President Obama is safer when it is just the lunitics and corparate whores running.
  5. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    12 Aug '11 02:38
    Originally posted by im back
    Why Huntsman? I am a democrat living in Utah. I saw him speak at a banquet hall I was running and he was great. If I didn't know what party he belonged to I would'nt have been able to tell. He was not left or right, he was just correct. Becouse of this I hope he is terrible tonight. President Obama is safer when it is just the lunitics and corparate whores running.
    I agree; I like Huntsman on the whole, too. However, I'd prefer that Obama ran against the best alternative (Huntsman) with a 50-50 shot at winning rather than that Obama ran against a substantially worse alternative (Bachmann, Pawlenty, etc.) with, what, something in the range of a 55-45 shot at winning.
  6. 12 Aug '11 03:08
    They are all a bunch of fools. Maybe nit-wits is a more appropriate term for them. Unfortunately, many people listen to them.
  7. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    12 Aug '11 06:05
    Well, I recorded the debate and just now finished watching it.

    Some observations for anyone interested in a biased non-politician's perspective ():

    -It was a lot messier of a debate than was the one in New Hampshire. Honestly, Fox regained a hint of credibility in my mind, because the questions asked were usually pretty testy and even occasionally over-the-top (watch for news coverage of Gingrich calling out the moderator, as well as the crowd booing the moderator after a question to Bachmann about the role of women's submission to men in the Bible). As a result, I hope the moderators of the next debate move beyond asking the candidates to clarify statements or resolve apparently disparate positions and rather focus more on general ideological and political viewpoints; the media do a fine job already in cycling through soundbites and redos. In addition to candidate-moderator clashes, though, there were plenty of candidate-candidate clashes, too. Bachmann and Pawlenty had some exchanges, as did Pawlenty and Romeny; Paul and Santorum, Bachmann, and Pawlenty went at each other's throats over foreign policy in the Middle East.

    -Even as a liberal, I thought each candidate gave one or two responses that conveyed glimmers of hope. Particularly memorable were Santorum admitting that arguments not to raise the debt ceiling were gimmicks and Huntsman standing firm on his calls for equal marriage rights for gays.

    -As usual, it was fun to watch Paul even though I don't agree with him on much. He absolutely took everyone to town, in my opinion, on foreign policy in the Middle East. He also did a clever job stealing Gingrich's thunder when Paul mentioned "I'm glad the mainstream has finally caught up with me" in response to Gingrich's calls for an audit of the Fed.

    -There were a couple of times where candidates honestly seemed to be lying through their teeth, or at the very best, doing some serious tap-dance flip-flopping. Romney's answers were most memorable in my opinion. He apparently once said in MA that the state legislators should have decided on gay marriage equality, not the MA Supreme Court; then he turned around and dismissed New York's legislature's actions and said that he'd support a federal marriage amendment. As far as I can remember without checking a transcript, he pretty much flat out lied about raising taxes to help restore Massachusetts' credit rating; at the best, he somehow spun the discussion to argue that that circumstance shouldn't be extrapolated to the national level. And yet again, he dug himself deeper into a hole in talking about how he was going to give all the states a waiver from Obama's health care overhaul--when it's well-known that Obama's plan allows states to apply for waivers given that their plans ultimately cover the same breadth of the population. So between all of that and the fact that his colleagues finally started taking some shots at him, I don't think it was his best night.

    -Every single person on stage raised his or her hand in affirmation that he or she would not accept a deficit reduction plan composed of 10 dollars of spending cuts for every 1 dollar of tax revenues raised. (And what's so frustrating is that you could see some of the candidates hesitating!) Honestly I had to restrain myself from turning off the TV right at that moment because the ideological partisanship was sickening, even as a couple of the candidates were talking about how important it was to be able to work effectively in a divided government situation.
  8. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    12 Aug '11 15:17
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/12/avlon.gop.debate/index.html

    For those critical of the GOP in general, this is a good summary of what occurred last night.
  9. 12 Aug '11 19:26
    Whether you agree with Paul or not, you have to admire the man's consistency. I'm sure he has had some moments when he has been caught, but I'd bet it's a fraction of what any other candidate has. Romney is sickening. If he thought his healthcare plan was good in MA then he should say so. Huntsmen being called out for serving in President Obama's administration is also sickening and should be easily put to rest with a statement such as "It's an important job and I thought I could do it best." I won't vote in the next election and I encourage you all to abstain with me. The candidates are more interested in political gamesmanship then they are in addressing serious problems in this country. Are we seriously going to continue to argue about gay marriage? What a waste of time.
  10. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    12 Aug '11 19:49
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Huntsmen being called out for serving in President Obama's administration is also sickening and should be easily put to rest with a statement such as "It's an important job and I thought I could do it best."
    That's effectively what he's been saying all along, but my impression is that many in the GOP don't accept that as a legitimate answer, which is downright anti-American.
  11. 12 Aug '11 22:20
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    That's effectively what he's been saying all along, but my impression is that many in the GOP don't accept that as a legitimate answer, which is downright anti-American.
    This is the type of horse puckey I've been lamenting. Our country is so fractured we're likely to end up with Perry for no other reason than that he's not president Obama. We no longer select the best candidate, we select the candidate that isn't worst (by our estimation). I'm sick of the whole thing. What would happen if nobody showed up to vote in November?