|
joether -> RE: Tonight's debate (10/12/2011 9:50:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Romney - Presidential and informed -- still a “front runner”, though I’m personally still not sure about the guy.
Take it from a Commonwealth of Massachusetts resident. The guy came to Mass looking all 'Governor-ish' and he said many things thatl iberals liked. He was around for 'The Big Dig' (look it up) and the invention of Mass Health (you would know it as a better version than Obamacare). Towards the final year of office, he had set his sights on becoming president, and so went to other states to bad-mouth the Commonwealth. This guy will say anything and do anything to get elected. I'd advise you to be very careful allowing this person in a position of great power and responsibility. You will not like the results....but you'll blame liberals all the same. Cus its well know, it was the liberal's fault for giving this nation George W. Bush....
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Cain - Was becoming impressed with him, but others brought up a good point... that his 9-9-9 plan opens the door to yet another tax stream for the Government -- which would likely be there for LIFE, as the Government adds more taxes!!!
Sometimes business men can make the change to politician in a good manner, and sometimes they make things worst. From what I've seen of Mr. Cain, he's not added to many good things to the discussions. His '9-9-9 plan' is simply a rehashing of his 'Flat Tax Act' from a few months ago (go look up the thread 'Herman Cain'). Very light on details plays to his favor; it means anyone that does serious number crunching can't figure out if the likelyhood of what Mr. Cain state's is true or not. An since you hate Mr. Obama, I would think you would be cautious in someone that is vague on facts and figures but high on 'crap'. Apart from that, the man does not give a very good sense he's running for the actual office (i.e. another Palin-type).
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Perry - Had a better performance tonight, and possibly gained back some ground from the last debate. Seems to still be perceived as a "front runner" by the press, though I don't believe the polls still reflect this.
The sad thing (honestly) is that Mr. Perry looks presidential until he opens his mouth. One just need take a good and honest look at his state to gain an idea of what sort of things the man is 'for' and 'against'. How he handles problems, talks to people from all three political philosophies and deals with the good & bad. Once people started to (gasp) fact check on this guy, things started to look bad for him.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Gingrich - As usual, VERY knowledgeable and informed, and would have liked to have heard more from him. Has the potential of a "sleeper" candidate that could possibly surge later.
Anthony Weiner is VERY knowledgable and informed. They BOTH cheated on their wives. But the difference is, the Mr. Weiner DIDN'T do it at the same time as hitting the other party's president with an impeachment (for doing the samething). Mr. Gingrich is quite guilty of that. As the saying goes 'if he's willing to cheat on his wife, how will the country fare?'. He brought back his 'Contract with America' skit recently. The list reading more like 'I hate Obama because I dont have a clue' than something that instills confidence. Your right in that he's a sleeper candidate, but without the quotations. Obama will have a second term BEFORE this guy get's a clue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Santorum - Like Gingrich, very knowledgeable and informed, liked what he'd said about how to bring back "manufacturing jobs", would have liked to have heard more from him, and also view him as a potential "sleeper" candidate that could possibly surge later.
This is a person that had blinders on! A very narrow viewpoint on the 'why's' and even less on the 'facts'. There are dozens of reasons why manufacturing jobs left the country, and the grand majority have NOTHING to do with the current president. This guy didn't explain even a 'high school' knowledge to these reasons. Plus this guy hates gay people. Want to bet his 'enjoyment' of bdsm folks fares better? You would vote for someone that see's you as being LESS than a second class citizen?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Bachmann - Came off as knowledgeable and informed, but neither helped or hurt herself in this debate -- which, in my opinion, has the net effect of only hurting herself, as it moves her toward the back of the line.
Yes, have to question your defination of the words 'knowledgable' and 'informed' if you believe Rep. Bachmann is both of those. This lady honestly gets many of her facts wrong, and does a good job of insulting people's intelligences. This person is the most erratic and unstable of the group (Romney being the most stable).
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Paul - Wasn't as controversial in this debate, but he remains a fucking clown in my mind, so he'll never get my vote.
Huntsman - Not a chance in Hell of winning and should just drop out.
Rep. Paul is a questionable fellow in all honestly. Some of his ideas are really good and some are just totally 'wacko' (see Bachmann above). Much is known of this guy, but his party hinders his credibility. Plus a 'grass roots' group he help create has mutated into something very hazardous to the country if not dangerous. The phrase 'The path to Hell is paved in good intentions' sums up this guy pretty well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Even the WORST candidate would do a better job than the fuck-head-failure-in-thief, Baroccoli O'Liar.
That's President Obama to you! You can hate the guy all you want, but do try to show respect to the Office of the President and the person elected to the position. As that is a concept that is 'core' to the United States of America. The simplistic manner (and maturity) of your slam towards the president and 'thoughts' on each of the candidates in a 'honest, intelligent, and wise manner' is more towards that of a sixth grader than that of an adult (who should have at least a twelveth-grade ability).
None of these candidates could handle the problems this country has right now. This field is pretty bad on the 'electing' part but does well for the 'how nazis-ish can one be'. If Romeny gets the ticket, I except one of two things will happen: The Tea Party will run someone or the Christians that have been bashing Romeny's religion will suddenly turn 180 degrees and there by disregard the remaining principles they have infavor of politics.
The discussion of this recent debate on 'the economy' was simply laughable. No mention of the factual history of events was given by any candidate. I wonder why.... Because to be 'honest' and 'factual' they would have to explain that the grand majority of events that took place had a Republican's hand in the crafting and execution. Or that during the president's time in office, Republicans have done anything and everything to undermine progress for the nation. This group of candidates will do very badly against the president. Many Americans realize that he got dealt a bad economy made worst by the folks that have lied, cheated, and pissed away everything that was once good about America for greed, power, and seflishness. An he's done very well given those hurdles. A bigger chunk of Americans are willing to give him 'the benefit of the doubt' (include a score of conservatives). Can you say the same for this 'field' of candidates for the GOP Ticket?
|
|
|
|
