Regarding the Debate

AK Forty Seven · Jun 14, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

Nothing he said actually backs that up. And he would not run on an independent ticket.
More...

Maverick74 · Jun 14, 2011

Dud, pick somebody else who does not contradict himself every other sentence. Look, you make it seem like there were tons of liberals all over ET that would vote for Paul. Where are they? Pick someone other then this joker. Can you do that? Of course not, because they are not around. I must have started 20 or 30 Ron Paul threads over the last year or so and all the ET liberals jumped on those threads to attack him. I know very well how the ET community feels about him.

Yannis · Jun 14, 2011

Quote from Max E. Pad:

You would have to be seriously delusional to vote for democrats because they are supposedly more fiscally responsible....Everyone knows that the spending bills originate in the house.

More...

Love it! i've been saying the same thing for so long here at ET, especially when liberals accuse GWB for all the recent spending... Not that he was totally innocent, far from it, but the fiscal catastrophy started when Pelosi, Barney Frank, Reed, et al took over in 2007

Lucrum · Jun 14, 2011

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

I like this one better.

More...

Of course you do, but it's flawed.

shortie · Jun 14, 2011

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I'm rather shocked I didn't see a debate thread in this forum (or maybe there is, I just have a few tinkerbells on ignore). What did you guys think of the debate? I'll tell you what I liked - they didn't get into a pissing match and start calling each other out. They recognize that they all are working towards the same goal - getting rid of Oblame-a.

Romney - looked pretty sharp.
Cain - Out of his league, unfortunately. I like his succinct answers.
Ron Paul - my personal favorite, but unfortunately lacks the ability to convey himself and his thoughts in a coherent, dumbed down, joe-the-plumber manner. He has the best solutions, but cannot get away from coming off like a crazy ol' coot.
Pawlenty - Some interesting ideas, but cannot stop talking about himself.
Bachmann - surprised me. Good answers, sometimes the failure to simply answer the question was annoying, but held to her principles.
Newt - Not a lot of Newt action, but was very supportive of his fellow candidates and his deep knowledge of history and the constitution was obvious. Too bad about that baggage.
Santorum - Nah.

I'm sure the flaming will start momentarily on something I said. These are just my perceptions based on last night in a vacuum.
More...

I apologize for bring up the Debate in this thread.
BTW, did anybody notice that only a Chinese ( OP ) appears to follow Rep politics?

To Sum:
only Romney has a chance then.

too bad he is a Mormon.

you know that the country is going down the sh*tter when year after year there is no good fight during the elections.

-- Shortie Kissinger Out

Yannis · Jun 15, 2011

Interesting As Usual

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HH6LaKpO6tQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HH6LaKpO6tQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

jem · Jun 15, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

I saw the debate and was actually pretty disappointed. I really don't like how the candidates almost across the board, including Ron Paul btw, ducked questions and instead of answering the question asked, answered questions they want to answer. I've notice this trend the last 3 years on these debates. Someone out there must be coaching this technique. It's really annoying and destroys the credibility of the debate. It essentially allows candidates to prepare rehearsed speeches they can give regardless of the question asked. I expect to see this technique in all the debates now including the presidential debates.

Overall, Romney probably won the debate, but only because the guy played not to lose. I think he was expecting the others to be more extreme, which they weren't so the guy played very cautious and close to the vest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this race is Jon Huntsman's to lose when he gets in. The door is open really wide for someone to actually come in and take charge. Perry is probably likely to enter as well.
More...

there was a movie with richard gere as a candidate coach and he told the candidate exactly that...

he said forget what you learned in debate class and use each question as an chance to tell the people what you want to tell them... which was their focused sound bites.

I get annoyed by debates for the same reason.

But its not new. I was friends with someone on a moot court team which won nationals... They were trained to take the question... acknowledge and weave it into their pre planned answers. So essentially the point of the mock arguments was who could weave the answer into their pre planned arguments the best.

Many of the candidates having been lawyers would have been exposed to the same type of moot court tactics