Las Vegas GOP Debate

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, Oct 18, 2011.

Tags:
  1. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    This was the first debate I watched from start to finish this season. I had it on while I am working in the lab.

    Ron Paul, while crazy, still makes regular salient arguments and points like usual. He should never be president, but some of his ideas really should be given legs.

    Bachmann is so stupid. She is SO stupid. She has nothing to offer. She is literally dangling her vagina as the reason for her to be elected, with her appeals to "mothers" and the fact that she is "the least like Obama on this stage." She's an insult to women. Why does the Republican Party keep trotting out dummies? Hasselbeck's wife would be better than this crap. I laughed when she talked about how Obama brought us into Libya, "and now Africa too!" Dummy.

    Gingrich is like an awkward sitcom-crossover guest star, and just feels out of place. That being said, he came off as paternalistic towards his colleagues, which was interesting for the debate even if he himself did not come across as viable. It was like Ted Kennedy in the Democrat primaries.

    Perry is also scary stupid, but not as bad. He is clearly an empty suit and a total "classic" politician. He says what he thinks people want to hear, and has no real guiding principles which is why he is buyable for any special interest.

    Romney is so clearly a cut above the previously mentioned candidates, it isn't even funny. That being said, he has a streak of the "sleaze" in him as well. But he isn't dumb, and we can't afford another dumb president.

    Cain is struggling to get people to quit asking stupid questions about his tax plan. And as good as he sounds on many things, he sucks on multiple levels in concerns to foreign policy matters. His answers suck, his demeanor exudes a lack of confidence, and his very comprehension of the issues seems lacking.

    That other guy was actually pretty good for the most part too, but I can't remember his name. I only know only 1% of those polled picked him as their candidate. And so those two factors don't bode well.




    My problems with them collectively (except Paul because he is a whole other bag of hammers) are such:

    They're schizophrenic on foreign policy matters. They want to cut foreign aid, and distance themselves from "allies" that screw us over. Except Israel, who screws over all the time.

    They're against big government, but their solution to almost every problem was government in another form.

    They speak of everything having to do with faith, but their explanations for why a particular faith doesn't matter directly contradicts their respective theologies. They also are prejudice against non-supernatural world views.

    The "market" and capitalism is worshiped and held up as the solution to all, when the market itself does not solve all problems of the human condition. There is a lack of humanity and individual charity in their explanations of how to fix things that must be talked about, if market-based mechanisms are doing the heavy-lifting.

    I could go on, but I will just let others share their thoughts.
     
  2. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    I would be most comfortable with a Romney or Cain. I would rather have Newt than Perry. If it were between Perry and Bachmann, I would become a terrorist.
     
  3. When you study their records and experience, Newt is probably the most qualified. However, he has too much personal baggage to be elected.

    Look at this way. They would all be better than the Obama Idiot. I personally would settle for ANYONE over The Idiot.
     
  4. MG1968

    MG1968 Member

    Bachmann should do herself a favor and stop trying to be the next Sarah Palin. I didn't think it would be possible for a person's voice to be more grating on the nerves than Fran Drescher's or Palin's, but Bachmann's voice modulation from normal to shriek in .4 seconds induces migraines.

    Anderson Cooper was pathetic for facilitating the bickering between Romney and Perry and those two should be smart enough to bury the hatchet and realize that the televised animosity between the two of them is fodder for the left to point to the existence of a schism in the GOP.

    Paul is out of his [uck fay]ing mind. What was he doing sounding like an OWS protester by talking about the "victims" of the mortgage crisis. Two weeks ago he was talking about personal responsibility when it came to medical care/insurance decisions, and now he's sounding like a Bill O'Reilly clone.

    Santorum is a smart guy, but to claim that he wouldn't cut a penny from the defense budget is naive at best and recklessly stupid at worst.
     
  5. droski

    droski Super Moderator

    agreed. newt would be my choice, but he is unelectable. romney is clearly a slimeball, but as you point out slimeball is better than dumb.
     
  6. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Newt is the smartest of them all but too polarizing.
     
  7. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Perry should have snapped Romney’s arm off at the shoulder and beat him with it. Would have been entertaining as hell.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  8. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    Paul was specifically speaking of the inefficiencies of our global deployment, which costs money.
     
  9. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    I don't know why that was so hard for them to understand.
     
  10. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Mod in Glass House

    I didn't watch the debate last night, nor have I watched any, but here are my overall opinions.

    Newt - clearly the most qualified and would be the best overall candidate based on experience and other such matters. Honestly, think he would know how to work in DC to get stuff done. However, his personal baggage will not allow him to ever be elected President.

    Perry - I just think they guy's a fake. While I think Bush's faith and Christianity is legit, I just see Perry using it to pander to the Christian right as he knows it is his only option to win. I expect him to fade in the upcoming months.

    Bachmann - Please just go away. Now. Forever. Please.

    Ron Paul - He has some ideas worth merit, but overall is the biggest nutcase up there (and that says a lot). If he is truly more concerned with his ideas being implements moreso than being in the limelight, then it's time to pass the baton to secong generation people with his ideas. He's unelectable.

    Now for the two it will come down to.

    Cain - If I had to vote today, it would be for him. Smart guy, and while he may not know every facet of some matters, he seems smart enough to actually learn them or put people in place that could handle them. At the end of the day though, he's going to falter. Fun shot in the arm, not enough staying power IMO.

    Romney - Don't necessarily agree with his stances, but I could support him. Easily the most electable candidate and most likely to take down Obama. However, moreso than the others there seems to be something about him that says "presidential material" more than the others. Maybe that's just me.

    All in all, it goes back to what a lifelong Democrat friend of mine said. Basically the GOP is staring at what the Democrats were in 2004 - a potentially beatable president, but all of the powerhouses are staying put until 2016. We even have our Howard Dean (Perry) and our likely candidate isn't someone we necessarily want, but we'll support just to win (Romney). Thought he made a great point.
     

Share This Page