Republican Presidential Debate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ChrisWWII**

So, what do you guys think of the current Republican Debate?

Even as a Republican myself, I find the unwillingness to even bend on the issue of taxes to be kind of frightening....at the same time, Bachmann is continuing to worry me when it comes to her speaking (her little back and forth with Pawlenty was hilarious though).

Hopefully this thread can be a good discussion about the debate....

**ineptus astartes**

well...I wonder the ration of Democrats/Republicans on this site is

I am a democrat from a mainly republican family.

and if Palin gets elected, it is my belief that our wonderful country will go downhill so fast it will get a speeding ticket...or at least make a really big splat.

**Troy**

ineptus astartes wrote:well...I wonder the ration of Democrats/Republicans on this site is

I am a democrat from a mainly republican family.

and if Palin gets elected, it is my belief that our wonderful country will go downhill so fast it will get a speeding ticket...or at least make a really big splat.

As Palin has not run for anything since 2008 U'd think its kind of difficult for her to get elected President.

**reds8n**

For those who saw it, is this a fair enough summary ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/12/rick-perry-republican-presidential-debate-iowa

The chances of Texas governor Rick Perry becoming front-runner for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama rose on Thursday after a lacklustre showing by other candidates in the biggest debate so far.

Perry's office confirmed on Thursday he is planning to announce that he will join the race on Saturday at a conservative conference in Charleston, South Carolina.

Perry's entry came too late for him to participate in Thursday's debate in Ames, Iowa. It was an important debate, coming at the start of three hectic days of campaigning in the state where the first of the Republican caucuses is scheduled to be held in February.

Eight declared candidates took part but no clear winner emerged from what was a largely dull two hours. It was enlivened only by lively personal exchanges between Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign is faltering.

Asked about Perry's imminent arrival in the race, the candidates were polite, with one describing him as formidable and another welcoming both him and Sarah Palin, should she choose to stand. Palin is scheduled to make a public appearance in Iowa on Friday.

Pawlenty badly needs to revive his campaign by doing well in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, a traditional test of would-be presidential candidates. If he fails, he could see his remaining financial backers desert him.

Under pressure, his main target was predictably Bachmann, winner of the previous debate in New Hampshire and who is leading in the polls in Iowa. Adopting a patronising tone, he said Bachmann had done little in her five years in Congress. "She has done some wonderful things in her life but it is an indisputable fact that her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent," Pawlenty said, trying to compensate for his failure to make an impact in the New Hampshire debate and shed his image of dullness.

But he picked on the wrong candidate. Bachmann came back recalling his record in office as governor on health, energy and trade. "That sounds a lot more like Barack Obama's record," she said. She also raised his record on abortion, a litmus issue for Republicans.

After a series of personal exchanges, Pawlenty called her position as "illogical".

Romney was left unscathed, which his campaign team was happy about. But Perry's arrival could provide him with real competition by the time of the next debate, in California, in September.

Pawlenty's jibes, which appeared to be prepared in advance, are unlikely to have swayed many doubters. Others who failed to make much of an impression included former senator Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.

Jon Huntsman made his debate debut. He has struggled in the polls, too close to the centre for many conservatives and also, unforgivable for many Republicans, he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.

But his opening answer was poor. Asked for a detailed plan for tackling the economy, he said limply: "It is coming."

**ineptus astartes**

wow, the country is going down the tubes.

**biccat**

ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

Pretty much. Hopefully we can get a new president in '12 before the whole thing goes down.

Also, since my state has a closed primary, I won't be voting in the Republican primary, so best of luck to whoever wins. As long as it's not Ron Paul, he (or she) will probably get my vote.

Heck, I'd probably even vote for Paul.

**lord commissar klimino**

ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

**Sasori**

lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

**lord commissar klimino**

Sasori wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.

and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.

the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.

the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.

**reds8n**

Do you not think that the USA is a bit large to be successfully invaded and/or occupied ?

Who do think or see doing this ?

It's "our" not "are" economy.

**ineptus astartes**

well, the country probably won't be invaded, the world does not work like that anymore, but thew politicians are bickering all over the place, and the only way to fix out trillions in debt that is due when? Tomorrow? Is to raise taxes.

**lord commissar klimino**

reds8n wrote: Do you not think that the USA is a bit large to be successfully invaded and/or occupied ?

if are economy failed and we collapsed in on are selves,i dont think it would be hard.

Who do think or see doing this ?

Afghanistan, north Korea, Russia, and probably others.

It's "our" not "are" economy.

i dont care.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote: For those who saw it, is this a fair enough summary ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/12/rick-perry-republican-presidential-debate-iowa

The chances of Texas governor Rick Perry becoming front-runner for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama rose on Thursday after a lacklustre showing by other candidates in the biggest debate so far.

Perry's office confirmed on Thursday he is planning to announce that he will join the race on Saturday at a conservative conference in Charleston, South Carolina.

Perry's entry came too late for him to participate in Thursday's debate in Ames, Iowa. It was an important debate, coming at the start of three hectic days of campaigning in the state where the first of the Republican caucuses is scheduled to be held in February.

Eight declared candidates took part but no clear winner emerged from what was a largely dull two hours. It was enlivened only by lively personal exchanges between Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign is faltering.

Asked about Perry's imminent arrival in the race, the candidates were polite, with one describing him as formidable and another welcoming both him and Sarah Palin, should she choose to stand. Palin is scheduled to make a public appearance in Iowa on Friday.

Pawlenty badly needs to revive his campaign by doing well in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, a traditional test of would-be presidential candidates. If he fails, he could see his remaining financial backers desert him.

Under pressure, his main target was predictably Bachmann, winner of the previous debate in New Hampshire and who is leading in the polls in Iowa. Adopting a patronising tone, he said Bachmann had done little in her five years in Congress. "She has done some wonderful things in her life but it is an indisputable fact that her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent," Pawlenty said, trying to compensate for his failure to make an impact in the New Hampshire debate and shed his image of dullness.

But he picked on the wrong candidate. Bachmann came back recalling his record in office as governor on health, energy and trade. "That sounds a lot more like Barack Obama's record," she said. She also raised his record on abortion, a litmus issue for Republicans.

After a series of personal exchanges, Pawlenty called her position as "illogical".

Romney was left unscathed, which his campaign team was happy about. But Perry's arrival could provide him with real competition by the time of the next debate, in California, in September.

Pawlenty's jibes, which appeared to be prepared in advance, are unlikely to have swayed many doubters. Others who failed to make much of an impression included former senator Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.

Jon Huntsman made his debate debut. He has struggled in the polls, too close to the centre for many conservatives and also, unforgivable for many Republicans, he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.

But his opening answer was poor. Asked for a detailed plan for tackling the economy, he said limply: "It is coming."

No thats not accurate, but I'm not going to discuss it here.
On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

Nonsense. The last person who brought a foreign army into North America ended uptrying to run away in a private's uniform. Since then we developed something called fusion bombs.

**reds8n**

if are economy failed and we collapsed in on are selves,i dont think it would be hard.

I don't see how this would affect your geography.

There's no country near you that could occupy you.

Afghanistan, north Korea, Russia, and probably others.

None of those have the man power or technology to do this.

i dont care.

If you would like to continue posting on the site you'd better start caring.

**Frazzled**

lord commissar klimino wrote:
Sasori wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.

and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.

the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.

the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.

Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.

**ineptus astartes**

oh great, a raging republican, here we go...

you have no basis in calling Obama an 'Incopetant Boob' while anyone could call B-U-S-H that

you can't just say: Someone is invading? NUKEMCUZWECAN! someone is spying? NUKEMCUZWECAN/! Ther is a spider on that wall? NUKEITCUZWECAN! in fact you cant really drop fusion bombs on people without the entire planet vilifying you to be the 'new russia'

**lord commissar klimino**

Frazzled wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Sasori wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.

and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.

the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.

the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.

Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.

ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.

**Frazzled**

Afghanistan, north Korea, Russia, and probably others.

respectfully...

-Afghanistan only has running water and electricity occasionally.
-Russia , well they keenly aware of MAD.
-North Korea. Dude high school kids can kick their ass.

Wolverines!!!
http://www.reddawn2011.com/

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.

Heck, they're 0-2 against Texas. You don't even need the other 49 states.

**ineptus astartes**

well, afganistan is our 'ally' and russia and North Korea are too fethed-up economy wise to do anything.

**Frazzled**

ineptus astartes wrote:oh great, a raging republican, here we go...

you have no basis in calling Obama an 'Incopetant Boob' while anyone could call B-U-S-H that

I know its a startling thought, but they can both be bumbling boobs.
In the last week alone we've been privy to three major regulatory increases: new fuel limits on heavy vehicles; new limits on coal plants that are forecast to endanger thousands of jobs; and for the new greener sensation of natural gas, new regulations on shale gas development which is going to dramatically impact future development. Thats before all the thousands of pages of banking regulation that are just now being developed. You thought getting a loan was hard before - guess what kids, thats the good old days.

you can't just say: Someone is invading? NUKEMCUZWECAN! someone is spying? NUKEMCUZWECAN/! Ther is a spider on that wall? NUKEITCUZWECAN! in fact you cant really drop fusion bombs on people without the entire planet vilifying you to be the 'new russia'

Don't be stupid. If a power was invading the US -which is what was stated and not your strange fear of poor innocent spiders who are just trying to get along in a shoe filled universe- we would use every weapon at our disposal to stop them. Thats kind of the point of having the nukes in the fuirst place.

**lord commissar klimino**

if given the chance they could.

indeptus:and afghan is are ally? ....yeah,no words.

as for fazz, yes really. they blew up the tin towers,i think they could do worse.

bicat: so true

.plus i never even mentioned mexico.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.

This is why I am so excited about the epic conservative butthurt that will happen in 2012, when Obama is re-elected anyway. Which he will be.

Sure, "Generic Republican Candidate" would win if the vote was today. But you don't have "Generic Republican Candidate". You have Mrs. Wacky Crazyeyes, Nobody from Minnesota, Serial Philanderer, Wrong Religion Guy, Bigoted Pizza Guy, and from there it gets worse. Your best hopes are W Bush II and The Half-Term Governor, neither of which have even declared.

**ineptus astartes**

@Frazzled. may I point out though, that even with our country's military might and all, other countries still have the advantage when it comes to soldier-for-solder survival,

so an American rifleman would be armed pretty much the same way as say, an Afghani soldier, they would pretty much have the same amount of training and gear, but add to that the fact that when you come from a place like Afghanistan you tend to be a bit tougher than a guy who grew up eating Cheetos and watching TV (quote form Blackhawk down I believe)

of course Afghanistan could not feasibly occupy the US so the point is moot.

**Frazzled**

lord commissar klimino wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Sasori wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.

and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.

the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.

the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.

Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.

ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.

Dude, please educate yourself. Afghanistan is the donkey-cave of the universe. Norrth Korea is having problems feeding their own soldiers at this point. Russia is the only power and we successfully dealt with them when they were the Red Menace, not Boris' ice land of borscht, blonds, and Vodka.

EDIT: I have asudden desire to go to St. Petersberg now.

Frazzled, watching the War Channel while waiting for it to drop below one hundred before walking the dog. Lots of pics of Russians attacking Berlin.
Wife calls: "Whatcha doin?"
Frazzled: "Watching my relatives kick your relatives asses."
Wife: History channel again?
Frazzled: "Yep. Its like seeing an old family reunion."

**ineptus astartes**

and no, the point of having nukes is to wave them menacingly about and not use them at all in fact.

**lord commissar klimino**

Frazzled wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Sasori wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

This has no basis in reality.

try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.

and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.

the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.

the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.

Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.

ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.

Dude, please educate yourself. Afghanistan is the donkey-cave of the universe. North Korea is having problems feeding their own soldiers at this point. Russia is the only power and we successfully dealt with them when they were the Red Menace, not Boris' ice land of borscht, blonds, and Vodka.

everything i learned ive learned from school mostly. and just watching and reading news stuff. and history a little. and you seem to be ignoring the part were all of this invasion stuff is happening after for whatever reason America has fallen apart. at least russia could if it happened,and korea and afghan wold probably try too.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.

This is why I am so excited about the epic conservative butthurt that will happen in 2012, when Obama is re-elected anyway. Which he will be.

Sure, "Generic Republican Candidate" would win if the vote was today. But you don't have "Generic Republican Candidate". You have Mrs. Wacky Crazyeyes, Nobody from Minnesota, Serial Philanderer, Wrong Religion Guy, Bigoted Pizza Guy, and from there it gets worse. Your best hopes are W Bush II and The Half-Term Governor, neither of which have even declared.

-You forgot Perrenial Crazy Libertarian Candidate who makes sense if you listen long enough and aren't wearing your aluminum hat.
And its all generally irrelevant. No sitting President is going to win

with 9%+ unemployment.
That assumes we don't drop into another hard recession, but all indicators are that we are in it already.

**Ouze**

I can't believe we're ever seriously discussion an invasion of the US by fifth string countries like Afghanistan, who can't even keep the lights on. They can't even successfully invade other parts of Afghanistan by themselves FFS.

Aside from our nuclear stockpile and that the only other powerful countries who might be so inclined to do so (China) could not do so (they lack enough landing craft to even feasibly invade Taiwan), the fact is that, per capita, we are a heavily armed and belligerent populace over a relatively large landmass that would prove nigh-impossible to hold and we'd gleefully annihilate rather then cede an inch of.

Frazzled wrote:And its all generally irrelevant. No sitting President is going to win with 9%+ unemployment.

This would be a valid point if there was a valid candidate, but the last poll numbers indicate that Obama would beat every single candidate the Republicans have save vs maybe Romney, and I think it's unlikely, but not impossible, they will nominate Romney. Sure, statistically with UE that high he should lose, but he has to lose to someone. He doesn't just lose by default.

**Frazzled**

ineptus astartes wrote:@Frazzled. may I point out though, that even with our country's military might and all, other countries still have the advantage when it comes to soldier-for-solder survival,

so an American rifleman would be armed pretty much the same way as say, an Afghani soldier, they would pretty much have the same amount of training and gear, but add to that the fact that when you come from a place like Afghanistan you tend to be a bit tougher than a guy who grew up eating Cheetos and watching TV (quote form Blackhawk down I believe)

of course Afghanistan could not feasibly occupy the US so the point is moot.

Tell them to bring it. This is our land and we'd exterminate them like a bad habit.
Actually thats not true. The Afghanis would airdrop in, discover the glory of chocolate and In N Out, and fade in with the other 20MM illegals we have here. Welcome comrades!