Anybody watching the debates?

flountown wrote: I'll watch the rebroadcast at 11. I really hope Romney beats out Perry, and then chooses Cain, Ron Paul, or Newt as a running mate. As much as I like Ron Paul, he isn't main stream enough, or presidential looking enough to win the vote. I think Romney is way better than Perry, and it scares me that people consider Bachman or Santorum a credible candidate.

In regards to "the look" and mainstream. How has that worked out for us so far? Only one on the stage I would trust is Ron Paul.

fasted58 wrote: It's gotta be a full moon tonight... right?

Better not be claiming witchcraft. I'm Wiccan.

unk577 wrote: In regards to "the look" and mainstream. How has that worked out for us so far? Only one on the stage I would trust is Ron Paul.

I agree with you, it's just that I can also be a realist, I bought swag last time and donated to his campaign, and if I was in a financial situation to do so now, wouldn't hesitate to donate again. I truly believe in his message, but wish he would compromise on certain issues to appeal to a broader public. I think we are way past the point of no return for the Gold Standard and still believe that it is necessary for some government agencies he wants to eliminate.

All i know is that if either romney or perry eventually get the gop nomination, i will not be voting for the gop.

yuk yuk yuk . Our best and brightest surrendering themselves for pubic service.

N Sperlo wrote:

fasted58 wrote: It's gotta be a full moon tonight... right?

Better not be claiming witchcraft. I'm Wiccan.

So your a Yale man?

integraguy wrote: Ron Paul? Before the last election, he sounded interesting, but really, he often looks like the model for Clint Eastwood's character in "Grand Torino".

You say that like is a bad thing.

T.J. wrote: All i know is that if either romney or perry eventually get the gop nomination, i will not be voting for the gop.

That was my position in the last election (I voted for bob barr.) I'd vote for a mouth breathing, 'pray the gay away' turd on a stick (bachman) if it get's obama out of office. When newspaper headlines read (insert any name but obama) WINS!!! Expect the stock market to jump, and businesses to breathe a sigh of relief and expand.

TRoglodyte wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

fasted58 wrote: It's gotta be a full moon tonight... right?

Better not be claiming witchcraft. I'm Wiccan.

So your a Yale man?

No.

Is there an honest to goodness unbiased place to read about politicians stances on issues?

93EXCivic wrote: Is there an honest to goodness unbiased place to read about politicians stances on issues?

BBC?

93EXCivic wrote: Is there an honest to goodness unbiased place to read about politicians stances on issues?

Al Jazeera?

The best place is probably the candidates website. Yeah it's biased but their stances are supposed to be. And it can't be twisted or judged by some writer with ulterior motives.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

I don't think so. The problem lies with the politicians themselves. Most all of them have a position on an issue that is their true position and reflects what they actually think, then they have their public position which is carefully crafted to appeal to a certain group of the electorate. To make it even worse, the candidates that we are told are electable or the ones that "look presidential" are the very same ones who smoothly alter their stated positions depending on who they are talking to at the time. Then add to that the abysmal state of journalism and reporting in this country where almost all news stories just rehash whatever talking points provided and offer no investigation or thoughtful insight...the press in effect acts as a PR firm for the anointed candidates. Then the places where people try to sift through all this mess and try to glean what each candidate actually stands for can almost always be accused of bias in some way or another.

The only thing I can see that makes any sense is to ignore almost all of what these rascals say they will do and instead look at what they have done. Actions speak louder than words, and by examining their actions over time you can get a feel for their stances on certain issues. Other than Ron Paul, I really do not see any one in the running that I trust to try to do what they say they will try to do. He has a long history of consistent positions on all sorts of issues. You can read his books or maybe even look at his website to see what he thinks, but those would not really be considered an unbiased source.

N Sperlo wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Is there an honest to goodness unbiased place to read about politicians stances on issues?

BBC?

No. But you can listen to politicians in their own words if (the collective) you will pull your fingers out of your ears and watch the debates. The networks on either 'side' will pull these soundbites and use them to further their respective agendas. I'd rather watch the unedited version than the 'rachel maddow or o'reilly said so-and-so is bad" versions.

So I just finished up, and am really annoyed, they are now doing a post interview with Bachman and she is making it seem like an HPV vaccine and preventing cervical cancer is a travesty. While I agree that it is absurd for government mandated vaccinations, especially for non-communicable diseases, lets not pretend that it was hurting innocent little girls...

It is a shame so many people reject what I feel to be our best hope in Ron Paul. I think his education level and vested interest in learning every minutiae of an issue to form the best, most logical solution is unsurpassed by any candidate.

It also bugs me that people respond to the fear aspect and are scared of countries that couldn't hold a candle to our military might, and think that now it has morphed from national security to flat out racism towards a larger Muslim community, even though it is only a small percentage that actually would be willing to act upon those beliefs.

Finally, I don't understand people's denial of the "blowback" concept. It seems pretty logical, and way more logical than they hate us because we are free...

poopshovel wrote: I should know better. It still just makes me want to smash my head against a wall to think that these are our "best and brightest."

It's called "Representative Democracy" because the people we get tend to be representative of the people who elect them.

I still like Herman Cain. And I'm going to pay closer attention to The Guy From Utah Whose Name I Can Never Remember. They are the most non-GOP-standard available other than the unelectable Ron Paul. Romney makes me want to turn my TV off. Perry is a mixed bag. Newt is a smart cookie but I think he's got the same or less chance than Paul. Santorum is a true believer, he just believes in things I don't. Bachmann should stay where she is and not dream of the presidency.

I just truly don't see how people could really get behind Perry or Bachman, it just baffles me that people buy the crap that they propagate. In the few short weeks that I have known about and listened to them, I hear nothing but misinformation. Bachman to me seems to be a less educated and more full of mommy America sob stories than Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Perry seems to be a even dumber Bush clone, and not to insult Bush, but as Ron Paul mentioned in the debate, we elected Bush because he actually had a decent, non-fear mongering platform, but events that occurred during his presidency seriously marred and down-spiraled his terms into the Bush that we remember.

I just couldn't see myself voting for any of the people considered front runners, except for Romney and that is if and only if, he picks a proper running mate.

Sitting here watching the news. It's the same as the last debate. Notice Romney and Perry next to each other getting all the attention. "They" will make sure who the next GOP candidate is. Obama vs. Perry is my prediction. Personally, I'd rather have Big Bird as president rather than either of these two.

Fletch1 wrote: Sitting here watching the news. It's the same as the last debate. Notice Romney and Perry next to each other getting all the attention. "They" will make sure who the next GOP candidate is. Obama vs. Perry is my prediction. Personally, I'd rather have Big Bird as president rather than either of these two.

Guaranteed bigbird wouldn't defund NPR.

Joey

joey48442 wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: Sitting here watching the news. It's the same as the last debate. Notice Romney and Perry next to each other getting all the attention. "They" will make sure who the next GOP candidate is. Obama vs. Perry is my prediction. Personally, I'd rather have Big Bird as president rather than either of these two.

Guaranteed bigbird wouldn't defund NPR. Joey

Lol

Fletch1 wrote: Personally, I'd rather have Big Bird as president rather than either of these two.

Cookie Monster will be the Cookie Advisor! Oscar the Director of the EPA, Elmo, our General. I'm liking this Big Bird plan.

In reply to N Sperlo:

Don't forget Snuffy! So would Big Bird be the first woman president? Still trying to figure that one out. Anyway, the push starts now. Big Bird 2012.

If we are going with kid's program characters, I personally support Goofy. I mean that wouldn't be that big a change from what we have had recently.