News Republican Debate: Who Impressed You?

[WhoWee]

4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not like any serious politician or candidate is trying to mandate that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.

Why can't these ideas be separated from the religious implications?

Because the only reasons most opponents of these ideas have for opposing them are religious. The vast majority of opponents of both abortion and gay marriage base their opposition solely on religious grounds, without ever even considering possible secular reasons.

 

[aquitaine]

The second story is similar to stories about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. It's also similar to stories about anti-abortion protestors being forced to keep their protests a certain distance away from abortion clinics. Having First Amendment rights to voice your opinion doesn't give you the right to disrupt other people's actions, which is what Terry Jones was attempting to do.

Edit: In other words, as far as the court was concerned, the fact that a mosque was involved was coincidental. They treated the situation the same way they usually do.

(I hate it when people give supporting examples and no argument or ask leading questions and pretend the reader will actually have a clue what they're trying to say and I especially hate it when I forget to include my argument with my post.)

Protesters have to keep a certain distance back from abortion clinics because of assasinations of doctors and bombings of clinics, hardly a comparable situation. Plus I don't recall those protesters getting arrested. Had the religions been reversed this never would have happened, there is a very real danger in giving one group more leeway than another. Personally I'm an atheist so I don't have a stake in it either way, but I do recognize favortism and potential threat they could pose if left unchecked, the UK is a good example of that. As though the christian fanatics weren't bad enough...

 

[Proton Soup]

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

nuisance category? I'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.

consider afghanistan. http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/gates-says-afghanistan-is-not-war-without-end-1542416.html?printArticle=y

what do you need to justify staying there? al qaeda. can we ever get them all, or will they just recruit more the longer we stay at war? i can't imagine we ever can get them all, and even if we did, someone else would take their place. it seems an impossible goal to me, but it's a goal for which it is easy to gain public support.

 

[WhoWee]

nuisance category? I'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.

Sorry - your post number 12:

"fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance."

 

[WhoWee]

what do you need to justify staying there? al qaeda. can we ever get them all, or will they just recruit more the longer we stay at war? i can't imagine we ever can get them all, and even if we did, someone else would take their place. it seems an impossible goal to me, but it's a goal for which it is easy to gain public support.

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

 

[Ryumast3r]

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

There will always be radicals. The most we can do is educate, liberate, etc, to make sure that people aren't basically bribed into subscribing into the ideology because they are poor and starving.

 

[Proton Soup]

Sorry - your post number 12:

"fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance."

i don't understand your point. what does this have to do with justifying a war with iran ?

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

is that so ? have you ever paid attention to what al qaeda actually says ? from the post used to claim that al qaeda has "confirmed" bin laden's death:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-06/world/bin.laden.qaeda.comment_1_site-intelligence-group-bin-laden-al-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

It said that Americans "will never enjoy security until our people in Palestine enjoy it."

if american security is important, then why don't we just put boots on the ground in palestine? since we demand that the palestinians remain defenseless, then why not just send in american soldiers to enforce the borders and protect palestinians?

 

[WhoWee]

i don't understand your point. what does this have to do with justifying a war with iran ?

I had responded to a post discussing the US capability of turning Iran into a glass parking lot. My listing was an opinion of the (nuclear) actions by Iran that could lead to a (nuclear) response by the US.

 

[Proton Soup]

I had responded to a post discussing the US capability of turning Iran into a glass parking lot. My listing was an opinion of the (nuclear) actions by Iran that could lead to a (nuclear) response by the US.

your first option implies a nuclear attack by iran?

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.

i had no idea you were trying to limit the discussion to only a nuclear engagement. ivan even mentioned conventional warfare in the post you responded to. but the nuke rhetoric will certainly be there in infotainment sphere, just as it was with iraq.

 

[BobG]

Protesters have to keep a certain distance back from abortion clinics because of assasinations of doctors and bombings of clinics, hardly a comparable situation. Plus I don't recall those protesters getting arrested. Had the religions been reversed this never would have happened, there is a very real danger in giving one group more leeway than another. Personally I'm an atheist so I don't have a stake in it either way, but I do recognize favortism and potential threat they could pose if left unchecked, the UK is a good example of that. As though the christian fanatics weren't bad enough...

Anti-abortion violence is a concurrent problem that exists along side anti-abortion protests. I could imagine the violence helped create extra support for laws restricting protests, but those laws have to stand on their own in court. You can't restrict the rights of one group because of the criminal acts of an unrelated group just because both groups are motivated by similar ideals. (Besides, while laws vary by locale, most restrictions on protestors don't push them far enough back to prevent shootings or bombings.)

I think that the situation of Muslims in Europe might possibly have some relevance to the US, but not necessarily to Muslims in the US. There's a higher percentage of Muslims in Europe than the US (less than 1% in the US, and from 2.7% in the UK to 6% in France) and their incomes are significantly less than the overall average incomes in Europe. Muslims in the US have incomes comparable to the overall average income. The situation in Europe would be more similar to the situation of Hispanics and Blacks in the US. Both make up a large segment of US population and both have average incomes significantly below the average income of the general population. I don't think the religion of the minority group is most significant factor.

 

[mege]

Because the only reasons most opponents of these ideas have for opposing them are religious. The vast majority of opponents of both abortion and gay marriage base their opposition solely on religious grounds, without ever even considering possible secular reasons.

BTW that Bush 'quote' from most sources, was actually from President Bush 41 when he was VP in 1987 - but I can't find any original documentation for it except from liberal blogs and a few different supposed 'copies' of transcripts. Never mind the potential slander, he probably did feel that way, BUT why does every policy need to get the Atheist seal of approval? Isn't that a religion/belief system in it's own right? It's no secret that neither of the President Bush 41 or 43 were popular with Atheists, but that still doesn't answer why anything with religious connotations should be rejected at face value like many claim (see my Ten Commandments statement from earlier).

With the abortion debate - just because a candidate says 'God thinks every life is sacred' means that we need to discount the fact that we hold life to a high standard? That's a binary application of principle without actually weighing the entire statement. Replace 'God' in the statement and it's instantly 'better' in your mind? To me, that's just as wrong as blindly following and attempting to apply policy based religious principles. I also feel that much of the secular message gets ignored because of the religious connotations associated with any position. Candidates would be commiting political suicide if they actually based all of their decisions, and campaigned on them, based on religious motivations. You may only hear the 'God told me so' message from the media, but listen to the whole speeches and you have a wider range of secular arguements from most candidates in addition to the religious arguement. Too bad the media just emphasises the religious message.

 

[NeoDevin]

BTW that Bush 'quote' from most sources, was actually from President Bush 41 when he was VP in 1987

Whichever Bush it was, my point remains that there are politicians who don't think people outside their religion should be considered citizens. It's not quite "mandating that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day", but it does show that there are "serious politicians" who would be willing to force their religion on the people.

Never mind the potential slander, he probably did feel that way, BUT why does every policy need to get the Atheist seal of approval?

A policy doesn't need to have a Atheist seal of approval, but it must have a secular purpose. Further, it's primary purpose must be secular. Meaning a secular benefit can't simply be the by-product of a policy primarily intended to promote religion.

It's no secret that neither of the President Bush 41 or 43 were popular with Atheists, but that still doesn't answer why anything with religious connotations should be rejected at face value like many claim (see my Ten Commandments statement from earlier).

So lying, stealing and murder should be legal in the US just because they're part of the Judeo-Christian belief system via the Ten Commandments? Of course not.

The point is not that they should be legal because they're part of Judeo-Christianity, but that they shouldn't be illegal because they are part of Judeo-Christianity (that is, the reasoning for making them illegal shouldn't be because of religion, it should be because of secular benefit). Surely you wouldn't propose that the second commandment (no other god) become law in the US? There would be no secular benefit to that, only promotion of religion.

That's a binary application of principle without actually weighing the entire statement. Replace 'God' in the statement and it's instantly 'better' in your mind?

If you replace "God" with some sort of secular reasoning, then yes. (I'm going to leave off the specifics of the abortion debate, since that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads, and will come to no productive end here either)

I also feel that much of the secular message gets ignored because of the religious connotations associated with any position.

If that is the case (and you haven't convinced me that it is), then it is more likely ignored by the religious proponents in emphasizing their religious motivations.

Candidates would be commiting political suicide if they actually based all of their decisions, and campaigned on them, based on religious motivations.

That would depend which state they are running in. In some states, it seems that the winner of any office is the one who reads the loudest from their Bible.

You may only hear the 'God told me so' message from the media, but listen to the whole speeches and you have a wider range of secular arguements from most candidates in addition to the religious arguement. Too bad the media just emphasises the religious message.

Remarkably I have listened to whole speeches, and generally the emphasis is on "God told me so", and anything resembling a secular argument is tacked on as an afterthought, if at all. (This is not true of every religious politician, but is for many of them)

While I agree with you that their can be both religious and secular motivations for the same argument, I disagree with you that most religious candidates are actually making the secular arguments. I further suggest that many of them are proposing religiously motivated policies that have very little if any secular benefit.

We're getting pretty far off topic here, want to continue in a new thread?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Chris Christie didn't hurt himself any on Meet the Press, this morning. I don't know a lot about his politics yet but I was impressed with him as a person.

Of course he's not running, and he even disqualifies himself as being "not vice-presidential material".

 

[WhoWee]

Chris Christie didn't hurt himself any on Meet the Press, this morning. I don't know a lot about his politics yet but I was impressed with him as a person.

Of course he's not running, and he even disqualifies himself as being "not vice-presidential material".

I've always been a little suspicious of very fast moving/rising stars - ala then Senator Obama half way through his first term. I personally want to see a 4 to 8 year track record of voting or (in the case of a Governor) an administrative record.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've always been a little suspicious of very fast moving/rising stars - ala then Senator Obama half way through his first term. I personally want to see a 4 to 8 year track record of voting or (in the case of a Governor) an administrative record.

Same here, but if I judge a person to be of low character or unqualified for high office, their record doesn't matter.

For example, there is nothing Palin could ever do to get my vote. In her case it's a fundamental character issue so there is no possible redemption. I've never been fond of Romney but he doesn't offend me, and he does seem to be Presidential material. So it is conceivable that issues could drive a choice there. Ron Paul stands as a voice for classic libertarianism but could and should never be elected to a higher office. Rand Paul is just the wayward bastard child of Ron - too fringe to ever be considered seriously. Bachmann - a wonderful woman no doubt, but like Ron Paul, she's hopelessly fringe. Huntsman looks good on paper but he has no presense and could never gain support from the more extreme elements of the Republican party - esp the tea partiers. From what I know about him so far he sounds like someone I could support in principle. Even so, he appears to be far too boring to ever get nominated, even under the best of circumstances. Pawlenty would seemingly inappropriately drive religion into politics - I took serious issue with one of his comments - and he acted like a coward when he had his chance to assert himself, so he's out for good. His political positions don't matter. Cain? Yeah, right! He's more fringe than Bachmann.

As for Gingrich... I like the man personally, and I think his voice is a valuable component in public discourse, but not a chance he could get elected or that I would support him. It's a character issue. Plus, he seems to be getting a little nutty. He has certainly demonstrated a serious inablity to control his message. Given his long experience in public office, there is no excuse for that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Barring any radical disclosures or unpredictable meltdowns, it looks to me like it will be Obama vs Romney in 2012.

Of the field he is really the only viable candidate that I see, and it's getting pretty late in the game for any completely new players to emerge.

 

[Al68]

Barring any radical disclosures or unpredictable meltdowns, it looks to me like it will be Obama vs Romney in 2012.

Of the field he is really the only viable candidate that I see, and it's getting pretty late in the game for any completely new players to emerge.

That seems a very odd thing to say this far out. Especially given the history of unpredictability in primaries.

It's especially seems odd to think that Romney is the only viable candidate. The only reason he even has a chance is the popular belief that he would be most likely to defeat Obama, and how desperate and urgent that goal is to so many Republicans.

 

[mege]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

Romney is the political 'proper' candidate, and is moderate enough to snag votes from those that are afraid of the true anti-collectivist folks with media bullseyes on their heads. But, he will be a President Bush 3.0 - appealing to the neo-cons more than anyone.

Still better than the incumbent IMO, but people need to understand what they're getting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

It is pretty late to start from scratch. By now candidates need to be getting the money machine in place.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That seems a very odd thing to say this far out. Especially given the history of unpredictability in primaries.

Not for Republicans. You're thinking of the Democrats.

It's especially seems odd to think that Romney is the only viable candidate. The only reason he even has a chance is the popular belief that he would be most likely to defeat Obama, and how desperate and urgent that goal is to so many Republicans.

I see him as the only candidate the Republicans would nominate who isn't a nut. If you want to beat Obama, you will need someone at least as moderate as Romney.

Put Palin or Bachman or Paul in there, or any tea party extremist. Obama would LOVE that.

 

[Al68]

I see him as the only candidate the Republicans would nominate who isn't a nut. If you want to beat Obama, you will need someone at least as moderate as Romney.

Put Palin or Bachman or Paul in there, or any tea party extremist. Obama would LOVE that.

I would agree with that, if you replace "nut" and "tea party extremist" with "depicted as a nut by the media" and "depicted as an extremist by the media".

How candidates are depicted by the media does impact electability, whether the depiction is accurate or not, and must be taken into account, unfortunately.

 

[BobG]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

It is pretty late to start from scratch. By now candidates need to be getting the money machine in place.

True. At this point, it's all about raising money. We'll have a front runner about Jul 15 - when candidates announce their second quarter fundraising.

Early hints: Romney raised less than $20 million. Pawlenty, Huntsman, Paul have raised somewhere around $4 million. The other candidates aren't giving out early hints.

I'll be surprised if Romney doesn't have a huge lead in fundraising, even given the vagueness of "less than $20 million".

GOP presidential candidates tally up second-quarter fundraising

Second quarter fundraising in 2007 for comparison: Five candidates raised over $10 million.

I think the key to the Republican nomination will be getting the endorsement of Sarah Palin (since I'm almost sure she's not running). I think a good strategy would be for one of the candidates to offer to make her Ambassador to Russia. Heck, she could even work from home!

 

[BobG]

September 7 debate:

Perry entering the race is the best thing that ever happened to Romney - at least debate wise. The fact that Perry is leading Romney in the polls and could actually beat him is problematic. But Romney looks a lot more like a real person than he did back in 2008. I'd still feel like a drunken bimbo to ignore his first Presidential campaign ... but he looked so manly last night!

I still don't know enough about Perry, but my initial impression is that I don't like him. Something about the Texas accent and the occasional 'we done it's' just bother me. At least he didn't back off of things he was already on the record for. They may be damaging, but they were going to be damaging anyway and he didn't want to make the same mistakes Romney consistently made in 2008 - mistakes that just made Romney look like a wimp.

We have too many candidates at these debates. We should get to vote one candidate off at the end of each debate. Gingrich would be a good first choice. He's the only candidate more annoying than Ron Paul. Santorum would be a good second choice. He's a non-entity and just fails to make much impression at all.

I'd keep Huntsman and Cain around a while. Both present themselves well (which is an improvement for Cain from his first debate) and have at least some possibility of being discovered and moving up in the polls because of their debate performances - Huntsman probably more so than Cain. I could even vote for Huntsman.

Bachmann and Paul did about as expected, but who cared? Romney and Perry kind of stole the show and finally seem to be providing a race that could help Republicans instead of just making all of them look a little smaller.

 

[WhoWee]

Romney seems to be in control - slow and steady - in spite of attacks by Perry - IMO.

I want to put this into print - to see how it looks:

Romney - Gingrich 2012

Truth be told - I just want to see Newt debate Biden.

 

[BobG]

Some candidates just don't handle debates well.

Rick Perry:

I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it—was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he's for Obamacare, and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and—and—and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight.

That's not quite Palinesque, since Palin's problem is she can't tolerate seconds of silence while she thinks about the question. Instead, she tosses out a string of mindless fragments until she finds a fragment that might get a little traction.

Perry knew what he wanted to say, but his words gave you the Fourier transform of his message instead of the time domain version of his message. That can happen to anyone that speaks a lot, whether a prestigious candidate or just a lowly teacher.

Still, the brightest points for Perry, so far, have been the attacks from Bachmann and Santorum. They have a knack for making sure everyone knows Perry isn't really a bonafide Tea Party wacko.

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

 

[lisab]

Some candidates just don't handle debates well.

Rick Perry:


That's not quite Palinesque, since Palin's problem is she can't tolerate seconds of silence while she thinks about the question. Instead, she tosses out a string of mindless fragments until she finds a fragment that might get a little traction.

Perry knew what he wanted to say, but his words gave you the Fourier transform of his message instead of the time domain version of his message. That can happen to anyone that speaks a lot, whether a prestigious candidate or just a lowly teacher.

Still, the brightest points for Perry, so far, have been the attacks from Bachmann and Santorum. They have a knack for making sure everyone knows Perry isn't really a bonafide Tea Party wacko.

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

 

[mheslep]

...

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

Apparently he had the ability to destroy the able K. B. Hutchinson in the Governor's primary race, but he's not showing much debate strength here so far.

 

[mheslep]

Romney seems to be in control - slow and steady - in spite of attacks by Perry - IMO.

I want to put this into print - to see how it looks:

Romney - Gingrich 2012

Truth be told - I just want to see Newt debate Biden.

That's only possible if Senator Rubio declines, as he's the first choice. I guy who could deliver Florida's ~27 electoral votes and who many would already like to see as a ~2016 President is impossible to pass up. I doubt Gingrich can deliver a state that's in play, plus a Gingrich is not needed to beat Biden in VP debates.

 

[WhoWee]

That's only possible if Senator Rubio declines, as he's the first choice. I guy who could deliver Florida's ~27 electoral votes and who many would already like to see as a ~2016 President is impossible to pass up. I doubt Gingrich can deliver a state that's in play, plus a Gingrich is not needed to beat Biden in VP debates.

Personally, I think it's too soon to tap Rubio - or any first term legislator (one of the major problems with Obama). This is the same reason I don't want to see Chris Christie or Nikki Haley in the mix. They all need to establish track records.

I would like to see some polls of Gingrich versus Rubio. Gingrich has the requisite experience on the Hill to fix a lot of problems - Rubio may face bi-partisan resentment and add negative value. I think Newt is the ideal Vice President candidate - he would "complete" any of the front-runners and help restore confidence.