Opinions on the GOP debate last night?

[RL...]

I watched it, it was pretty interesting.

-I think the woman, I forgot her name, but I didn't like what she stood for.
-Mitt Romney and Newt are also good speakers but I think both are too damn cocky and selfish....too easily to be corrupted and to go back on what they say.
-I think both Ricks are idiots, which sucks because my names Rick.
-My vote goes to Ron Paul although he'll never win. He comes across as a bit eccentric, but he has solid ideas which imo would lead the country in the right direction. No more pointless wars and world policing, withdraw troops, no obamacare, no more corporate bailouts, no more deficit spending. I mean I feel like all those things are common sense I just don't understand why other people don't get it.

[.blank cd]

Not interested in the current lot of republican candidates. All of them are media whores who are really not in touch with reality, Except maybe Gary Johnson.

[BanginJimmy]

The only candidate I liked in the race was Herman Cain. Now that he is out of the race, I will be voting against Obama, not for anyone.

My quick rundown of the candidates.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman are theocrats. They believe everyone should be forced to live according to the bible. No thanks. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Iran.

Rick Perry, has some good ideas, has some bad ideas. I just cant get excited about him and I really cant put a finger on why. He has no chance of beating Obama anyways.

Ron Paul, very eccentric, but typically correct on domestic issues. I would be able to get behind him if it wasnt for his isolationist foreign policy. American isolationism would definitely lead to WW3 in short order.

Mitt Romney, consummate politician. No thanks, career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are the reason this country is in such bad shape.

Newt Gingrich, The smartest of the group and no afraid to flaunt it. His arrogance seeps through a little too easily. I am a fan of a lot of his ideas, but his record shows that he is too easily sidetracked by small, mostly mundane issues.

Gary Johnson, a nobody on the national scale that has no new ideas. He never had a shot at winning.

[.blank cd]

The only candidate I liked in the race was Herman Cain. Now that he is out of the race, I will be voting against Obama, not for anyone.

My quick rundown of the candidates.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman are theocrats. They believe everyone should be forced to live according to the bible. No thanks. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Iran.

Rick Perry, has some good ideas, has some bad ideas. I just cant get excited about him and I really cant put a finger on why. He has no chance of beating Obama anyways.

Ron Paul, very eccentric, but typically correct on domestic issues. I would be able to get behind him if it wasnt for his isolationist foreign policy. American isolationism would definitely lead to WW3 in short order.

Mitt Romney, consummate politician. No thanks, career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are the reason this country is in such bad shape.

Newt Gingrich, The smartest of the group and no afraid to flaunt it. His arrogance seeps through a little too easily. I am a fan of a lot of his ideas, but his record shows that he is too easily sidetracked by small, mostly mundane issues.

Gary Johnson, a nobody on the national scale that has no new ideas. He never had a shot at winning.

Rick Perry is as big of a theocrat as the others. Maybe even bigger. His last smear ad pretty much took him out of the race, unofficially, as far as I'm concerned

Ron Paul, his non-interventionalist policy is actually what I like about him. I'm interested in hearing your theory on how NOT starting wars will inevitably lead to WW3. Lol

And you say "Gary Johnson is a nobody" like it's a bad thing. Do you mean "nobody" like the kind of fiscal conservative that doesn't have a billion campaign dollars (the kind of campaign dollars that make this political soap opera the shit hole it is) or the kind that is the most sane out of the ENTIRE GOP race right now?Or the "no new ideas" like wanting to deschedule cannabis?

When did the presidential race stop being about picking someone with the best qualifications and start being about who's right with "god", who's fucking who, and who hates gays the most?

[BanginJimmy]

Rick Perry is as big of a theocrat as the others. Maybe even bigger. His last smear ad pretty much took him out of the race, unofficially, as far as I'm concerned

Some of that you have to attribute to the fact that the Iowa Caucus is less than 20 days away and he HAS to make a splash. Iowa is also pretty far right, especially among evangelical repubs.

Ron Paul, his non-interventionalist policy is actually what I like about him. I'm interested in hearing your theory on how NOT starting wars will inevitably lead to WW3. Lol

If the US shows weakness it will embolden those that do wish for war, or in the case of Iran, genocide. Do you really have any doubts that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as they get a working nuke? I dont. If Iran does nuke Israel, Israel will respond if they still have the political and military leadership to respond. If they do not, the US will HAVE to step in before Syria, Jordan, and Iran invade. If those countries invade they will kill every Jew they come across.

And you say "Gary Johnson is a nobody" like it's a bad thing. Do you mean "nobody" like the kind of fiscal conservative that doesn't have a billion campaign dollars (the kind of campaign dollars that make this political soap opera the shit hole it is) or the kind that is the most sane out of the ENTIRE GOP race right now?Or the "no new ideas" like wanting to deschedule cannabis?

He is a nobody in the fact that he has made absolutely zero impact on the race. I should have added Huntsman and Santorum to this category also.

When did the presidential race stop being about picking someone with the best qualifications and start being about who's right with "god", who's fucking who, and who hates gays the most?

At the same time truth was replaced with rhetoric such as yours.

[.blank cd]

If the US shows weakness it will embolden those that do wish for war, or in the case of Iran, genocide. Do you really have any doubts that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as they get a working nuke? I dont. If Iran does nuke Israel, Israel will respond if they still have the political and military leadership to respond. If they do not, the US will HAVE to step in before Syria, Jordan, and Iran invade. If those countries invade they will kill every Jew they come across.

Not likely. Countries are well aware of U.S. military's actual force. Just because we wouldn't intervene doesn't mean we don't have military strength.

He is a nobody in the fact that he has made absolutely zero impact on the race. I should have added Huntsman and Santorum to this category also.

More of a reason to vote for him. People want less campaign dollars, why not vote for the guy that's not using as much?

At the same time truth was replaced with rhetoric such as yours.

Huh?

[Browning151]

The only candidate I liked in the race was Herman Cain. Now that he is out of the race, I will be voting against Obama, not for anyone.

My quick rundown of the candidates.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman are theocrats. They believe everyone should be forced to live according to the bible. No thanks. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Iran.

Rick Perry, has some good ideas, has some bad ideas. I just cant get excited about him and I really cant put a finger on why. He has no chance of beating Obama anyways.

Ron Paul, very eccentric, but typically correct on domestic issues. I would be able to get behind him if it wasnt for his isolationist foreign policy. American isolationism would definitely lead to WW3 in short order.

Mitt Romney, consummate politician. No thanks, career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are the reason this country is in such bad shape.

Newt Gingrich, The smartest of the group and no afraid to flaunt it. His arrogance seeps through a little too easily. I am a fan of a lot of his ideas, but his record shows that he is too easily sidetracked by small, mostly mundane issues.

Gary Johnson, a nobody on the national scale that has no new ideas. He never had a shot at winning.

I'd have to agree with pretty much all of this, Cain was really the only one I was "excited" about. If the repubs win the White House it will be nothing more than a referendum on Obama, just as his election was a referendum on Bush.

I felt the same way about Ron Pauls foreign policy until I watched a video the other day, and it has made me take a second look at what he's saying. While I don't think that we can just pull out of everywhere and let them do as they please, I think we do need to quit meddling in other countries affairs so much.

Here's the video, it's a little long but it makes some interesting points.

[Vteckidd]

Cain was too inexperienced to be a president. I dont want anyone who knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy. He made too many Gaffes and had to back down too many times. He would be a good cabinet member, but hes not a president.

Likewise Paul is far too polarizing for me. He loses me on foreign policy. Isolationism doesnt work. This notion that if we stick our head in the sand no one will bother us is foolish and dangerous. I also dont agree with his "abolish every agency" theory. Im for LITTLE regulation, im not for NO REGULATION. I like the FDA telling drug companies they have to warn people of potential side effects, etc.

Bachmann/Santorum/perry far too christian RIGHT WING for me. Bachmann has made some pretty inflammatory statements about gays i cannot agree with.Perry is too gomer pyle although i do like the part time congress idea. Santorum, smart guy, but i dont particularly align with him.

Romney, consumate politician, i dont trust him, and frankly theres nothing he can do to change that. He has an arrogance about him that if you challenge him on his flip flops he gets mad. I dont like him.

Gingrich is a big govt conservative but im hoping hes changed since 1994. hes clearly the smartest, most articulate, and he has ideas.

[.blank cd]

You do know that because of our current interventionalist policy, we pretty much look like this to the rest of the world?

[Vteckidd]

You do know that because of our current interventionalist policy, we pretty much look like this to the rest of the world?

i cant view the picture but im assuming you mean we are some type of world police.

Again, im not saying every war and foreign policy is right, what im saying is the complete opposite of just ignoring everyone also isnt right.

You have to accept the fact that Radical Extremists dont hate us because we interfere with them, they hate our way of life. they hate our religion, they hate our people, they hate we are friends of Israel, etc. Iran will harm us whether we meddle with them or not

[BanginJimmy]

You do know that because of our current interventionalist policy, we pretty much look like this to the rest of the world?

Better that than






The UN has shown they are not up to the task of mediating international disputes and protecting human rights. If the US doesnt do it, who will? My guess is no one.

All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

[.blank cd]

That's radical extremists though. They are really small scale. Al Qaeda is pretty much irrelevant anymore. Osama is dead, Saddam is dead, they just got that last guy. And all of those have been small reletively quiet operations with 10-20 guys taking out MAJOR political figures with extreme prejudicial precision.

Of course not ALL war is bad, but we're not and shouldn't be policer of worlds, and we should use our vast military resources for defense, not bullying. I think all those that vote for war should be automatically conscripted, politicians especially.

[BanginJimmy]

That's radical extremists though. They are really small scale. Al Qaeda is pretty much irrelevant anymore. Osama is dead, Saddam is dead, they just got that last guy. And all of those have been small reletively quiet operations with 10-20 guys taking out MAJOR political figures with extreme prejudicial precision.

I agree, our military's most potent arm is its special forces. They can sneak into anywhere, complete their mission, and typically get out before the enemy has time to react.

al Qaeda was always small time in a global sense. They just happened to spark off a shit storm they weren't ready for with 9/11.

Out 2 biggest issues right now are Iran and China. Iran wants a nuke, they are working on a nuke, they have help from Russia and China in getting nukes. We all know that the minute they have a functioning nuke they will use it. The most likely target is Israel, but I wouldnt completely count out its use here in the states.

Of course not ALL war is bad, but we're not and shouldn't be policer of worlds,

Then who is going to do it? Should we allow the Sadaams of the world to continue the genocide within their own borders? We all know the UN isnt going to do anything.

and we should use our vast military resources for defense, not bullying.

I agree in a way, but at the same time, how far can you step back without being bullied yourself? Look at the early months of WWII. Look at the appeasement strategies of France and England towards the USSR and Germany. How well did that work out?

I think all those that vote for war should be automatically conscripted, politicians especially.

This is just dumb. As much as I can understand the sentiment, there is still real work politicians must do in support of the war effort and in the everyday functioning of the US.

[Browning151]

I wouldn't advocate that we should stick our head in the sand and become isolationists, but I would say that maybe we need to be a bit more reserved about getting into the affairs of other countries. That was something that I did like about Cain, he insisted that we needed to have a clear objective and plan to achieve that objective before taking action. I think we get a little heavy handed sometimes and act without a concise plan or without fully understanding the extent of the blowback that may come as a result of our actions. Then again, I'm not privy to the inner workings of our intelligence agencies or military, that's just the way it seems looking at it from the outside sometimes.

[.blank cd]

Our 2 biggest issues right now are Iran and China. Iran wants a nuke, they are working on a nuke, they have help from Russia and China in getting nukes. We all know that the minute they have a functioning nuke they will use it. The most likely target is Israel, but I wouldnt completely count out its use here in the states

One of the reasons China won't do it is because we have a lot of their money, what financial sense does it make to blow us out of the water, plus it would spark a war that they couldn't win. We are probably equally matched. They have strength in numbers, we have the strength in technology. We could deploy faster, we would have first strike advantage, and now-a-days wars are fought in the air, and our air force is orders of magnitude stronger than China. Neither side is prepared to accept the shear number of casualties that would inevitably come. Iran might be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack, but they lack the technology to get it this far undetected. They MIGHT be able to blow away a nearby US base, but it may result in Iran being utterly wiped off the map

Then who is going to do it? Should we allow the Sadaams of the world to continue the genocide within their own borders? We all know the UN isnt going to do anything.

Ask yourself this: Hypothetically, If Rick Perry got elected tomorrow and decided to wipe out all gays and all those who didn't believe in Christianity, do you think Israel would help? Russia, Pakistan, China? Anyone?

Who polices the Police? What if Russia said "Fuck this, I wanna be the police!" What happens then? What if the US decides tomorrow "you know what, we really don't like your Islamic Republic, Iran...."

[RL...]

I think we just need a president that isn't a "politician." We need an honest, hard working, intelligent person with common sense not these arrogant self indulgent politicians that are only trying to further their own agenda.. Too bad that'll never happen.

A president shouldn't be elected based on his popularity or the bullshit(it's bullshit because they never do what they say theyll do) that comes out of his mouth, but based one his credentials. Having a good background in economics, finance, politics, psychology, sociology etc....

[bu villain]

I think we just need a president that isn't a "politician."

Only problem is that the president isn't a dictator. He actually has to work with Congress to get stuff done. Changing the president alone isn't enough to enact real change, we have to do the same with Congress too.

[BanginJimmy]

Changing the president alone isn't enough to enact real change, we have to do the same with Congress too.

This is why I believe in either term limits or a part time congress, much like it is done in Texas. Get back to the notion of citizen legislators.

You can serve 5 terms in the house, for a total of 10 years. You can serve 3 terms in the Senate for a total of 18 years.

Then you have the part time legislature and you only collect your regular work salary while you are there. Make 10k a month, then thats what you get while serving. Make 50k a month, thats what you get while serving. Dont have a job and live on dividends and capital gains? Your earnings arent affected anyways so you get nothing. I figure 2 1 month sessions a year should be plenty to get all the work done. From May 1-31 for all regular business such as appointments, new legislation and other routine matters. Then Sept 1-30 dedicated to nothing but passing all the required budgets. Obviously, if there is some type of emergency that requires immediate Congressional action Congress can be called back in a matter of hours.

[ahabion]

One of the reasons China won't do it is because we have a lot of their money, what financial sense does it make to blow us out of the water, plus it would spark a war that they couldn't win. We are probably equally matched. They have strength in numbers, we have the strength in technology. We could deploy faster, we would have first strike advantage, and now-a-days wars are fought in the air, and our air force is orders of magnitude stronger than China. Neither side is prepared to accept the shear number of casualties that would inevitably come. Iran might be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack, but they lack the technology to get it this far undetected. They MIGHT be able to blow away a nearby US base, but it may result in Iran being utterly wiped off the map


Ask yourself this: Hypothetically, If Rick Perry got elected tomorrow and decided to wipe out all gays and all those who didn't believe in Christianity, do you think Israel would help? Russia, Pakistan, China? Anyone?

Who polices the Police? What if Russia said "Fuck this, I wanna be the police!" What happens then? What if the US decides tomorrow "you know what, we really don't like your Islamic Republic, Iran...."

I think you're under-estimating the potential of other countries' military and secret forces. Remember, it was only about 15 guys that set off 9/11 and although in a head-to-head confrontation, yes we'll probably win every time. But the enemy is not stupid to take on this military giant head on... instead they'll assimilate with and begin the attack from the inside out. Once they hit their target, they blend right back in with everyone else. It'll be Iraq/Afghan all over again but it may be here in the USA... then what? Russians can blend in with typical Americans and the Chinese have got Bufurd Hwy's up and down this country...

Let's also not forget history and how Hitler came to power. The European nations largely demanded but never put their money where their mouth was. Had they did something early on... WWII may have been avoided entirely.

[RL...]

I believe Hitler and his political party were democratically elected....by the country's people which is how he came into power.