• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Great... !

Disagree about Cain. Throw race and the sexual assault/harassment accusations out of the conversation, and you've still got a pretty substance-free campaign. And not the good "substance-free" either.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Disagree about Cain. Throw race and the rape accusations out of the conversation, and you've still got a pretty substance-free campaign. And not the good "substance-free" either.
Click to expand...

I thought you would be for the 9-9-9 plan :(. Or is it the 9-0-9, 0-9-9, 9-9-0, 0-0-9, 9-9-0? Now I'm confused... Oh, thought it was a simple tax plan...
 
Jryan said:
I thought you would be for the 9-9-9 plan :(. Or is it the 9-0-9, 0-9-9, 9-9-0, 0-0-9, 9-9-0? Now I'm confused... Oh, thought it was a simple tax plan...
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney was right. Simple doesn't always mean effective.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Disagree about Cain. Throw race and the sexual assault/harassment accusations out of the conversation, and you've still got a pretty substance-free campaign. And not the good "substance-free" either.
Click to expand...
Currently not a single swinging D..k left standing will have anything of substance in their campaign. Those who would have at least attempted to do something about the current fiasco this country is facing will be washed out by our media and the hacks seeking office along with the public who will be lead by the nose to the trough and therefor the nose dive will continue.
 
deltabtry said:
Currently not a single swinging D..k left standing will have anything of substance in their campaign. Those who would have at least attempted to do something about the current fiasco this country is facing will be washed out by our media and the hacks seeking office along with the public who will be lead by the nose to the trough and therefor the nose dive will continue.
Click to expand...

lobbyingreport2.jpg
 
Camlon said:
You said that liberal media isn't destroying any candidates, because they watch Fox News. For your arguments to make any sense, they only have to watch Fox News, which you now admit they do not.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said either. When you have to change my words for your point to be true, you are building a straw man.
 
Redress said:
That is not what I said either. [liberal media isn't destroying any candidates, because Republicans watch Fox News] When you have to change my words for your point to be true, you are building a straw man.
Click to expand...
Really?

You never said?
Redress said:
What makes this whole thing really stupid: we are talking republican primaries. Most republicans get their news from FOX news. And yet the liberal media is destroying candidates.
Click to expand...
 
Camlon said:
It seems like the media has been able to destroy the whole Republican field. Although he is a terrible candidate, I think Mitt Romney will win the nomination. If he does, I hope Obama wins.

Not because I think Obama is a great President. But because Mitt Romney is going to get unpopular really fast. He will help Democrats win the 2014 Congress, then he will be forced to take many unpopular choices, and lose the election to 2016. That is probably great news for Democrats, but for anyone who is conservative, think again.

Herman Cain:
He was doing quite well, but got a lot of baggage on the way. The accusations (probably false, some evidence here and here) will probably destroy him I think. In media, you are guilty before proven innocent and Herman Cain has no possibility to prove he is innocent and he wasn't prepared, but even if he was prepared it would still destroy him.

I know there is a lot of sources fighting against Herman Cain. I know liberals are fighting against him, because they want to keep telling the Tea Party is racist, and they are also afraid of his economic policies. The right wing establishment are afraid of any far right candidate, because they think it will turn voters off the Republican Party. Read this article in the economist The Republicans: A dangerous game | The Economist

The media tried to destroy him first by negative campaigning, but they had problems because they have a hard time understanding the average republican voter, who do not trust Romney. In the end they made up some accusations that will probably destroy him.

Rick Perry
He is a total disaster. Even when he is not in the top of the polls, we find more about him. Not only his political opinions on immigration, his lack of public appeal, his lack of intelligence, and his lack of debate skills. The Worst is his corruption. He seems to accept anything for the lowest bidder. No chance!

Mitt Romney:
The Republican establishment wants him, but liberals also want him. Not because they think he will be a great President. I have already told why the establishment want him. They think he will hurt the Republican Party the least. The Liberals want him, because he will be a weak President that may secure them victory in Congress in 2014, and elections in 2016 if he ever wins.

However, his baggage is horrible and his opinions are not much better. He wants a trade war with China. That is stupider than most of Bachmanns opinions. Although, kept hidden in the media, his plan gives huge tax cuts for the rich. He wants to remove the estate tax and give reductions in capital gains. Although the capital gains tax reduction is good, it is still a tax cut for the rich, which have to be compensated with a tax increase on everyone else. The reason he is not destroyed is because both right wing and left wing media supports him.

He also got the problem with hiring illegal immigrants, which not only shows he is hypocritical on immigration, but that he is part of the rich elite. That will come up much more during the general election. His Ponzi scheme won't help him, and his flip flopping is disastrous.

Ron Paul
There are big tides against Ron Paul as well. If he is ever close to winning the nomination, then he will be destroyed, because the media doesn't want him. If you think a sexual allegation against Cain is bad. What about Ron Paul. He will become the creepy old man. Not good.

However, he can still be the Republican party savior. If he runs as an independent, then he can take a lot of voters away from Mitt Romney, and show that Republican party do not want the corrupt Republican establishment.

John Huntsman
If there is not sizable hidden baggage. He is clearly the best candidate. Moderate intelligent Republicans love him. Liberals tolerate him. He is no symbol of corporations like Mitt Romney is. He is also much more inteligent, he has an ideological fundement, and actually do believe most of what he is saying. Candidates like John Huntsman can make Republicans popular again, and he will crush Obama.

Problem is, he only get 1-2% at the polls. Maybe that can change if people think he is a viable candidate?

Agree, disagree? Please tell me your opinions.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on Cain, with all due respect. The day after the accusations came out he had his largest donation day ever.
 
Camlon said:
Really?

You never said?
Click to expand...

Go read what you claimed I said, and what I said. Note that I did not use the word only. Note that we are talking about republicans, who I said "mostly" get their news from FOX. Now comprehend the difference.
 
Redress said:
Go read what you claimed I said, and what I said. Note that I did not use the word only. Note that we are talking about republicans, who I said "mostly" get their news from FOX. Now comprehend the difference.
Click to expand...
For your argument to make any sense, then they have to be watching only Fox News. That is what I said.
 
Camlon said:
For your argument to make any sense, then they have to be watching only Fox News. That is what I said.
Click to expand...

That is not true. If the primary news source of peopel voting in the primaries is FOX, or other right leaning news sources or blogs, then your whole liberal media paranoid fantasy falls apart.
 
Redress said:
That is not true. If the primary news source of peopel voting in the primaries is FOX, or other right leaning news sources or blogs, then your whole liberal media paranoid fantasy falls apart.
Click to expand...

I joke you not that I was listening to conservative talk radio on Friday and the pundit was crying about liberal media bias. Then, in the next breath, he defended Cain against the allegations and said it was a shame how the media didn't hang Clinton out to dry. You have to be using like 3% brain power to make those comments and not notice how big of a douche you are being.
 
Redress said:
That is not true. If the primary news source of peopel voting in the primaries is FOX, or other right leaning news sources or blogs, then your whole liberal media paranoid fantasy falls apart.
Click to expand...
But you just said they did listen to other sources. Are you trying to be confusing?

In reality, Republicans get news from a variety of sources, not just Fox News or other right wing sources. Hence, liberal media can destroy candidates. Is that difficult to understand?
 
Redress said:
then your whole liberal media paranoid fantasy falls apart.
Click to expand...
Also, it's more you being naive, and a fool, than me being paranoid.

You are denying that media is trying to influence which candidate we pick. Even though there are clear evidence that media stations have met, to talk about how to promote their candidate in the best way.
 
Camlon said:
Also, it's more you being naive, and a fool, than me being paranoid.

You are denying that media is trying to influence which candidate we pick. Even though there are clear evidence that media stations have met, to talk about how to promote their candidate in the best way.
Click to expand...

Can you post up that clear evidence? I mean other than evidence regarding Fox, because we're all familiar with that.
 
I'm amazed that a New Zealander has the inside scoop on the liberal establishment. Looks like our American members must be dolts and total failures to be this out of the loop. :roll:
 
poweRob said:
It's kind of tough to take your point of others' bias seriously when you quote a piece written by Jonah Goldberg. The partisan hack who wrote "Liberal Fascism."
Click to expand...

:) I take it you've never read it. I have, and it's rather impressive. Which is why most of the critiques of it followed the "Yes, But" methodology.

Irrespective, I find your critique interesting, given that apparently you are incapable of mustering anything other than an ad-hominem response ;).
 
cpwill said:
:) I take it you've never read it. I have, and it's rather impressive. Which is why most of the critiques of it followed the "Yes, But" methodology.

Irrespective, I find your critique interesting, given that apparently you are incapable of mustering anything other than an ad-hominem response ;).
Click to expand...

You tend to find anything impressive if it is what you want to believe. You still defend that failed Hauser's Law even though it has been proven flawed, because it is what you want to believe.
 
Redress said:
You tend to find anything impressive if it is what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. there have been a number of times where i've critiqued conservative claims because they were done poorly. but Im a political historian by training, and Goldbergs' work was actually quite thorough and quite good. I've picked up a number of conservative pieces that i've had to put down because, at the end of the day, they were really just spewing based on undemonstrated assumptions. Goldberg's book was not one of those. however, if you like, I'm more than willing to have a discussion on it. take a look and let me know what your main critiques are.

You still defend that failed Hauser's Law even though it has been proven flawed, because it is what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

actually I seem to recall that every conversation we have on that, you end up leaving, especially given that my main point on the matter (that nominal tax rates have very little to do with revenue collection) remains on solid ground. it is your insistence on a strawman binary argument that forms your critique, not any kind of actual attack on that basic point.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
It seems like the media has been able to destroy the whole Republican field.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's very fair to say that the media has destroyed them. Rather, I think it's fairer to say that the Republican field has destroyed themselves, and the media is just reporting their doings.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think it's very fair to say that the media has destroyed them. Rather, I think it's fairer to say that the Republican field has destroyed themselves, and the media is just reporting their doings.
Click to expand...
I agree, like I said on page 3.

I misspoke. It is a combined effort.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the President could reasonably be expected to be doing a lot worse than he actually is in the polls at this stage. Barring some dreadful misstep, it's going to be an uphill struggle for someone to take it away from him, and none of the present motley crowd of opponents look anywhere near capable of doing it.
 
I'm very curious to see what happens with the accusations that one of the newer "victims" recently had a $5M fund set up in her name overseas.
 
I'm just selecting a few here.
Rick Perry
He is a total disaster. Even when he is not in the top of the polls, we find more about him. Not only his political opinions on immigration, his lack of public appeal, his lack of intelligence, and his lack of debate skills. The Worst is his corruption. He seems to accept anything for the lowest bidder. No chance!
Click to expand...
Agreed. He does put on a great tv commercial, though. If I didn't know any better, if I didn't know he was/is a total disaster, I'd probably fall for it.


Ron Paul
There are big tides against Ron Paul as well. If he is ever close to winning the nomination, then he will be destroyed, because the media doesn't want him. If you think a sexual allegation against Cain is bad. What about Ron Paul. He will become the creepy old man. Not good.

However, he can still be the Republican party savior. If he runs as an independent, then he can take a lot of voters away from Mitt Romney, and show that Republican party do not want the corrupt Republican establishment.
Click to expand...
He wants to eliminate at least 5 federal departments. Ok. He says he can get it done in a year. Really? He swears he can. If he honestly and truly believes that, than I think he is too delusional to be qualified for President. Other Presidents who have had much more bi-partisan support than Paul would ever hope to have, have tried more modest cuts, such as eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts... and failed. It's "President", Mr Paul, not "supreme dictator".


John Huntsman
If there is not sizable hidden baggage. He is clearly the best candidate. Moderate intelligent Republicans love him. Liberals tolerate him. He is no symbol of corporations like Mitt Romney is. He is also much more inteligent, he has an ideological fundement, and actually do believe most of what he is saying. Candidates like John Huntsman can make Republicans popular again, and he will crush Obama.
Click to expand...
Of the choices available, this is my guy. He could make the Republicans popular again. But, he won't get past the hyper-partisan primaries, so the general public will never get a chance to vote for him.
 
Camlon said:
But you just said they did listen to other sources. Are you trying to be confusing?

In reality, Republicans get news from a variety of sources, not just Fox News or other right wing sources. Hence, liberal media can destroy candidates. Is that difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

And how about conservative media?

Fox, talk radio, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal (second most widely read paper in the US I believe) are all generally considered to be "conservative" in nature and Fox News is the most widely watched Cable news network.

Can not the conservative media destroy candidates especially considering its high popularity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom