• 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!

Reid on the Ropes in Nevada

Hell, compared to death panels and socialism, those are prue minor league. And campared to how fast thingws were growing before reform, in the long run, the democrat fib may trun out to be true. Howevr, the death panel socialism stuff never will be true. Lie of the year stuff.

Lower rates and cutting the deficit also will never be true.
 
The Fix - Sharron Angle raised $14 million in 3rd quarter

wow, 14M in the 3rd quarter alone

94% came in bundles under $100, 96% less than $200

of course, most of it came from overseas

50 cents from sri lanka, a buck and a half from bucharest

worry
Wow, $14 million. So thats where Meg Whitman's money went, huh?

Anyway, good news. Harry Reid is ahead in the polls again. Good thing, cuz I got money riding on this race. It's so exciting how neck to neck they are. Come ooooon Harry woot woot woot.

First Read - Poll: Reid leads Angle by 3

New poll: Reid leads Angle by slim margin | rgj.com | The Reno Gazette-Journal
 
Wow, $14 million. So thats where Meg Whitman's money went, huh?

Anyway, good news. Harry Reid is ahead in the polls again. Good thing, cuz I got money riding on this race. It's so exciting how neck to neck they are. Come ooooon Harry woot woot woot.

First Read - Poll: Reid leads Angle by 3

New poll: Reid leads Angle by slim margin | rgj.com | The Reno Gazette-Journal

10/13/10 -- Right now, this is one of four races that will probably decide control of the Senate. Reid and Angle have been trading leads for a few weeks, and it is obvious that Angle's eye-popping $14 million haul in the Third Quarter is what has allowed her to stay in this game.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Nevada Senate - Angle vs. Reid

Reid had eons to bury Angle, but hasn't been able to crack the 45% mark; which bodes well for Angle... as does Obama's latest blatherings. Note: Blatherings were not via teleprompteur... and should help R's in the final weeks, for The One We Have Been Waiting For just became the source of numerous campaign ads.
In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

President Obama Looks Forward

He's also going to learn too late, then again probably not... that the "Stimulus" ain't one... it's wasted money.

.
 
Wow, $14 million. So thats where Meg Whitman's money went, huh?

Anyway, good news. Harry Reid is ahead in the polls again. Good thing, cuz I got money riding on this race. It's so exciting how neck to neck they are. Come ooooon Harry woot woot woot.

First Read - Poll: Reid leads Angle by 3

New poll: Reid leads Angle by slim margin | rgj.com | The Reno Gazette-Journal

Depends on the poll

Election 2010: Nevada Senate - Rasmussen Reports™

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada finds Angle with 49% support and Reid at 48%. One percent (1%) like another candidate in the race, and another one percent (1%) are still undecided. (To see question wording, click here.)
 
Prof, your misinformation is impressive, and while you claim Americans don't care about Beck, it is shocking how much you parrot him above. Your misreading of things, impressive as it is, only shows that all your linking disguises the fact that you get a lot wrong. Judgment is far more important than being able to link things.

Just saying . . . .


That's it? "Misinformation" claim is all you got? That's pathetic.


j-mac
 
That's it? "Misinformation" claim is all you got? That's pathetic.


j-mac

What more would you want? He simply has his facts wrong. It is appropriate to point that out. It comes from reading sources that don't get their facts quite right. You can only continue a discussion once the facts are established. Believing falshoods limit how far a conversation can go.
 
Wow, $14 million. So thats where Meg Whitman's money went

LOL!

more mindlessness from the bankrupted obamite camp

$14,000,000 in one quarter, 94% in bundles under $100

that's an awful lot of PREPAID CREDIT CARDS

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

washingtonpost.com
 
Reid lost the debate to Angle - Friday, Oct. 15, 2010 | 2:01 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

Let’s get the easy part out of the way first:

Sharron Angle won The Big Debate.

Angle won because she looked relatively credible, appearing not to be the Wicked Witch of the West (Christine O’Donnell is the good witch of the Tea Party) and scoring many more rhetorical points. And she won because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked as if he could barely stay on a linear argument, abruptly switching gears and failing to effectively parry or thrust.

Whether the debate affects the outcome — I believe very few Nevadans are undecided — it also perfectly encapsulated the race: An aging senator who has mastered the inside political game but fundamentally does not seem to care about his public role (and is terrible at it) versus an ever-smiling political climber who can deliver message points but sometimes changes her message or denies a previous one even existed.

NBC’s Chuck Todd: “Reid’s problem tonight is that while Angle wasn’t great, his performance made her look passable.”

Politico’s Dave Catanese: “Utterly subpar.”

Political Wire’s Taegan Goddard: “Reid didn’t knock out Angle but she had him on the ropes. Have to give the edge to Angle ...”

Political writer Taylor Marsh may have summed it up best: “Sharron Angle passed the ‘I’m not crazy test’ with flying colors. Focused too. This lady just might pull this off. Reid didn’t take her out.”

But did he take himself out, once and for all, with his dismissiveness, his sarcastic and loopy use of “my friend” and Senatese, his shifting of subjects in the middle of thoughts, beginning with his opening statements?

Angle mops the floor with Reid - The Complete Las Vegan - ReviewJournal.com

While both candidates -- Sharron Angle and Harry Reid -- started out slow and tight in their debate this evening, by debate close it was clear: Angle mopped the floor with Reid.

She hit hard on a variety of topics; showed she had the fire to be a U.S. Senator; demonstrated a command of the issues; and, of course, stayed gaffe free.

Reid meanwhile looked tired. Sounded entitled. He mixed up the Department of Education with the Department of Energy. Couldn't find his notes for the close and generally fell back on talking points on far too many questions.

Angle Nearly Lands Knockout Blow Against Reid - Hotline On Call

Throughout the Nevada Senate campaign, it was Republican Sharron Angle who looked unprepared for-prime-time. But after last night's debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked more like the gaffe-prone politician as he struggled to make headway in one of the closest and most consequential Senate contests.

Angle took full advantage of Reid's position as a political insider, taunting him for his support of Democratic policies, from the stimulus to the health care bill. At one point, Angle told Reid to "man up" [over the status quo of social security] - and later questioned how he became so wealthy as a public servant.

"I'm not a career politician," Angle said in her opening remarks. "I live in a middle class neighborhood in Reno; Senator Reid lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, DC."

Reid, recognizing the importance of the economy in this election, said his top priority as a senator is to create jobs. Angle retorted: "Harry Reid, it's not your job to create jobs. It's your job to create confidence to get the private sector to create jobs."

Reid didn't help his own cause either, fumbling through his notes during his closing statement and misidentifying the "Department of Education" as the "Department of Energy" and failing to aggressively take advantage of Angle's very conservative positions on whole host of issues.

By debate's end, Reid had failed to land any significant blows on Angle. He looked unprepared for Angle's barbs. With just one day until early voting becomes available to Nevada residents, Reid's performance didn't improve his precarious political standing.

And Angle, who only needed to demonstrate she wasn't as extreme as portrayed in Democratic commercials, performed that job adequately.

there really IS something wrong with harry
 
You mean like death panels and socialism? I won't argue no misinformation came from democrats, but it is the blantant lies of the opposition that have made it impossible to treat this subject reasonably.

"reasonable"--That word sounds funny when looking at this:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf

"Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3590) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following AMENDMENTS:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: ...."

"the following" is 2400+ pages of gobble-di-gook that makes it impossible to treat this subject reasonably. It's a cut & paste hodge-podge of BS that any drunken undergrad would be proud to sign his name on to get credit for. No professor who had anything better to do would waste his time reading it, and neither did most of the legislators who voted for it.

You can't have a reasonable discussion about something that is, itself, unreasonable.
 
Go the revolution . truckin along to 2012
 
What more would you want? He simply has his facts wrong. It is appropriate to point that out. It comes from reading sources that don't get their facts quite right. You can only continue a discussion once the facts are established. Believing falshoods limit how far a conversation can go.



:shock: What? :lamo What do you mean 'once the facts are established'? :lamo By whom? you? :doh Nah, I don't think so Joe.....:roll:


j-mac
 
:shock: What? :lamo What do you mean 'once the facts are established'? :lamo By whom? you? :doh Nah, I don't think so Joe.....:roll:


j-mac

J, facts are not opinions. They are not according to anyone. They're facts. The problem is that you don't understand this. Neither does the prof. That's why so much time is spend on your side finding people you agree with. Your time would be better spend trying to get the facts down first.
 
"reasonable"--That word sounds funny when looking at this:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf

"Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3590) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following AMENDMENTS:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: ...."

"the following" is 2400+ pages of gobble-di-gook that makes it impossible to treat this subject reasonably. It's a cut & paste hodge-podge of BS that any drunken undergrad would be proud to sign his name on to get credit for. No professor who had anything better to do would waste his time reading it, and neither did most of the legislators who voted for it.

You can't have a reasonable discussion about something that is, itself, unreasonable.

All bills are written in legalese. Nothing new about that. Nor will it change becasue you or I have troubel reading it. But, no, this does not excuse anyone from being unreeasonable. Sorry.
 
J, facts are not opinions. They are not according to anyone. They're facts. The problem is that you don't understand this. Neither does the prof. That's why so much time is spend on your side finding people you agree with. Your time would be better spend trying to get the facts down first.


I think that there is a fair amount of source searching going on on both ends of the debate here. See, when making a point it is natural to find facts to back up what you are saying. But I don't necessarily disagree that it can get muddy in what is a 'go to' in terms of reading things that either agree with ones world view, or discount another's. However, if you are really trying to portray this as a problem with only those that disagree with you, then you are really a parody of your own point.

Look, here are a couple of FACTS for you:

1.) Reid can't garner above 50% of the vote in his own state.

2.) Reid is trailing in the polls with nothing of substance to debate on, and prefers personal attacks.

3.) This one is not a fact yet, but my opinion is that considering the other two facts, Reid is going down in 15 days, and I say thank God!

j-mac
 
All bills are written in legalese. Nothing new about that. Nor will it change becasue you or I have troubel reading it. But, no, this does not excuse anyone from being unreeasonable. Sorry.

Bills are indeed written in legal jargon. However, 2,800 page monstrosities with no understanding, or even being read by those voting on them is not what this country is all about either.


j-mac
 
I think that there is a fair amount of source searching going on on both ends of the debate here. See, when making a point it is natural to find facts to back up what you are saying. But I don't necessarily disagree that it can get muddy in what is a 'go to' in terms of reading things that either agree with ones world view, or discount another's. However, if you are really trying to portray this as a problem with only those that disagree with you, then you are really a parody of your own point.

Look, here are a couple of FACTS for you:

1.) Reid can't garner above 50% of the vote in his own state.

2.) Reid is trailing in the polls with nothing of substance to debate on, and prefers personal attacks.

3.) This one is not a fact yet, but my opinion is that considering the other two facts, Reid is going down in 15 days, and I say thank God!

j-mac

Not talking about source searching, but what one accepts as not only a source, but how finding someone who agrees (an opinion) weigths more for some than actual factual information.

Now, as for your facts:

1) No one's arguing this.

2) More an opinion, but my opinion wouldn't limit that to just Reid. From where I sit, my opinion is neither has been big on sustance, and both have used personal attacks.

3) You're right, that is opinion, but as I asked earlier, how can Nevada win with these two candidates? Because both appear poor (opinion), why should anyone be happy about this? Or is perceived winning more important than the good of the country?
 
Not talking about source searching, but what one accepts as not only a source, but how finding someone who agrees (an opinion) weigths more for some than actual factual information.

Now, as for your facts:

1) No one's arguing this.

2) More an opinion, but my opinion wouldn't limit that to just Reid. From where I sit, my opinion is neither has been big on sustance, and both have used personal attacks.

3) You're right, that is opinion, but as I asked earlier, how can Nevada win with these two candidates? Because both appear poor (opinion), why should anyone be happy about this? Or is perceived winning more important than the good of the country?


Because in order to dismantle the destruction that Obama has amazingly pushed through in his two years so far, we are going to need to truly give the power back to the people. In that I believe that one great way to do this is to unseat the Senate Majority leader whom is one of the single most responsible people for pushing through these destructive policies.

j-mac
 
Because in order to dismantle the destruction that Obama has amazingly pushed through in his two years so far, we are going to need to truly give the power back to the people. In that I believe that one great way to do this is to unseat the Senate Majority leader whom is one of the single most responsible people for pushing through these destructive policies.

j-mac

Giving power to a nutter is not returning power to the people. The people would have done better to make sure a valid candidate made to the ballot. I not espouse to the theory that anyone will do. They should at least meet a minimal standard.
 
Giving power to a nutter is not returning power to the people. The people would have done better to make sure a valid candidate made to the ballot. I not espouse to the theory that anyone will do. They should at least meet a minimal standard.

I just think watching the senate leader actually lose - wow, that's hard to do even for Harry Reid - has you so bent that you've concocted this image of Angle as this blithering imbecile. You lefties love your overly verbose and polished empty suits.

Reid is an absolute puke of a human being. ANYONE would be an improvement. A dead man would be an improvement.
 
Giving power to a nutter is not returning power to the people. The people would have done better to make sure a valid candidate made to the ballot. I not espouse to the theory that anyone will do. They should at least meet a minimal standard.


Nutter? So, it is your opinion that Harry Reid is sane? yeah, go with that.....;)


j-mac
 
I just think watching the senate leader actually lose - wow, that's hard to do even for Harry Reid - has you so bent that you've concocted this image of Angle as this blithering imbecile. You lefties love your overly verbose and polished empty suits.

Reid is an absolute puke of a human being. ANYONE would be an improvement. A dead man would be an improvement.

You misread. I don't care if Reid loses. I would simply prefer he lose to someone compeent. Right now I see Nevada in a no win situation. Even those on you side have refered to Angle as a nutter. Go back and read this thread.
 
You misread. I don't care if Reid loses. I would simply prefer he lose to someone compeent. Right now I see Nevada in a no win situation. Even those on you side have refered to Angle as a nutter. Go back and read this thread.


So what makes you think that Angle would be a bad choice?


j-mac
 
So what makes you think that Angle would be a bad choice?


j-mac

Listening to her.

Her critics have admonished her for, among other things, deeming a BP fund of oil spill victims a "slush fund;" suggesting tea party followers will resort to "Second Amendment remedies" if Washington is not reformed; concluding that unemployment benefits have "spoiled our citizenry;" and blasting Democrats for pushing public benefits to "make government our God."

Sharron Angle Rewrites Policy Positions in Nevada Senate Race - US News and World Report

Not to mention her attack ads are as bad as any:

Angle’s Shocking - and Misleading - Viagra Claim | FactCheck.org

Angle’s Blame Game, Reprise | FactCheck.org

Not that truh matters mind you.
 
Giving power to a nutter is not returning power to the people. The people would have done better to make sure a valid candidate made to the ballot. I not espouse to the theory that anyone will do. They should at least meet a minimal standard.

A freshman senator does not have the power of the majority leader
 
Back
Top Bottom