CNN Republican Debate @ Vegas

[Mr Bean]

Doesn't that ignore the couple of SuperPACs that're waiting in the wings to support him? They don't have to disclose anything from what I remember.

That assumes they will still back him which is unlikely if after this debate he drops another six percentage points.

Also this debate exposed exactly how much everyone hates Romney including the media. Last night I saw a strong politician out there who won the debate by mouse-trapping his opponents, being cheered by the crowd and taking a chunk out of every person on that stage except Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. The after the fact coverage spends most of his time talking about Romney losing his temper and seeming flustered which is from my watching experience made up.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Doesn't that ignore the couple of SuperPACs that're waiting in the wings to support him? They don't have to disclose anything from what I remember.

That assumes they will still back him which is unlikely if after this debate he drops another six percentage points.

Also this debate exposed exactly how much everyone hates Romney including the media. Last night I saw a strong politician out there who won the debate by mouse-trapping his opponents, being cheered by the crowd and taking a chunk out of every person on that stage except Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. The after the fact coverage spends most of his time talking about Romney losing his temper and seeming flustered which is from my watching experience made up.

The narrative being presented for the cirque de jour is "Which spunky Tea Party darling will stick it to the Establishment to give Obama a referendum on his first four years in office?" It's a far more exciting one than what reality seems to be, which is: "Establishment candidate has Republican primary contest in the bag months before any primary is actually held."

Doesn't that ignore the couple of SuperPACs that're waiting in the wings to support him? They don't have to disclose anything from what I remember.

As has been said, the SuperPACs who'd support Perry would be just as happy to support another Tea Party darling, once it's clear that Perry's campaign has finished imploding. Of course, Romney's picking up more and more support from the rich white assholes who typically finance the GOP; and eventually I'd expect the Tea Party SuperPACs to fall into line . . . since if there's anything the Republicans have in common, it's their goal to make Obama a one-term President, and they will have to counter the part of Obama's campaign strategy which calls for simply burying his Republican opponent under a great big heap of cash.

[Mr Bean]

The SuperPac's can't support anyone directly anyway but they can spend their billions attacking Obama which is something they are only happy to do, be it Romney, Perry or anyone else.

[Molyneux]

Wow, Ron Paul says he'd cut Israeli aid, everyone else jumped in to announce how much they love Israel and would never ever touch her funding.

I think saying that the people at Guantanamo aren't terrorists, they haven't been convicted was an even bigger shot.

Well...it's true, isn't it? I mean, that's not a matter of opinion, it's simple black-and-white fact.

[Simon_Jester]

If your ambition is to be nominated for president on a Republican ticket, doing so requires balls of steel- and probably brains of steel too.

[Crateria]

If your ambition is to be nominated for president on a Republican ticket, doing so requires balls of steel- and probably brains of steel too.

Given how nutty some people can be on either side of the political spectrum, hope that your steel brain and balls protect you from fatal lead bullet poisoning. You face either far leftists who would want to assassinate you since you're likely to be regressive regardless of what great proposals you do. Or you're seen as too moderate by hard-right Republicans who aren't known for their mental stability.

Granted, I think of neither of these endings are likely. But they are still things to be worried about, even just a little bit. America has a... tendency to have people who do radical stuff get shot at.

[Dalton]

What did I say, Crateria? You're SERIOUSLY toeing the line here.

[Crateria]

What did I say, Crateria? You're SERIOUSLY toeing the line here.

Is this considered tough guy stuff? My bad. I thought I was merely talking about how change can be considered dangerous to a Republican candidate by either side, not advocating anything. (Did it seem like I was wanting to assassinate GOP Canidates? I wasn't proposing anything of the sort. )

[Mr Bean]

When was the last time a leftist killed an American Republican? The last one that comes to mind was the Reagan assassination attempt and that was by a mentally disturbed. Ford as I recalled had a lefty make a try at him but aside from that the only other thing that comes to mind where a Republican politician was almost/was assassinated was Ford. There have been people arrested for making threats towards Republicans (Eric Cantor being popular and one man arrested for threatening to kill him)

But the problem with your statement was not internet tough guy ish (Which is an issue) but the simple lack of details. We need look no further back then the Anthrax mailings towards Democrats or the Abortion doctor kills (We could throw gabby giffords in there but I think she falls under the "crazy person" rather than pontifically motivated attempt)

[Crateria]

When was the last time a leftist killed an American Republican? The last one that comes to mind was the Reagan assassination attempt and that was by a mentally disturbed. Ford as I recalled had a lefty make a try at him but aside from that the only other thing that comes to mind where a Republican politician was almost/was assassinated was Ford. There have been people arrested for making threats towards Republicans (Eric Cantor being popular and one man arrested for threatening to kill him)

But the problem with your statement was not internet tough guy ish (Which is an issue) but the simple lack of details. We need look no further back then the Anthrax mailings towards Democrats or the Abortion doctor kills (We could throw gabby giffords in there but I think she falls under the "crazy person" rather than pontifically motivated attempt)

True, I merely would emphasize caution though, regardless. Honestly it's far, far more likely that the canidate is simply going to lose the nomination than die.

[Mr Bean]

The point is Crateria that a Republican nominee is more likely to be struck by lightning then murdered by a leftist. I don't know if you know this but in America when one things of someone likely to go into the woods with a bunch of guns to write a manifesto one generally does not think of Leftist radicals. If you wanted someone to move into the woods to grow a whole lot of weed then yes Lefty McLefterson. But since the 70's the amount of Left wing violence in America has all but dried up. The right wing flourishes with hundreds of movements who don't like the Guberment and like showing up to Obama speeches armed with pistols and submachineguns. Violence if it is to occur is pretty much guaranteed to come out of either the "crazy" or "right wing extremist" areas

[General Mung Beans]

The point is Crateria that a Republican nominee is more likely to be struck by lightning then murdered by a leftist. I don't know if you know this but in America when one things of someone likely to go into the woods with a bunch of guns to write a manifesto one generally does not think of Leftist radicals. If you wanted someone to move into the woods to grow a whole lot of weed then yes Lefty McLefterson. But since the 70's the amount of Left wing violence in America has all but dried up. The right wing flourishes with hundreds of movements who don't like the Guberment and like showing up to Obama speeches armed with pistols and submachineguns. Violence if it is to occur is pretty much guaranteed to come out of either the "crazy" or "right wing extremist" areas

Right-wing violence too is highly exaggerated, considering Lougher was not politically motivated, other than a few would-be John Browns or Nat Turners. Most internal ideological violence in the US has been Muslim (Beltway sniper, Fort Hood, Times Square Bomber etc.)

[Simon_Jester]

Well, unless your historical memory runs more than a few years. Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh, who killed more people than all domestic Muslim terrorists in American history combined? Or abortion clinic bombers?

That said, no assassination is not a realistic concern for a Republican presidential candidate. Probably not for a Democrat either- a sitting president may have to worry, but unless the atmosphere becomes more charged with political violence than it is now (towards levels typical of the late '60s when RFK was killed), I doubt we'll see violence against candidates.

What's the point of assassinating someone who may never even hold office?

[Crateria]

What's the point of assassinating someone who may never even hold office?

To make sure they don't, duh.

[Simon_Jester]

Put another way: All that cost and risk and near-certainty of dying or being thrown into prison... when if you just waited six months your problem might solve itself.

It is very rare for candidates to be targeted for assassination- I don't know if you knew that.

[Crateria]

Put another way: All that cost and risk and near-certainty of dying or being thrown into prison... when if you just waited six months your problem might solve itself.

It is very rare for candidates to be targeted for assassination- I don't know if you knew that.

I know that. Again, merely throwing it out, regardless of how likely (not very) it is.

[Flagg]

Is it just me or would anyone else not have blamed Perry for slugging Romney for putting his hand on him?

[Gandalf]

You know what's a fun game? Watch Romney's face when others are speaking. It's a continual look of poorly veiled annoyance and amusement.

[Prannon]

He probably realizes that there's a big game of "Anyone but Romney" going on, and is annoyed and amused by how vapid everyone else seems. Particularly Bachmann. She was a joke throughout the entire process.

[Zinegata]

This still doesn't tell us what Paul said. Would you mind summarizing?

I wish I could find a clip to do his words justice and have him deliver them himself but in essence what he said was this.
"Yes it's okay to look a persons religion but only to understand what their system of morals and beliefs are, what they regard as right and wrong. The real problem with what the Pastor said about Mit Romney was the statement that they would not vote for him because he was not their religion, our country was set up specifically about preventing religious tests for public office, thus voting for or against someone based on the fact they are not the same religion as you takes us to dark and dangerous places."

Paraphrasing of course, very paraphrasing.

Paul has always shown flashes of class and brillance. Yes, he's the guy who advocates returning to the Gold Standard. He's also the only candidate in recent memory to even acknowledge that part of the reason Iran got fucked up was due to the CIA coup which installed the Shah into power.

[Crateria]

Paul has always shown flashes of class and brillance. Yes, he's the guy who advocates returning to the Gold Standard. He's also the only candidate in recent memory to even acknowledge that part of the reason Iran got fucked up was due to the CIA coup which installed the Shah into power.

Paul might be a better candidate in some areas than other Republicans. However any of the proposed changes he might want would either be disastrous for America or sabotaged by the corporatist crooks who run America. Isn't his policy for world affairs essentially "I don't care, let God sort it out" ie Isolationism?

[open_sketchbook]

Though I think Ron Paul is a nutter, I think some isolationism would probably be good for the US right about now. Remind everyone the world doesn't exist as target practice for Marines.

[Kinyo]

Though I think Ron Paul is a nutter, I think some isolationism would probably be good for the US right about now. Remind everyone the world doesn't exist as target practice for Marines.

Don't need to be isolationist. Just ease back a bit and let people try and work through things themselves. If they ask for help then help but doesn't need to be given unasked for.

That's how I think the US should go anyway.

[open_sketchbook]

People ask for help all the time. In fact, in any given conflict both sides are probably going to ask for US help because the US is the big power. The US has always been able to claim to be intervening on behalf of somebody, and it never turns out well because the rampant racism, religious fanaticism, greed, and paranoia of the US always gets in the way, not to mention they are usually intervening for a dishonest or self-interested reason, like killing communists/brown people, getting oil, or testing the effect of experimental laser-guided bombs on children.

[Kinyo]

People ask for help all the time. In fact, in any given conflict both sides are probably going to ask for US help because the US is the big power. The US has always been able to claim to be intervening on behalf of somebody, and it never turns out well because the rampant racism, religious fanaticism, greed, and paranoia of the US always gets in the way, not to mention they are usually intervening for a dishonest or self-interested reason, like killing communists/brown people, getting oil, or testing the effect of experimental laser-guided bombs on children.

If both people ask for help then stay out. Don't pick sides. US isn't always going to be the big power and its going to have to realise that and get its house in order before trying.

Canada, Mexico and Venuzuela supply the US with more oil that Iraq does so Oil is getting tedious as an excuse IMO.

Source

and

Source

Weapons testing... Lotta open, empty ground in the US