Republican Presidental Debate Iowa

[Elvis]

It's both sad and disgusting how many people will try to use 9/11 as an arguing point either in the way Giuliani has or the way RP did in the 08 debate.

Since there's so many people around here that were 6 at the time and don't understand the impact of both the event, and people saying things to imply we brought it on ourselves, and especially the pain New York itself went through, let me give you guys a bit of a reminder/crash course.

Are you serious? Shut the fuck up with that noise.

It's funny that you post this, right after my previous post got through (about the dishonest retort to Paul in the 08 debate by the moderator and Rudy's reaction)!

America is an abstraction.

Our policies are their own entity and that is what Paul 'blames' if anything. I doubt he blames the chick busting tables at Bob Evans, or my high school Math teacher, or MTV.

And I was 18 at the time.

[Plow]

To use another's words...

We should be judging by the content of their character.

The content of RP's character is "fuck you if you don't have money." "We're at fault for 9/11 because people like my anti-war rhetoric." etc.

[Elvis]

Correction: I was 16. Memory is failing me!

[oldoldman]

That's a nice tactic you're using there Plow. Someone disputes your point and instead of providing a logical response, just say it again!

[Talint]

It's the same emotional blackmail that ignores the serious issues. What purpose does that question have? It means nothing. We are talking about big issues that require institutional-level thinking.

Because life is nuanced.

I really feel like saying it's "point scoring" is akin to "gotcha questions".

Just because you can't give a good answer to a tough question (or, rather, any question) doesn't mean it's a problem with the question. Life is nuanced. The one-size-fits-all policy needs to be held accountable to the fact that all kinds of situations are going to come up that make you deal with issues. If you can't satisfactorily answer them, the problem isn't with the question, but with the answer.

[Plow]

That's a nice tactic you're using there Plow. Someone disputes your point and instead of providing a logical response, just say it again!

You might have a point if he had actually disputed my point through logical argument.

He hasn't though, not a single time. All he's done is say the questions aren't fair.

Fuckin media asking gotcha questions like "name a magazine or newspaper."

[Plow]

Also:

Plow, are you implying the rest of the debaters shrieking about Socialism and Sharia law are more worthy of news coverage?

Yes, because of the simple fact that their response to "do you actually think you can enact your policies?" isn't "er... well..."

[archibaldcrane]

Yes, because of the simple fact that their response to "do you actually think you can enact your policies?" isn't "er... well..."

Depends on the policy. Ceasing American military interventionalism (a huge Ron Paul raison d'etre) is something that a President can 100% do - he doesn't need Congress to do it.

As for the state's right stuff and whatever, if he can't get it enacted, good, it's fucking dumb.

This is why I'm not totally anti-Ron Paul. The stuff he could get done as president is stuff I like.

[Plow]

Depends on the policy. Ceasing American military interventionalism (a huge Ron Paul raison d'etre) is something that a President can 100% do - he doesn't need Congress to do it.

As for the state's right stuff and whatever, if he can't get it enacted, good, it's fucking dumb.

This is why I'm not totally anti-Ron Paul. The stuff he could get done as president is stuff I like.

Getting in the way of the MIC is completely against the rest of his ideals. He portrays himself as anti-war purely because it makes people go "oh hey maybe he's not so bad." He'd never step in the way of the industry created by our global intervention.

And, he gets away with it because he's a nutjob economic isolationist so people think that translates to an isolationist military policy. It doesn't. In fact it counters it because the consumption in the military has no domestic demand to replace it, forcing the hole to be filled by exportation.

[oldoldman]

You might have a point if he had actually disputed my point through logical argument.

He hasn't though, not a single time. All he's done is say the questions aren't fair.

Fuckin media asking gotcha questions like "name a magazine or newspaper."

Do you honestly believe that our policies in the Middle East had nothing to do with the motives of the 9/11 attacks?

[Plow]

Do you honestly believe that our policies in the Middle East had nothing to do with the motives of the 9/11 attacks?

None. bin Ladin was the joyful willing beneficiary of said policies when it gave him power.

[Plow]

Also @ archi...

If you don't think RP can succeed in massive levels of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, where have you been for the last 3 decades?

[Correction]

On the heels of the Buffet OP in the New York times, the CEO of Starbucks is trying to recruit billionaires into not contributing to campaigns this election season. If only he stood a chance at gathering support for the idea.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/16/news....htm?hpt=hp_c2

Starbucks CEO to DC: You've been cut off

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is fed up with Washington.

And he is doing something about it.

Spurred by what he describes as a failure of leadership on the part of lawmakers, Schultz is mounting a one-man bull rush against a political culture that has "chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people."

What does that mean? No more political donations -- not for anybody.

And he's recruiting other CEOs to join him.

"I am asking that all of us forgo political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally, disciplined long term debt and deficit plan to the American people," Schultz wrote in a letter that was passed on to members of the NYSE and Nasdaq.

The goal is to hit lawmakers right where it hurts: the pocketbook.

"All it seems people are interested in is re-election," Schultz told CNNMoney on Tuesday. "And that re-election -- the lifeblood of it is fundraising."

Schultz said his breaking point was the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling -- and the failure to reach a long-term solution to lower deficits.

"[Lawmakers] have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears," Schultz wrote to his fellow CEOs.

Schultz's own political donations, as chronicled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, lean Democratic.

He said politicians can still make it right by coming together and reaching a compromise deal that would lift the cloud of uncertainty that has hamstrung the economy.

"It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall," the letter said. "It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes."

His letters, and an interview with the New York Times on the subject, are already having an impact.

The Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500) CEO said that in the 30 hours since the letters went out, he has heard back from thousands of Americans -- both CEOs and everyday citizens. Not one lawmaker has contacted him so far.

"I suspect in the coming days, people who will be signing the pledge with me will be both Republican and Democrat CEOs who have had enough," he told CNNMoney.

The amount of money spent to influence elections has been steadily climbing.

During the 2008 election cycle, more than $5.2 billion was spent by candidates, political parties and interest groups, according to data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics

In 2010 -- a year that did not include a presidential election -- $3.6 billion was spent. Of course, 2012 has the potential to break all records.

It's unclear exactly how much of an impact -- if any -- Schultz's pledge might have. But a relatively small number of Americans do wield an outsized influence when it comes to political donations.

Only 0.04% of Americans give in excess of $200 to candidates, parties or political action committees -- and those donations account for 64.8% of all contributions.

[archibaldcrane]

Also @ archi...

If you don't think RP can succeed in massive levels of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, where have you been for the last 3 decades?

So, you think he's lying about his desire to end foreign military engagements (which he could do if he wanted to) and you think he'd be able to pass massive levels of deregulation and tax cuts...

...what are the things you think he'd "never be able to implement" again?

[archibaldcrane]

Only 0.04% of Americans give in excess of $200 to candidates, parties or political action committees -- and those donations account for 64.8% of all contributions.

holy....

[Plow]

So, you think he's lying about his desire to end foreign military engagements (which he could do if he wanted to) and you think he'd be able to pass massive levels of deregulation and tax cuts...

...what are the things you think he'd "never be able to implement" again?

liquidation of debt, the demilitarization he doesn't really want, and the ending of the fed, as well as his desire to make social issues fall entirely on the states

[Demosthenes11]

wait what. ron paul never said 9/11 was strictly our fault. He said he was not surprised that there were a bunch of people that wanted to kill us because we have been meddling in their lives for decades for profit. If anything, ron paul was addressing the most important part of 9/11: how can we stop it from happening again? The retaliatory response pales in comparison to what you can do to ensure it doesn't happen again, and that would be anti-interventionist policies.

RP wasn't using 9/11 for his political gain, he was speaking his mind in a way others are afraid to. Comparing him to guliani is a fucking joke

[Day]

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

"Congressman?"

"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and they talk about blowback."

I wonder why the guy that was mayor of NYC during the attacks would get pissed off and say "wait, are you serious?" when someone's arguing reasons why we invited them.

I would have less respect for someone who couldn't stand behind their answer in the face of sensationalism and gotcha tatics. It wasn't even fucking mayors turn and he just had to jump in as "someone who lived through 911". You really think it's that bat shit crazy that we invited the attack on ourselves. I thought his answer was thorough and he defended himself well. I wouldn't have withdrew the comment either.

[Day]

holy....

shit.

just plain old holy. shit.

[Kerberoz]

Well, I sure hope he lived through 9/11/01 if he's running for president. Don't want any children or undead in office.