The Official MSNBC/Politico/Reagan Library Debate Discussion Thread

[Keystone Phil]

Good for Perry. Paul acts like a child so often. If he wants to start being treated like a big boy, it's time to start acting like one.

[You kip if you want to...]

So apparently some of the journalists who were there are saying that during a commercial break, the Perry-Paul back-and-forth continued, and Perry got in Paul's face:



For some reason, Perry is holding onto Paul's wrist.

When I first saw this picture, I wanted to punch Rick Perry in the face. My feelings remain unchanged.

Condescending prat. Reminds me of the 'handshake' in the 2004 Aus election.

[Politico]

After seeing that photo, I've got a feeling that all of Paul's zingers in the next debate will be aimed squarely at Perry. Get ready for a live rendition of "Al Gore's Texas Cheerleader."

[Bacon King]

Does anybody know which commercial break that was? I do recall that Paul seemed to stop attacking Perry after a certain point.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm so glad MSNBC asked all those penetrating questions to Romney and Huntsman about their jobs plans . . .

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Perry is such a d**k.

[krazen1211]

Look at the link:

Texas executed Carlos DeLuna even though another man repeatedly confessed to the crimes.

Texas executed Ruben Cantu when the key witness admits her testimony was false and that both the case's prosecution and jury foreman both think the case made the wrong decision.

Texas executed David Spence based on zero physical evidence, with police investigators now claiming his total innocence; the entire case against Spence was relied solely on prison inmates who received favors in return for testifying.

Florida executed Leo Jones based solely on a confession he signed after multiple hours of interrogation- both officers involved in the interrogation were later forced out of the department for ethical violations, with one being accused out outright torture.

Texas executed Gary Graham based on the testimony of a single witness who claims to have seen his face through for a few seconds through her car windshield from forty feet away. Two other witnesses (who were not called at trial) actually saw the murderer up close and claim it definitely wasn't him. A quarter of the jury has signed affidavits saying they wouldn't have convicted Graham if the evidence was available.

Texas executed Claude Jones based on a single piece of evidence- a hair follicle found at the crime scene. Later DNA testing proved that the hair wasn't his, but was the victim's.


One shouldn't be forced to prove "the absolute truth" that people like this were innocent. The American justice system requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the suspect. Now, tell me, having cited concrete facts that question the guilt of these suspects rather than "handwaving hoopla of possibilities", do you honestly believe in all of these cases that there is absolutely zero reasonable doubt, and that all of these men should have still have been sentenced to death?

One is not forced to do anything of the sort.

It's a good thing, of course, that all of these men  have indeed had the prosecution do exactly that, along with the judicial system, along with the Texas Board of Paroles.

But since you seem to be omitting many of the facts, here are more of them concerning 2 of the people cited. I can look up the others later.:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/80/989/627569/

Third, the State presented other evidence of Spence's guilt. Most prominent was the testimony of Tony Melendez to essentially the same gruesome facts of the murders. Consistent with the Melendez brothers' testimony of the manner of the victims' deaths, the Dallas County medical examiner testified that Jill, Raylene, and Kenneth had sustained multiple stab wounds and that the bite marks on Jill's and Raylene's bodies had been inflicted near the time of their deaths. Also, the State presented evidence that Spence had made general admissions of guilt soon after the murders. A few weeks after the murders, he told Regina Ann Rosenbaum and others present in his apartment that he had taken some girls to Lake Waco and raped them; no other similar crime was reported to police. Spence told David Puryear that he had committed the Lake Waco murders and was glad he had done so. Further, the State's forensic odontological expert concluded that the bite marks on Jill's and Raylene's bodies were inflicted by Spence. Even Spence's rebuttal expert in this field could not rule out the possibility that Spence's teeth caused the wounds, although he believed there was too little evidence to support a firm conclusion.


http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/cases/graham/trial

The prosecution identified Graham’s criminal history and the excessive violence of his other crimes as reasons for sentencing him to death.

By age fifteen, Graham had a juvenile record for thefts and unauthorized use of motor vehicles, had dropped out of school with only a seventh grade education, and had fathered two children.

The state presented evidence that between May 13 and May 20, 1981, Graham robbed thirteen different victims at nine different locations, in each instance using either a pistol or a sawed-off shotgun. Two of the victims were pistol-whipped and one was shot in the neck; a 64-year-old male victim was struck with the vehicle Graham was stealing from him; and a 57-year-old female victim (Lisa Blackburn) was kidnapped and raped.

Prosecutors based their case mainly on the eyewitness testimony of Bernadine Skillern. Two other eyewitnesses called by the state, Wilma Amos and Daniel Grady, testified that they did not get a good enough look at the assailant’s face to make a positive identification. However, they testified that it was possible that Graham, who met their general descriptions of the perpetrator, could have been the assailant.



How does one jump from "could have been the assailant" to "claim it definitely wasn't him", exactly. Certainly not with proper construction of the english language.

What I think concerning cherry picked facts is really not relevant to the process. In the end your conditions were met a long time ago.

The (former) Chief Justice of the United States has already clearly stated that clemency provisions are the final barrier for people who still make claims of innocence. These people of course failed there as well.

[redcommander]

Perry is such a d**k.

[Politico]

You know, that picture is especially bad when you consider that Paul is, what, 76 years old? Who knows how strong he is gripping Paul's wrist? That type of thing, especially with photographic evidence, could get you in legal trouble in many places if Paul felt inclined to press charges.

[Keystone Phil]

You know, that picture is especially bad when you consider that Paul is, what, 76 years old? Who knows how strong he is gripping Paul's wrist? That type of thing, especially with photographic evidence, could get you in legal trouble in many places if Paul felt inclined to press charges.

I have been wondering if you were a joke poster. Thanks for the confirmation!

[Reluctant Republican]

To be fair, both Ron and Rand said Perry was perfectly friendly and that they had a respectable conversation.

I still think Perry may have gotten a bit overeager and heated in the moment(Which he probably regrets, given the outcry), but no one's going to be pressing charges here.

[Politico]

You know, that picture is especially bad when you consider that Paul is, what, 76 years old? Who knows how strong he is gripping Paul's wrist? That type of thing, especially with photographic evidence, could get you in legal trouble in many places if Paul felt inclined to press charges.

I have been wondering if you were a joke poster. Thanks for the confirmation!

Of course I am joking around in that particular instance (Well, mostly, anyway...I know I, for one, would never ever grip a 76 year old man's wrist like that). I mean, somebody has to counteract your Santorum fanboyism, right? We cannot allow that to be the only source of laughter.

[courts]

Perry is such a...

You are what you eat.

[Keystone Phil]

Guys, just as a reminder: I think Paul deserved to have some aggressive behavior directed towards him because he acts like a lunatic but this is a picture. Now neither men are smiling and it always looks aggressive to put a finger in someone's face but I could snap a picture in plenty of situations when someone could be explaining something in a completely harmless way and have it look mean spirited. We shouldn't be saying that Perry was "overly angered" or "heated" when we don't know what was actually being said.

You know, that picture is especially bad when you consider that Paul is, what, 76 years old? Who knows how strong he is gripping Paul's wrist? That type of thing, especially with photographic evidence, could get you in legal trouble in many places if Paul felt inclined to press charges.

I have been wondering if you were a joke poster. Thanks for the confirmation!

Of course I am joking around. With that said, somebody has to counteract your Santorum fanboyism, right?

Hey, you're about five years late with the "LOL OMG SANTORUM FANATIC KID OVER HERE" lines, my friend. It's known, accepted and really not funny to point out anymore.

[Politico]

Guys, just as a reminder: I think Paul deserved to have some aggressive behavior directed towards him because he acts like a lunatic but this is a picture. Now neither men are smiling and it always looks aggressive to put a finger in someone's face but I could snap a picture in plenty of situations when someone could be explaining something in a completely harmless way and have it look mean spirited. We shouldn't be saying that Perry was "overly angered" or "heated" when we don't know what was actually being said.

You know, that picture is especially bad when you consider that Paul is, what, 76 years old? Who knows how strong he is gripping Paul's wrist? That type of thing, especially with photographic evidence, could get you in legal trouble in many places if Paul felt inclined to press charges.

I have been wondering if you were a joke poster. Thanks for the confirmation!

Of course I am joking around. With that said, somebody has to counteract your Santorum fanboyism, right?

Hey, you're about five years late with the "LOL OMG SANTORUM FANATIC KID OVER HERE" lines, my friend. It's known, accepted and really not funny to point out anymore.

I accept it, too. But trust me: Most everybody is still quietly giggling about it from time to time, or at least since Santorum entered the presidential race (Which still blows my mind to this day...it would have made more sense to go after a House seat for a comeback, maybe Holden's seat(?), and then try this in 2016 or 2020).

And you're really wasting solid talent on the guy, by the way. You would be much better off dedicating yourself to more serious candidates, whether national, statewide or local.

[Keystone Phil]

I accept it, too. But trust me: Everybody is still quietly giggling about it from time to time.

I think you need to find something more humorous in your life then, pal. I know we have plenty of pathetic people in this world but I highly doubt that "everybody" is still quietly giggling about something that isn't funny.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...with all due respect, dude, you don't know me. You're talking to someone on an Internet political forum, not someone you've known for awhile. Don't assume that you know who/what I dedicate myself to politically on any level. Thanks.

Not sure how I'd be "wasting talent" on Santorum, by the way. I'm not working for his campaign or anything so your point is even more asinine.

[Napoleon]

FWIW, I think it is perfectly natural for someone to remain loyal to candidates from their state that they have a personal regard for. For example, I would vote for Ned Lamont for any office because I have a lot of respect for him. Now, I might not have received this kind of treatment because of mine or Ned's political leanings, or some other reason, I don't know I wasn't here in 2006 or pre-primary 2010, but this is obvious baiting. Enough about Rick Santoeum.

[Politico]

I accept it, too. But trust me: Everybody is still quietly giggling about it from time to time.

I think you need to find something more humorous in your life then, pal. I know we have plenty of pathetic people in this world but I highly doubt that "everybody" is still quietly giggling about something that isn't funny.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...with all due respect, dude, you don't know me. You're talking to someone on an Internet political forum, not someone you've known for awhile. Don't assume that you know who/what I dedicate myself to politically on any level. Thanks.

Not sure how I'd be "wasting talent" on Santorum, by the way. I'm not working for his campaign or anything so your point is even more asinine.

Oh, Keystone. You are much too serious when it comes to Santorum. I will drop this. You are right, and I was wrong to say what I said. I apologize.

But I hope we can agree on this at least: Santorum should be going after Holden's seat, or a Congressional seat somewhere that he could potentially take, not wasting his time on this presidential race.

[Keystone Phil]

But I think we can agree on this at least: Santorum should be going after Holden's seat, not wasting his time on this presidential race.

Ok, the joke must be on me at this point but I'll point this out anyway: Santorum has never lived anywhere near Holden's district.

[Politico]

But I think we can agree on this at least: Santorum should be going after Holden's seat, not wasting his time on this presidential race.

Ok, the joke must be on me at this point but I'll point this out anyway: Santorum has never lived anywhere near Holden's district.

If the man is willing to run this silly little presidential campaign for about three months too long, why not follow it up by moving to Holden's district and challenging him in 2012?

In all seriousness, though, are there any seats Santorum could take a stab at next year? All I can figure is that he's keeping the campaign going in order to help himself build something else over the next few years...

[Keystone Phil]

But I think we can agree on this at least: Santorum should be going after Holden's seat, not wasting his time on this presidential race.

Ok, the joke must be on me at this point but I'll point this out anyway: Santorum has never lived anywhere near Holden's district.

If the man is willing to run this silly little presidential campaign for about three months too long, why not follow it up by moving to Holden's district and challenging him in 2012?

Why would he ever do that? Why would he run against someone that proved that even in 2010, he's too personally popular to be beaten despite being in a Republican district?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This stopped being funny long ago, dude. You've made your "point."

[t_host1]

looking forward to the unbiased analysis, especially from Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton

trying to catch up with all, came in to the debate at the 2nd till last commercial...

 my best laugh so for was the interview with Ed Rollins after 15 - 20 minutes MSNBC telling me the Bachmann is washed up, history and so forth. After Rollins making his points of supportive for Bachmann, someone, uttered "unbelievable", I thought that was funny... 

 The moderators seemed to keep the debate between Perry and Romney, so grading the debate could only really be between those two, however, for me, the country, it's jobs and prosperity, this debate came down to one word of any relevance,

$2 GAS

Forgive me if I don't understand how $2 gas would be a good thing.

Is it the part/point; what it would take and do, too, get to $2 gas

or,

you don't pay for your own gas?

hint w/a ?'d note afoot,

would there be more equity/wealth created from tonight's $450B Obama speech being spent on;

1.) teachers/government pensions, roads, bridges and government buildings or,

2.) abundant, readily available and most importantly, considered cheap by everyone's living standard, ENERGY in all forms. Please understand, none of what Obama is declaring, that congress most do, "PASS THE BILL!!!" can have any outcome, of any gain, for long term jobs, without it.

[Gustaf]

So apparently some of the journalists who were there are saying that during a commercial break, the Perry-Paul back-and-forth continued, and Perry got in Paul's face:



For some reason, Perry is holding onto Paul's wrist.

"You take that back. I was the best damn cheerleader in Texas."

No, no. It's pretty obvious that Perry is making a pass. I'm thinking:

"You know where I'd like to put this finger? I bet you'd like it too."

It's the only line I can think of which explains both the inappropriate touching and Paul's bewildered and disturbed look.