The Official South Carolina/CBS News/National Journal GOP Debate Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:24:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official South Carolina/CBS News/National Journal GOP Debate Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16
Author Topic: The Official South Carolina/CBS News/National Journal GOP Debate Thread  (Read 24680 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #325 on: November 12, 2011, 09:31:54 PM »

I love how people who never served in combat can be so cavalier in starting wars, and sending other peoples children to be possibly killed
The government is dominated by Chickenhawks...

Amen to that!  Pisses me off when Mr. Five-DeferMITT talks all tough. Hey Mitt- I fought, You didnt

Unless you want to require military service to be prerequisite to the run for President, it is kind of an unfair standard to say only candidates who are veterans can take a stance on certain issues.

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens

In that case, you would have a situation where politicians would be more concerned with politics then national security interests when making tough decisions. The spectre of a 1960's situation would loom over their decision making.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #326 on: November 12, 2011, 09:32:06 PM »


I renege on my earlier disagreement.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #327 on: November 12, 2011, 09:35:19 PM »

You've got 8 candidates on the stage and a debate time of 1 hour and 30 minutes (of which 20 minutes are commercials and 10 minutes talking time by the moderators).

So you are left with 1 hour for 8 fu**ing candidates !!!

These debates need to last about 3 hours, without commercials, so that you can get a good sense of the candidates positions and let them finish their sentences ... Wink
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #328 on: November 12, 2011, 09:36:12 PM »

Nuclear weapons aren't under the purview of the Department of Energy.

One of the reasons for creating the department in the first place was to change where in the budget was the funding for the reactors used to make nuclear weapon materials (such as those at the Savannah River Site that is less than an hour away from me).  
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #329 on: November 12, 2011, 09:37:51 PM »

Hey, fake Tender Branson, change your name ... !

Wink
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #330 on: November 12, 2011, 09:37:58 PM »

still waiting for the "exclusive post debate analysis" on the live stream
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #331 on: November 12, 2011, 09:39:56 PM »

Perhaps I watching something else, but I didn't see much gleefull or giddyness about sending troops in the combat.  There are some candidates who are willing to do it if they judge necessary and others who wouldn't see such as necessary. But no one is say yea lets slaughter Iran, just like it would be unfair to say that Paul would let some enemy march in the streets in of NY if they wanted.

Also the Dems on here aren't realizing there is a huge difference between taking control of an entire country for years and storming a country to take out a nuclear facility. And there is an even bigger difference between that and conducting an airstrike to take out a nuclear program.

They assume that military intervention is synonymous with 100k plus troops when historically 90% of all military interventions resulted in few if any troops and no declaration of war because of its limited scope.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #332 on: November 12, 2011, 09:42:37 PM »

Scott Pelley is winning this debate.

I hope you were being ironic.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #333 on: November 12, 2011, 09:43:05 PM »

You've got 8 candidates on the stage and a debate time of 1 hour and 30 minutes (of which 20 minutes are commercials and 10 minutes talking time by the moderators).

So you are left with 1 hour for 8 fu**ing candidates !!!

These debates need to last about 3 hours, without commercials, so that you can get a good sense of the candidates positions and let them finish their sentences ... Wink

^^^^
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #334 on: November 12, 2011, 09:44:57 PM »

Perry calls Ron Paul, "Senator Paul."

Perhaps he was inspired by Pelley when he gave a question to Senator Bachmann.
Logged
Ty440
GoldenBoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #335 on: November 12, 2011, 09:46:56 PM »

Perhaps I watching something else, but I didn't see much gleefull or giddyness about sending troops in the combat.  There are some candidates who are willing to do it if they judge necessary and others who wouldn't see such as necessary. But no one is say yea lets slaughter Iran, just like it would be unfair to say that Paul would let some enemy march in the streets in of NY if they wanted.

Also the Dems on here aren't realizing there is a huge difference between taking control of an entire country for years and storming a country to take out a nuclear facility. And there is an even bigger difference between that and conducting an airstrike to take out a nuclear program.

They assume that military intervention is synonymous with 100k plus troops when historically 90% of all military interventions resulted in few if any troops and no declaration of war because of its limited scope.


Why should Isreal be allowed to have nuclear weapons  and not sign  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  and be subjects to inspections, but Iran who is a party to the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shouldn't?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #336 on: November 12, 2011, 09:48:57 PM »

You see the media is like a machine and Reps aren't supposed to be Presidential candidates and thus they weren't programed in, so they are designated as Senators, instead. Tongue
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #337 on: November 12, 2011, 09:54:14 PM »

I didn't watch it.  What'd Perry mess up tonight?
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #338 on: November 12, 2011, 09:55:40 PM »

Nothing.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #339 on: November 12, 2011, 09:58:31 PM »


Nothing, he actually managed to bump his poll standings from 5% to about 8%.

But for every good Perry debate performance there will probably 3 others that will follow that expose him as a clueless Neanderthal again.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #340 on: November 12, 2011, 10:02:25 PM »
« Edited: November 12, 2011, 10:04:07 PM by Wonkish1 »

Why should Isreal be allowed to have nuclear weapons  and not sign  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  and be subjects to inspections, but Iran who is a party to the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shouldn't?

Well first I didn't even comment on whether or not the intervention is a good one or not. I'm just pointing out that acting like an intervention in Iran is synonymous with Iraq style multi-year war is a false one.

That said:
1) People at the height of power in Iran frequently talk about killing millions of Israeli's unprovoked on a regular basis.
2) Iran isn't a democracy(at least it can quite easily drop a nuclear bomb with only the approval of the Ayatollah). Democracies don't start wars as frequently as dictatorships do(feel free to name the US in Iraq 2, but that is one of the exceptions not the rule).
3) Moral relativism is stupid in matters of foreign policy because your actually on one side. To not try to prevent people that hate your existence from getting devastatingly powerful military capabilities for the sake of some universal moral relativism is stupid.


But ultimately I think Newt and Mitt's answers about trying to promote the opposition, go covert, and attempt to destabilize the government are all better options.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #341 on: November 12, 2011, 10:11:56 PM »

I love how people who never served in combat can be so cavalier in starting wars, and sending other peoples children to be possibly killed
The government is dominated by Chickenhawks...

Amen to that!  Pisses me off when Mr. Five-DeferMITT talks all tough. Hey Mitt- I fought, You didnt

Unless you want to require military service to be prerequisite to the run for President, it is kind of an unfair standard to say only candidates who are veterans can take a stance on certain issues.

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens
So because you did it, I should? I thought the army supported Freedom...
Logged
Ty440
GoldenBoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #342 on: November 12, 2011, 10:17:37 PM »

Why should Isreal be allowed to have nuclear weapons  and not sign  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  and be subjects to inspections, but Iran who is a party to the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shouldn't?


That said:
1) People at the height of power in Iran frequently talk about killing millions of Israeli's unprovoked on a regular basis.


I don't believe Iran poses an existential threat to the United States of America , and I don't believe they will anytime in the near-term future. If Israel has beef with Iran and thinks they are a threat, let them fight there own battles. When has Israel ever shed blood and treasure for us?
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #343 on: November 12, 2011, 10:22:28 PM »

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens
So because you did it, I should? I thought the army supported Freedom...

Clarence's position is pretty stupid and not well thought out. I'm curious as to how he would handle a criticism like: How would compulsory military service not destroy economic output in areas such as a young man or young women owning a business being forced to shut the doors due to compulsory military service?

Or do you have a clue as to how much something like that would cost?

Or do you have any idea how much combat effectiveness drops when you have many people that don't want to be there?

Wouldn't you agree that people who criticize politicians for sending troops to war would have a much better argument if military service was compulsory instead of voluntary? At least for right now those serving chose to make a difference in the rest of the world.


I would point to Clarence's position as just another example of someone producing a knee jerk believe without really spending any time thinking about the consequences of something like that.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #344 on: November 12, 2011, 10:27:31 PM »

Good heavens Wonkish, the man might have legitimate reasons for holding that position, especially considering his experience. And if they weren't well thought out, it always a stronger strategy to let them put them forward first and then if they are, most would come to that conclusion on their own. By bringing it up first you run the risk of "being told" and simultanesouly having the focus shift to you and your style rather then the issue of compulsory military service.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #345 on: November 12, 2011, 10:31:46 PM »

I don't believe Iran poses an existential threat to the United States of America , and I don't believe they will anytime in the near-term future. If Israel has beef with Iran and thinks they are a threat, let them fight there own battles. When has Israel ever shed blood and treasure for us?

I would say that is at least a fair answer. Of course you would then by extension not care if Israel carried out airstrikes against Iran, right?


Lets just throw aside the defending of Israel as an ally, the providing of weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for killing American troops, the risks that a nuclear Iran poses to the region, and that further nuclear proliferation anywhere is probably not a good thing for a second. Just taking a look at the very low cost of engaging in building the opposition, covert, and destabilizing and maybe even air strikes vs. the hassle, far future risks to the US, and potential loss of life that could come from a nuclear Iran makes these moves no-brainers from my point of view.
Logged
izixs
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.31, S: -6.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #346 on: November 12, 2011, 10:32:55 PM »

I love how people who never served in combat can be so cavalier in starting wars, and sending other peoples children to be possibly killed
The government is dominated by Chickenhawks...

Amen to that!  Pisses me off when Mr. Five-DeferMITT talks all tough. Hey Mitt- I fought, You didnt

Unless you want to require military service to be prerequisite to the run for President, it is kind of an unfair standard to say only candidates who are veterans can take a stance on certain issues.

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens
So because you did it, I should? I thought the army supported Freedom...

I can appreciate some of the arguments for national service/military service, but in the end, its still involuntary servitude. And I'm not down with that. So yeah, I'll be with the Chairman on this one then.

On the substance of chicken hawks, its more a measure of folks who refused to serve when others were forced to (which I don't believe is right under any circumstances) who then go on to call for others to serve. That's the thing that gets people on this subject. Sometimes it compels them to the answer of "Everyone should serve!" as opposed to the truth that "This person was against self sacrifice and service when it was their neck on the line, are for it for when its someone else's, and is thus a hypocrite." It would be nice to avoid the realities of the 1960s and 70s when it comes to the draft and the numerous escape hatches those with influence had for themselves and their children. But those realities will exist if there's ever a draft again given the current trajectory of power in this country. So not only is mandatory service a bad idea from a rights view, but its also impossible to implement it fairly in this country.

I don't believe it should be a requirement that a potential commander-in-chief have served in the military, and in some ways its better if they haven't or did so many years previous, so as to provide a fresh perspective to the upper levels of command, but if someone was exploiting loop holes in an unfair system that makes it less fair for others (such as with the draft), then that shows an aspect of that person's character that there are not many chances to view. And it doesn't matter if that unfair system was the draft or something else entirely (taxes might be a good example, but I'm to tired to parse an argument on this). Its only because there's great emotion, patriotism, and death attached to service that it grows beyond a clean cut view of fair vs unfair.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #347 on: November 12, 2011, 10:39:36 PM »

Good heavens Wonkish, the man might have legitimate reasons for holding that position, especially considering his experience. And if they weren't well thought out, it always a stronger strategy to let them put them forward first and then if they are, most would come to that conclusion on their own. By bringing it up first you run the risk of "being told" and simultanesouly having the focus shift to you and your style rather then the issue of compulsory military service.

Very true, but I was willing to take that bet though in the interest of cutting to the chase! And that may mean that I get schooled by someone that knows a lot about the military, costs, etc. and also has a very good cursory knowledge of the section of the economy that young adults impact, but I guess we'll see.

As to my style, well if he does an excellent job answering the questions then he has earned the right to humble me a little. But again we'll see.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #348 on: November 12, 2011, 10:54:38 PM »

I love how people who never served in combat can be so cavalier in starting wars, and sending other peoples children to be possibly killed
The government is dominated by Chickenhawks...

Amen to that!  Pisses me off when Mr. Five-DeferMITT talks all tough. Hey Mitt- I fought, You didnt

Unless you want to require military service to be prerequisite to the run for President, it is kind of an unfair standard to say only candidates who are veterans can take a stance on certain issues.

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens

I think compulsory military training, the way Switzerland does, would be better idea.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #349 on: November 12, 2011, 10:55:23 PM »

As do I.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.