PDA

View Full Version : I am totally unimpressed by the Republican candidates in the debates



diverdog
10/18/2011, 10:47 PM
First of all they are completely out of ideas.

Some things that were just jaw dropping:

Michele Bachmann's claim that Israel is our greatest ally. This is the kind of statement you would expect from a religious nut bag. At the end of the day America's greatest ally is England followed by Canada and Australia. I would not put Israel in the top 10.

All the candidates kept saying the immigration problem is easy to fix. Yeah right. I have heard that one before. Perry is the only one close on this issue. Building a fence will not stop illegal immigration. Fixing the crap hole to the south of us will.

Every single candidate folded on the question of Yucca Mountain. Then they went on with this stupid boneheaded idea about states rights and that nuclear waste should be stored in the states where it is used. I guess the idea of national security never occurred to these idiots.

Herman Cain took the dunce of the night award by saying Wall Street should not be blamed for the current crisis and that it was the governments fault. Never mind that most economist believe that Wall Street walked away with about $8 trillion dollars of our wealth.

Only one candidate would cut defense and that was Ron Paul.

I get sick and tired of the government bashing.

None of the dummies on the stage could balance a budget if a gun were put to their head.

MR2-Sooner86
10/18/2011, 10:56 PM
Ron Paul did an amazing job tonight.

The only bad thing was he talked about cutting aid to Israel and all the crazy Christians in the GOP see that as a big no no. We must send money we don't have to them or else Jesus will no longer be cool with us.

Also, many Republicans don't like hearing about Iran-Contra or attacking the cult of Reagan.


they went on with this stupid boneheaded idea about states rights

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110727182050/random-ness/images/6/6b/Not_Sure_if_Serious_meme.jpg

diverdog
10/18/2011, 11:02 PM
Ron Paul did an amazing job tonight.

The only bad thing was he talked about cutting aid to Israel and all the crazy Christians in the GOP see that as a big no no. We must send money we don't have to them or else Jesus will no longer be cool with us.

Also, many Republicans don't like hearing about Iran-Contra or attacking the cult of Reagan.



http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110727182050/random-ness/images/6/6b/Not_Sure_if_Serious_meme.jpg

On certain issues I am fine with state rights. But there are certain things states cannot decide for themselves like military bases and disposing of waste that has huge national security issues associated with it. Plus I believe that the Yucca site is on federal land.

Ron Paul did okay. He is completely unelectable.

MR2-Sooner86
10/18/2011, 11:34 PM
On certain issues I am fine with state rights. But there are certain things states cannot decide for themselves like military bases and disposing of waste that has huge national security issues associated with it. Plus I believe that the Yucca site is on federal land.

Military bases are part of national security and our nation's defense. Nuclear waste? Not so much.

Oh, you could take the waste and weaponize it but that's our own government at work. As Ron Paul mentioned there are nuclear subsidies. We could've been on a safer type of nuclear power years ago but the government wouldn't have any of it because you couldn't weaponize the waste during the Cold War. How is it a national security issue? Is Iran going to drive trucks all over to different points all over the country and start loading our waste up to ship it back over there?

Lets not forget the government has passed laws to where we can't reuse our waste because we can't build the facilities to recycle it. We could reuse at least 3/4 of our waste with current technology and some believe if researched more we could get it up higher.

Also, would you like it if New York, California, and Florida decided Oklahoma should handle their garbage because they don't want to? Don't think so.

States rights wins this argument. I can see both arguments, a company shouldn't build what it can't support but the government shouldn't get in the way and manipulate for it's own personal gains.


Ron Paul did okay. He is completely unelectable.

How so? He's more electable than the empty suits up there on stage.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/19/2011, 08:02 AM
Yeah, Herman Cain's opponents turned his 9-9-9 plan on its head, to show the world what Cain is really all about.


http://www.gl3nnx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/666-mark.jpg



Disappointingly, all Cain could do is talk about apples and oranges. He was adamant that his plan is all about oranges and nothing about apples!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fkdBz7nDyp0/TPN4rFfTeZI/AAAAAAAAA1Q/tR3-XeF3QU0/s1600/snow_white_witch.jpg


Meanwhile, Perry and Romney, were the UFC main event of the evening with their immigration debate. A true meeting of the minds. Really, the immigration debate could not be more disingenuous.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/2079120203_4ec0552146.jpg


But seriously, Rick Santorum was the most impressive he's ever been. I give him credit for his performance and fully expect his support in the polls to double to 2%.

I also note that many of the candidates are getting smart and are borrowing Bill Clinton's line that helped get him elected in 92. In the 92 campaign, he used the phrase, "grow the economy" at least 20 times in every speech. Last night we heard, "We need to grow the economy." over and over and over.

Thank you President Clinton.

East Coast Bias
10/19/2011, 08:52 AM
I enjoyed the part where Rick Perry was criticizing the administration for not observing international treaties. Wasn't he the guy that just recently executed a citizen of Mexico in defiance of an international treaty the US signed? And Bachman saying Obama is in "Libya"? All of these people are totally lost when it comes to foreign policy, the next debate will be interesting?

NormanPride
10/19/2011, 09:13 AM
What's the point?

KantoSooner
10/19/2011, 09:18 AM
Obama is historically weak. Very beatable this election.

and the Republicans are running the Seven Dwarves' understudies. Intellectually, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich at least understand the philosophy and arguments that underpin their positions and both have experience in policy making and governing. Romney is next, but truly the man doesn't understand the difference between running a company and running a political entity. Plus, he's mormon and that is a no go with some double digit portion of the voting public. The others are morons. Pure and simple.
Newt will implode because he doesn't really want it that bad.
Paul will end up saying what he believes in and the public will gasp and back away.
Romney will be the nominee and will be slaughtered like a dull beast.

Obama by 10 points.

Now, the fun part will be who takes congress. I see massive turnover there and probably a bias against Democrats. So Obama will have short to no coattails and we'll end up with a split government for the next 4 years.

At least that's the way I see it.

yermom
10/19/2011, 09:22 AM
i like where Bachman said we should raise taxes to the levels of the Reagan administration :D

yermom
10/19/2011, 09:23 AM
Obama is historically weak. Very beatable this election.

and the Republicans are running the Seven Dwarves' understudies. Intellectually, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich at least understand the philosophy and arguments that underpin their positions and both have experience in policy making and governing. Romney is next, but truly the man doesn't understand the difference between running a company and running a political entity. Plus, he's mormon and that is a no go with some double digit portion of the voting public. The others are morons. Pure and simple.
Newt will implode because he doesn't really want it that bad.
Paul will end up saying what he believes in and the public will gasp and back away.
Romney will be the nominee and will be slaughtered like a dull beast.

Obama by 10 points.

Now, the fun part will be who takes congress. I see massive turnover there and probably a bias against Democrats. So Obama will have short to no coattails and we'll end up with a split government for the next 4 years.

At least that's the way I see it.

if the current crop is all they have, i don't see how Obama doesn't get reelected

of course, i never thought he'd win in the first place at this time 4 years ago

stoops the eternal pimp
10/19/2011, 09:30 AM
This is the worst collection of candidates I have seen in my lifetime...I'm 234 year's old.

pphilfran
10/19/2011, 09:59 AM
The good news is that most of them are already in Congress and planning our future...

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 10:11 AM
I enjoyed the part where Rick Perry was criticizing the administration for not observing international treaties. Wasn't he the guy that just recently executed a citizen of Mexico in defiance of an international treaty the US signed?

You generally have to invoke these rights either at trial or prior to trial to preserve the issue on appeal. The executed Mexican did not attempt to invoke his consulate privilege until his appeals had almost run their course. In other words, his appellate lawyer who jumped on the case pretty late in the game, was well aware that attempting to invoke the treaty's consulate privilege was (a) a legal loser and (b) a good PR move.

If the prisoner had a bona fide legal right available to him, then either the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the Texas high court for criminal matters) or the US Supreme Court should have jumped in. SCOTUS has certainly had no problem recently giving stays.

The nonsense about the treaty with Mexico was just an attempt by an attorney to play a PR hand because she had no legal hand to play.

I am not a Rick Perry supporter. I like Newt, but Perry was not ignoring a prisoner's rights. The prisoner did not properly invoke his rights and neither did his attorneys.

yermom
10/19/2011, 10:24 AM
so you only have rights if you invoke them early enough?

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 10:35 AM
so you only have rights if you invoke them early enough?

Some must be invoked to be preserved; others need not be invoked at or prior to trial to be raised later. The rights under this treaty, which are not Constitutional rights, had to be invoked at or before trial--or so I remember reading.

soonercruiser
10/19/2011, 10:37 AM
This is the worst collection of candidates I have seen in my lifetime...I'm 234 year's old.

And it is quite "telling" that polls still show "any Repubican" is favored over Obama.
:distant:

And, it is also "telling" that the Demoncratic Party has drifted sooooo far Left, that no one will dare oppose Obama for their nomination! (yet!)

badger
10/19/2011, 11:49 AM
I don't really care if Obama is re-elected because I have every confidence that the House and Senate will turn red. Then, instead of forcing things down our throats like Obama did during his first two years, and unlike the divided mess that the House and Senate have at the moment where anything passed by either side has no chance of passing the other, both sides will get their opinion heard via the Oval Office and via the Congress.

We might FINALLY see government do something that the people actually want and need for the first time in Obama's tenure if that happens.

AlboSooner
10/19/2011, 12:30 PM
It was a night of FAIL, where an aggy looked the best. Imagine that, an aggy....

stoops the eternal pimp
10/19/2011, 12:53 PM
And it is quite "telling" that polls still show "any Repubican" is favored over Obama.
:distant:

And, it is also "telling" that the Demoncratic Party has drifted sooooo far Left, that no one will dare oppose Obama for their nomination! (yet!)

YAY! OUR SUCK IS BETTER THAN THEIR SUCK!

watching political parties gloat over success is like watching two 0-6 college football teams play and their fans flashing the #1 sign to the TV cameras..

East Coast Bias
10/19/2011, 01:38 PM
On this whole issue of executing Mexican citizens in Texas, with all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside here's what you need to know: The UN High Commissioner for human Rights stated that the execution (under Perry's watch) "placed the US in breach of International Law". Doesn't matter twhat SCOTUS ruled, we are talking international law and treaty here..........

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 03:31 PM
On this whole issue of executing Mexican citizens in Texas, with all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside here's what you need to know: The UN High Commissioner for human Rights stated that the execution (under Perry's watch) "placed the US in breach of International Law". Doesn't matter twhat SCOTUS ruled, we are talking international law and treaty here..........


The legal mumbo-jumbo is exactly what made Rick Perry's and Texas' stance on the issue not run afoul of international law. If you do not invoke your rights under the treaty before trial, they cannot become retroactively effective just because you and your appellate lawyer do not like the outcome of your trial.

East Coast Bias
10/19/2011, 05:21 PM
International Law says this person should have been told (at the time of arrest) he could have consular help at his trial. That was the violation(not the execution) and it was a human rights issue. I am sure we don't agree on capital punishment but in terms of this human rights violation, the International Court, the Obama administration and George W. Bush all agree this was not handled right. I am trying to hold Perry accountable for this. After all, he's the boss and he is the one that brought up how we should honor international treaties during the debate.Here's my beef , other than the human rights issue. I don't appreciate Texas (and Rick Perry) pissing on an international treaty the US signed. The Supreme Court was unwillingly to issue a stay, (only to review the case) because it was afraid to step on states rights and in their statement said they doubted it would cause any problems with International Law. What about Americans that travel abroad? THE SCOTUS is a bunch of *****'s. And here is something else I would like to say and hope its understood in a non-football context. **** Texas.

East Coast Bias
10/19/2011, 05:32 PM
International Law says this person should have been told (at the time of arrest) he could have consular help at his trial. That was the violation(not the execution) and it was a human rights issue. I am sure we don't agree on capital punishment but in terms of this human rights violation, the International Court, the Obama administration and George W. Bush all agree this was not handled right. I am trying to hold Perry accountable for this. After all, he's the boss and he is the one that brought up how we should honor international treaties during the debate.Here's my beef , other than the human rights issue. I don't appreciate Texas (and Rick Perry) pissing on an international treaty the US signed. The Supreme Court was unwillingly to issue a stay, (only to review the case) because it was afraid to step on states rights and in their statement said they doubted it would cause any problems with International Law. What about Americans that travel abroad? THE SCOTUS is a bunch of *****'s. And here is something else I would like to say and hope its understood in a non-football context. **** Texas.

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 06:13 PM
International Law says this person should have been told (at the time of arrest) he could have consular help at his trial. That was the violation(not the execution) and it was a human rights issue. I am sure we don't agree on capital punishment but in terms of this human rights violation, the International Court, the Obama administration and George W. Bush all agree this was not handled right. I am trying to hold Perry accountable for this. After all, he's the boss and he is the one that brought up how we should honor international treaties during the debate.Here's my beef , other than the human rights issue. I don't appreciate Texas (and Rick Perry) pissing on an international treaty the US signed. The Supreme Court was unwillingly to issue a stay, (only to review the case) because it was afraid to step on states rights and in their statement said they doubted it would cause any problems with International Law. What about Americans that travel abroad? THE SCOTUS is a bunch of *****'s. And here is something else I would like to say and hope its understood in a non-football context. **** Texas.

Congress had not acted. Perry was under no obligation. If the governor being under no obligation is "legal mumbo-jumbo" then so be it. But, that is our law and our law is more important than this nonsensical concept of international law.

P.S. I am not too worried about Americans who travel abroad. I did not kill anybody last time I went overseas; and I found that it is not too hard to stay out of trouble.

P.P.S. If another illegal comes over and enjoys the fruit of our land and later kills someone in Texas, then I say get the needle ready whether he has been advised of his consular rights or not.

**** on Rye, New Hampshire and **** on "International Law."

Midtowner
10/19/2011, 06:26 PM
International Law says this person should have been told (at the time of arrest) he could have consular help at his trial.

You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Is there a treaty which has been ratified by the Senate and signed by the President which applies to this? Or are you talking abut customary law? The former is enforceable, the later is basically a legal fiction.

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 06:54 PM
You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Is there a treaty which has been ratified by the Senate and signed by the President which applies to this? Or are you talking abut customary law? The former is enforceable, the later is basically a legal fiction.

He is talking about the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. It was ratified by the U.S. in 1969.

Specifically at issue is Article 36 of the Convention. The Federal Government has passed a law to ensure federal compliance, but Congress has not acted to ensure that States and localities also take measures to comply with Article 36 of the Convention. But, that is really quite irrelevant because the prisoner ECB is referring to, Humberto Leal, did not make a timely invocation of his desire/right to have the Mexican consul notified of his detention. Thus, he effectively waived this right under the treaty.

Under Article 36, an arrested party is required to invoke his right to notify his consul of his detention. The receiving state (or arresting officer) is under no duty to advise him of this right. However, if the arrested party invokes his right to notify his consul of his arrest, the receiving state must so notify the consul without delay. Bottom line, the burden was not on the State of Texas to advise Humberto Leal that he could notify his consul. See Article 36(1)(b):

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the rights under the Convention must be timely invoked or they are subject to default. See Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998). Here is a decent brief of the case and the SCOTUS opinion, which also demonstrates that the burden falls on the arrested party to invoke his consular rights and not on the State to advise the arrested party of his consular rights:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Breard_v._Greene

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-8214.ZPC.html

Basically, ECB is arguing the points that were carried in the media during the time leading up to Humberto Leal's execution. Unfortunately, the media points about the Convention were incorrect and contrary to both Supreme Court holdings and the text of the very Convention the media was attempting to invoke.

Caboose
10/19/2011, 07:18 PM
Herman Cain took the dunce of the night award by saying Wall Street should not be blamed for the current crisis and that it was the governments fault. Never mind that most economist believe that Wall Street walked away with about $8 trillion dollars of our wealth.

Try again.

East Coast Bias
10/19/2011, 08:19 PM
At least we know where BU stands on human rights, international law and illegal aliens!! Now here is a link that puts as little "Non-Texas" spin on all of this (http://www.portfolio.com/business-travel/2011/07/13/texas-executes-mexican-national-without-granting-consular-rights/index1.html).

I am no lawyer(me suspects BU BEAR is one of those Baylor lawyers we hear about) but there is some question about article 36 as described here and in BEAR's translation of the same article. What is more interesting is the other information presented about other similar cases and the specifics of Texas thumbing their nose at international human rights. Maybe the media has some of this wrong, but all of it?

SicEmBaylor
10/19/2011, 08:28 PM
I barely know where to begin....

Admiral Bachmann's answers were predictably wrong and narrow in scope. Her answer to the housing crisis question was pretty indicative of what her campaign has become. She's going to fight for women because women are who suffer the most when they lose their homes? What does that even mean? How is she going to help women keep their homes? More importantly, is this what she thinks is the proper role of the office she seeks to hold? Someone push this woman off the stage.

Gingrich is admittedly one of the smartest guys on the stage and certainly the biggest policy wonk. I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but I respect the fact that his answers tend to be more nuanced and detailed. It doesn't always make for good soundbites especially in these so-called debates, but it's a real positive for someone who wishes to hold the nation's highest office. Like I said, I respect Gingrich for that if nothing else.

The problem with Cain is that he just hasn't been at this long enough to more carefully consider what he says. A great example of this is his answer about negotiating with terrorists. He emphatically insists his administration will never negotiate with terrorists and then he lays out the circumstances in which he would negotiate with terrorists. This absolute "line in the sand" about negotiating with terrorists is idiotic. Of course there are going to be circumstances in which we have to negotiate with terrorists. Suggesting otherwise is woefully naive and frankly dangerous as a commander-in-chief. His 9-9-9 plan has real problems, but kudos to him for coming up with creative solutions.

Romney is clearly the best debater. Again, I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but he is clearly the best debater of all the candidates (though he was a little less polished in this one). I really want to like Romney. If this were 10 years ago, I'd be one of his most enthusiastic supporters. However, the world has changed over the last 10 years, and I have most certainly changed. Romey is who you think he is regardless of how he tries to hide it -- he's a very polished country club patrician Republican whose only ideology is that he has no ideology. He is Dwight Eisenhower reincarnated.

I try very hard to set aside my utter contempt and hatred for Rick Perry to look at his campaign from an objective point of view, but it's very very difficult. The only thing Rick Perry should be competing in is an academic bowl in the special olympics. All of that aside, he's one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. I made kids cry in debate rounds back in HS that wer e 10x the debater that Rick Perry is. His poor performances aren't just style related; his poor performances are indicative of a lack of command of the facts and issues. Let me give him some free advice: You don't win debates by talking over your opponent like the d-bag that you are, and you do not win debates by staring them down like you're Davy Crockett going toe-to-toe with a bear.

Rick Santorum, why haven't you dropped out yet? Santorum is probably the scariest Republican candidate. His social "conservatism" and evangelism are the biggest threat to individual liberty on that stage. Rick Santorum has demonstrated time and time again that he puts very little value in the personal choices of individual Americans while putting a premium on enforcing his contempt of a just and moral society via the power of the Federal government. I would be far far more worried about Santorum if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

RON PAUL....my man. What can I say about Ron Paul? He is the only candidate who has consistently supported the principles of limited-government and individual-liberty throughout his entire career. It's as simple as that. No other candidate on that stage has as much credibility as Ron Paul. Ron Paul poses an excellent questions to the other candidates. The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks a lot faster than he can speak. By the time he gets a sentence out, his mind is already 2-3 steps ahead. He lacks style, but he has gravitas in spades. Ron Paul is definitely my candidate. When he loses the nomination, I will vote for a Libertarian candidate or I will abstain.

An important issue was brought up in this debate. For anyone still on the fence, the question about cutting the DoD budget was very very telling. Any candidate who absolutely refused to consider any cuts should be immediately disqualified as a serious candidate and as a true conservative.

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 08:46 PM
At least we know where BU stands on human rights, international law and illegal aliens!! Now here is a link that puts as little "Non-Texas" spin on all of this (http://www.portfolio.com/business-travel/2011/07/13/texas-executes-mexican-national-without-granting-consular-rights/index1.html).



It is generally a good idea to shift the focus to the person after you lose the argument on the merits; so, I do not blame you for trying. It was your position that Humberto Leal's rights were violated because Texas did not advise him that he had a right to notify his consul of his arrest/detention. However, as was demonstrated by the text of the Convention, International Law did not require Texas to notify Leal that he could inform his consulate. Instead, International Law required that Leal invoke this right if should choose to exercise it. Moreover, Leal never chose to invoke this right until long after his trial. The Convention allows the law of the receiving state [Texas] to deem this right to be waive if it is not invoked in a timely manner. Attempting to invoke the right after trial--indeed, several years after trial, is not a timely invocation of the right. Leal waived any Convention rights he may have been entitled to by this untimely attempt. All of this is per the terms of the Convention; ya know, that International Law that you are pretending to have respect for.


International Law was not snubbed. You just did not know as much about the Convention as you thought you did. This sort of thing happens to people frequently when people pay too much attention to a media that is too lazy to do its homework.

Caboose
10/19/2011, 08:48 PM
It is generally a good idea to shift the focus to the person after you lose the argument on the merits; so, I do not blame you for trying. It was your position that Humberto Leal's rights were violated because Texas did not advise him that he had a right to notify his consul of his arrest/detention. However, as was demonstrated by the text of the Convention, International Law did not require Texas to notify Leal that he could inform his consulate. Instead, International Law required that Leal invoke this right if he so chose to invoke it. Leal never chose to invoke this right until long after his trial; thus, and again according to the terms of the Convention, Leal waived this right.



International Law was not snubbed. You just did not know as much about the Convention as you thought you did.
In conclusion, you are a terrorist.

BU BEAR
10/19/2011, 08:52 PM
In conclusion, you are a terrorist.


LOL!

SicEmBaylor
10/19/2011, 09:46 PM
International law is as real as the tooth fairy.

diverdog
10/19/2011, 10:25 PM
I barely know where to begin....

Admiral Bachmann's answers were predictably wrong and narrow in scope. Her answer to the housing crisis question was pretty indicative of what her campaign has become. She's going to fight for women because women are who suffer the most when they lose their homes? What does that even mean? How is she going to help women keep their homes? More importantly, is this what she thinks is the proper role of the office she seeks to hold? Someone push this woman off the stage.

Gingrich is admittedly one of the smartest guys on the stage and certainly the biggest policy wonk. I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but I respect the fact that his answers tend to be more nuanced and detailed. It doesn't always make for good soundbites especially in these so-called debates, but it's a real positive for someone who wishes to hold the nation's highest office. Like I said, I respect Gingrich for that if nothing else.

The problem with Cain is that he just hasn't been at this long enough to more carefully consider what he says. A great example of this is his answer about negotiating with terrorists. He emphatically insists his administration will never negotiate with terrorists and then he lays out the circumstances in which he would negotiate with terrorists. This absolute "line in the sand" about negotiating with terrorists is idiotic. Of course there are going to be circumstances in which we have to negotiate with terrorists. Suggesting otherwise is woefully naive and frankly dangerous as a commander-in-chief. His 9-9-9 plan has real problems, but kudos to him for coming up with creative solutions.

Romney is clearly the best debater. Again, I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but he is clearly the best debater of all the candidates (though he was a little less polished in this one). I really want to like Romney. If this were 10 years ago, I'd be one of his most enthusiastic supporters. However, the world has changed over the last 10 years, and I have most certainly changed. Romey is who you think he is regardless of how he tries to hide it -- he's a very polished country club patrician Republican whose only ideology is that he has no ideology. He is Dwight Eisenhower reincarnated.

I try very hard to set aside my utter contempt and hatred for Rick Perry to look at his campaign from an objective point of view, but it's very very difficult. The only thing Rick Perry should be competing in is an academic bowl in the special olympics. All of that aside, he's one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. I made kids cry in debate rounds back in HS that wer e 10x the debater that Rick Perry is. His poor performances aren't just style related; his poor performances are indicative of a lack of command of the facts and issues. Let me give him some free advice: You don't win debates by talking over your opponent like the d-bag that you are, and you do not win debates by staring them down like you're Davy Crockett going toe-to-toe with a bear.

Rick Santorum, why haven't you dropped out yet? Santorum is probably the scariest Republican candidate. His social "conservatism" and evangelism are the biggest threat to individual liberty on that stage. Rick Santorum has demonstrated time and time again that he puts very little value in the personal choices of individual Americans while putting a premium on enforcing his contempt of a just and moral society via the power of the Federal government. I would be far far more worried about Santorum if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

RON PAUL....my man. What can I say about Ron Paul? He is the only candidate who has consistently supported the principles of limited-government and individual-liberty throughout his entire career. It's as simple as that. No other candidate on that stage has as much credibility as Ron Paul. Ron Paul poses an excellent questions to the other candidates. The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks a lot faster than he can speak. By the time he gets a sentence out, his mind is already 2-3 steps ahead. He lacks style, but he has gravitas in spades. Ron Paul is definitely my candidate. When he loses the nomination, I will vote for a Libertarian candidate or I will abstain.

An important issue was brought up in this debate. For anyone still on the fence, the question about cutting the DoD budget was very very telling. Any candidate who absolutely refused to consider any cuts should be immediately disqualified as a serious candidate and as a true conservative.

Bachmann also did not remember that Libya was in Africa.

There were times I totally agreed with Ron Paul and other times I thought he was a nut. I think he is a very smart man and very principled. I can see why people are so passionate about his candidacy.

If I had to pick one candidate on the stage it would be Newt. I felt like he had a good grasp of the big picture issues. The problem is he would make a better Secretary of State than POTUS.

diverdog
10/19/2011, 10:26 PM
Try again.

Okay.....Cain makes a ****ty pizza. That good enough for ya sport?

AlboSooner
10/19/2011, 10:34 PM
I can see Obama getting reelected because a significant portion or our country are idiots.

Newt is the smartest one on the stage, but is unelectable. If Cain alters his 999 to the payroll tax instead of sales tax, then the public will accept it. He would crush Obama in a debate.

Perry, Paul, bachmann, huntsman and Johnson just need to give it up.

http://s1.e46fanatics.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalmsmiley.gif

SanJoaquinSooner
10/20/2011, 12:22 AM
I barely know where to begin....

Admiral Bachmann's answers were predictably wrong and narrow in scope. Her answer to the housing crisis question was pretty indicative of what her campaign has become. She's going to fight for women because women are who suffer the most when they lose their homes? What does that even mean? How is she going to help women keep their homes? More importantly, is this what she thinks is the proper role of the office she seeks to hold? Someone push this woman off the stage.

Gingrich is admittedly one of the smartest guys on the stage and certainly the biggest policy wonk. I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but I respect the fact that his answers tend to be more nuanced and detailed. It doesn't always make for good soundbites especially in these so-called debates, but it's a real positive for someone who wishes to hold the nation's highest office. Like I said, I respect Gingrich for that if nothing else.

The problem with Cain is that he just hasn't been at this long enough to more carefully consider what he says. A great example of this is his answer about negotiating with terrorists. He emphatically insists his administration will never negotiate with terrorists and then he lays out the circumstances in which he would negotiate with terrorists. This absolute "line in the sand" about negotiating with terrorists is idiotic. Of course there are going to be circumstances in which we have to negotiate with terrorists. Suggesting otherwise is woefully naive and frankly dangerous as a commander-in-chief. His 9-9-9 plan has real problems, but kudos to him for coming up with creative solutions.

Romney is clearly the best debater. Again, I don't support him in any shape, form, or fashion but he is clearly the best debater of all the candidates (though he was a little less polished in this one). I really want to like Romney. If this were 10 years ago, I'd be one of his most enthusiastic supporters. However, the world has changed over the last 10 years, and I have most certainly changed. Romey is who you think he is regardless of how he tries to hide it -- he's a very polished country club patrician Republican whose only ideology is that he has no ideology. He is Dwight Eisenhower reincarnated.

I try very hard to set aside my utter contempt and hatred for Rick Perry to look at his campaign from an objective point of view, but it's very very difficult. The only thing Rick Perry should be competing in is an academic bowl in the special olympics. All of that aside, he's one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. I made kids cry in debate rounds back in HS that wer e 10x the debater that Rick Perry is. His poor performances aren't just style related; his poor performances are indicative of a lack of command of the facts and issues. Let me give him some free advice: You don't win debates by talking over your opponent like the d-bag that you are, and you do not win debates by staring them down like you're Davy Crockett going toe-to-toe with a bear.

Rick Santorum, why haven't you dropped out yet? Santorum is probably the scariest Republican candidate. His social "conservatism" and evangelism are the biggest threat to individual liberty on that stage. Rick Santorum has demonstrated time and time again that he puts very little value in the personal choices of individual Americans while putting a premium on enforcing his contempt of a just and moral society via the power of the Federal government. I would be far far more worried about Santorum if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

RON PAUL....my man. What can I say about Ron Paul? He is the only candidate who has consistently supported the principles of limited-government and individual-liberty throughout his entire career. It's as simple as that. No other candidate on that stage has as much credibility as Ron Paul. Ron Paul poses an excellent questions to the other candidates. The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks a lot faster than he can speak. By the time he gets a sentence out, his mind is already 2-3 steps ahead. He lacks style, but he has gravitas in spades. Ron Paul is definitely my candidate. When he loses the nomination, I will vote for a Libertarian candidate or I will abstain.

An important issue was brought up in this debate. For anyone still on the fence, the question about cutting the DoD budget was very very telling. Any candidate who absolutely refused to consider any cuts should be immediately disqualified as a serious candidate and as a true conservative.

Very good synopsis, sic em. Insightful. I agree will much of what you say - except I'm not all that impressed with Romney's debating skills. It's just standing next to Perry that makes him seem better than he is.

If Newt were a major player, he'd shadow over Romney in a big way.

I am sooo disappointed that Bachmann isn't a real player in this. It would be so much more interesting if we had a unadulterated tea partier who was up to the challenge.

StoopTroup
10/20/2011, 01:06 AM
What's bad is that there are hardly any BU Fans that can name more than one player on their Football Team but when it comes to Politics....they have to come to an Oklahoma Message Board to talk politics because there evidently isn't anyone in Texas to talk to that know **** about it....lol

Midtowner
10/20/2011, 07:13 AM
Humberto Leal, did not make a timely invocation of his desire/right to have the Mexican consul notified of his detention. Thus, he effectively waived this right under the treaty.

And the holding of Breard v. Greene was that procedural default rules apply to Constitutional defenses and treaties as well. Also, that even if it was arguably a violation of the defendant's rights, it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome of the trial (harmless error).


Under Article 36, an arrested party is required to invoke his right to notify his consul of his detention. The receiving state (or arresting officer) is under no duty to advise him of this right. However, if the arrested party invokes his right to notify his consul of his arrest, the receiving state must so notify the consul without delay. Bottom line, the burden was not on the State of Texas to advise Humberto Leal that he could notify his consul. See Article 36(1)(b):


Basically, ECB is arguing the points that were carried in the media during the time leading up to Humberto Leal's execution. Unfortunately, the media points about the Convention were incorrect and contrary to both Supreme Court holdings and the text of the very Convention the media was attempting to invoke.

Sounds like it. Reading the case law, the media got in a tither over what was pretty well-settled precedent. I know it's pretty bad form for a defense attorney not to notify the consul of a client who is a citizen of another country, I've seen judges hold lawyers in direct contempt for that. But again, this guy was guilty of a pretty heinous crime. He was every bit as deserving of the needle as the next death row inmate. I suppose some folks just like to pick really unsympathetic causes to show you how principled they are.

East Coast Bias
10/20/2011, 09:11 AM
I don't where anyone got the idea I was sympathetic to Leal, he admitted the crimes at the end.His execution has only brought the issue to light. My concern has been adherence to International Law. I don't profess to be a lawyer, I am sure all the Baylor lawyers here will dissect this to the bitter end. I think the fact that the Mexican government filed a protest and both the Obama administration and George Bush's administration tried to get this stalled for a deeper review should set off a "red flag" with someone? This is sure to come up again as there are another 50 Mexican nationals being held. The media may have this all wrong, but isn't one of their roles to question the legal system in relation to Intenational law as one of our checks and balances?I was criticized for making this argument personal but check out how fast these guys moved me from a liberal to a terrorist?

Ton Loc
10/20/2011, 09:39 AM
I picture the writers from SNL watching the debate, and seriously questioning each other if they can outdo what they just saw.

I know little about politics, but I feel like most of the people in this forum, regardless of their personal views, would do a better job than all of them but Romney, Newt, and Paul.

Herman Cain cracks me up, what is the fascination with him? Is it just his fun soundbites or his 9-9-9 plan? I don't get it.

bigfatjerk
10/20/2011, 09:44 AM
Of the guys running I can only vote for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. They seem to be the only ones to have an alternative to Obama. The rest are pretty much the same as Obama. Romney is Obama lite. I don't understand how anyone can vote for either Obama or Romney.

BU BEAR
10/20/2011, 10:01 AM
I picture the writers from SNL watching the debate, and seriously questioning each other if they can outdo what they just saw.

I know little about politics, but I feel like most of the people in this forum, regardless of their personal views, would do a better job than all of them but Romney, Newt, and Paul.

Herman Cain cracks me up, what is the fascination with him? Is it just his fun soundbites or his 9-9-9 plan? I don't get it.

I like Cain because he is not a politician; but in terms of pure electability (sp?) and conservative bona fides, there is not a better candidate (imo) than Newt. I am not sure why he has been deemed unelectable. Can anybody shed some light on why Newt is not electable?

Midtowner
10/20/2011, 10:18 AM
I don't where anyone got the idea I was sympathetic to Leal, he admitted the crimes at the end.His execution has only brought the issue to light. My concern has been adherence to International Law. I don't profess to be a lawyer, I am sure all the Baylor lawyers here will dissect this to the bitter end. I think the fact that the Mexican government filed a protest and both the Obama administration and George Bush's administration tried to get this stalled for a deeper review should set off a "red flag" with someone? This is sure to come up again as there are another 50 Mexican nationals being held. The media may have this all wrong, but isn't one of their roles to question the legal system in relation to Intenational law as one of our checks and balances?I was criticized for making this argument personal but check out how fast these guys moved me from a liberal to a terrorist?

Here's the deal--he has a right to a contact his embassy. An absolute right. But it's just like your right to an attorney or right to shut the heck up. You have to invoke it. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of constitutional right to be informed of your right to consult with your embassy? Where's that in the Constitution?

BU BEAR
10/20/2011, 10:19 AM
My concern has been adherence to International Law. I don't profess to be a lawyer, I am sure all the Baylor lawyers here will dissect this to the bitter end. ?

It does not take a lawyer to dissect this issue. If one can read and one actually takes time to read the Convention, it states quite plainly that if the arrested party wishes to contact his consulate, then the arrested party has to make the request. You can find this in the link to the Convention which I provided--Article 36(1)(b) of the Convention.

This is not rocket science. It is a matter of reading this section:


1.With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending
State:

(b) if he [the arrested/detained person] so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner.

It is pretty plain language. Leal had to ask that his consul be notified. Texas was under no duty to make him aware of this prerogative.

You have had a Sooner attorney and me tell you the media position that you parrot on this matter is contrary to International Law. Yet, you still continue to chirp about your respect for the International Law with which you now knowingly find yourself at variance. One cannot help but conclude that you are offering only feigned reverence for International Law. In fact, you sound like these clueless clowns on "Execution Watch," a radio show that broadcasts every time Texas administers the death penalty. They love the law so much that they distort it when it fits their agenda.

NormanPride
10/20/2011, 10:45 AM
The forms to destroy your planet have been in the galactic demolition offices for months. You could have read them any time and it is pointless to complain now.

Bourbon St Sooner
10/20/2011, 12:01 PM
On this whole issue of executing Mexican citizens in Texas, with all the legal mumbo-jumbo aside here's what you need to know: The UN High Commissioner for human Rights stated that the execution (under Perry's watch) "placed the US in breach of International Law". Doesn't matter twhat SCOTUS ruled, we are talking international law and treaty here..........


Is the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Iranian or Syrian?

Ton Loc
10/20/2011, 04:43 PM
I'd imagine super smart guys don't ask their wife for a divorce while she's in the hospital. You did say smart for Washington though, not real world common sense smart.

soonercoop1
10/20/2011, 05:41 PM
First of all these are not debates...their only purpose is to allow the media and establishment to pick the nominee...only 1 choice from the group and thats Herman Cain...

SicEmBaylor
10/21/2011, 04:50 AM
I think a lot of the newt bad stuff was liberal mudslinging that eventually took him out as speaker. A lot of the mud stayed with him.

Actually, it was an internal power struggle within the GOP House caucus that brought Newt down...not liberal mudslinging.

SicEmBaylor
10/21/2011, 04:50 AM
First of all these are not debates...their only purpose is to allow the media and establishment to pick the nominee...only 1 choice from the group and thats Ron Paul...

You were right up until the very end, but do not worry -- I fixed it for you.

KantoSooner
10/21/2011, 11:36 AM
I don't where anyone got the idea I was sympathetic to Leal, he admitted the crimes at the end.His execution has only brought the issue to light. My concern has been adherence to International Law. I don't profess to be a lawyer, I am sure all the Baylor lawyers here will dissect this to the bitter end. I think the fact that the Mexican government filed a protest and both the Obama administration and George Bush's administration tried to get this stalled for a deeper review should set off a "red flag" with someone? This is sure to come up again as there are another 50 Mexican nationals being held. The media may have this all wrong, but isn't one of their roles to question the legal system in relation to Intenational law as one of our checks and balances?I was criticized for making this argument personal but check out how fast these guys moved me from a liberal to a terrorist?

I think it is useful to think about it this way: Like a penalty in football, there are times and people who can challenge a penalty. Once the time to raise this issue has passed, or if you're not a person with standing make that challenge, it's done, over and final. It's my understandding that no one with standing made the challenge within the time allowed. Game over.
International law does not supercede the law of the individual states so long as recognized legal process is followed.
The guy had a crappy lawyer. But that's not illegal.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/21/2011, 03:22 PM
It's 9-0-9 y'all says the man with the plan

soonercoop1
10/22/2011, 10:16 AM
You were right up until the very end, but do not worry -- I fixed it for you.

Herman Cain is the only choice of that group...Ron Paul has some good ideas but is pretty much unelectable...would consider Rand Paul though...

Caboose
10/22/2011, 11:27 AM
Okay.....Cain makes a ****ty pizza. That good enough for ya sport?

That is better.... but can you at least demonstrate that you understand why Cain was right and you were wrong?

SanJoaquinSooner
10/22/2011, 11:50 AM
That is better.... but can you at least demonstrate that you understand why Cain was right and you were wrong?

I have to hand it to Cain, he is big enough to admit when he's wrong.

It will be interesting to see how he corrects himself on his statements regarding abortion. It's a litmus test for many.

diverdog
10/22/2011, 12:39 PM
That is better.... but can you at least demonstrate that you understand why Cain was right and you were wrong?

No Cain is wrong. I work in the banking industry in commercial lending and my wife worked on Wall Street for JP Morgan in the arbitrage unit. I have friends who use to work in GE Capital and in Citi's M&A unit. So yeah I have a decent understanding of what went wrong. If you want to start a discussion I will be more than happy to play along.

I do not deny the government bears some responsibility. But to give Wall Street a pass is laughable.

Cain suffers from Biden syndrome. He shoots off at the mouth without thinking sometimes. Cain is a very capable businessman but I do not think that translate well in governing a nation.

85Sooner
10/23/2011, 01:23 PM
My lord.....don't they teach logic, arithmetic at OU? From the look of this thread....the answer to that question is a BIG no.

Gingrich/Cain 2012

Serge Ibaka
10/23/2011, 01:32 PM
Cain is weak. Aside from gratuitous 9-9-9!! soundbites, the guy hasn't said a single darned thing.

He's a big, empty shell of talking points. Refer to my "Herman Cain" thread for more. He's Palin 2.0.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't a complete dweeb.

Caboose
10/23/2011, 08:44 PM
This Obama guy is amazing. These awe-inspiring Hope and Change soundbites just say so much to me.

He's a brilliant cornucopia of substance. Refer to my "Yes we can!" thread for more. He's Abraham Lincoln 2.0.



Serge Ibaka - 2008

SicEmBaylor
10/24/2011, 01:03 AM
He's Abraham Lincoln 2.0.

-Serge Ibaka, 2008

In all fairness, Obama isn't nearly THAT bad.

Trophy Husband
11/18/2011, 04:28 PM
I am totally unimpressed by the Democratic President in the White House.

soonercoop1
11/18/2011, 06:22 PM
On certain issues I am fine with state rights. But there are certain things states cannot decide for themselves like military bases and disposing of waste that has huge national security issues associated with it. Plus I believe that the Yucca site is on federal land.

Ron Paul did okay. He is completely unelectable.

About as unelectable as Obama if he gets the same media nonvetting treatment....

SanJoaquinSooner
11/18/2011, 06:52 PM
About as unelectable as Obama if he gets the same media nonvetting treatment....

Well, the media painting Hillary as Jezabel, the most wicked woman ever, made Obama look good.

But Paul's unelectability is totally independent of media vetting. Ron Paul drinks truth serum and says what he really thinks about foreign policy. Having all the troops