formerroadie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,014
- Reaction score
- 590
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The two threads are not related, or indicative of some pattern I've established.
I may have gotten the Southern Democrat thing wrong as a matter of political theory,
but Robert Byrd WAS in the KKK
, and it is a valid point if we're going to insist that a politician's personal failings must define their candidacy.
You're arguing as if I actually cared about Byrd's time in the KKK. I seriously don't.
You're arguing as if I thought Newt was a stand-up guy. I seriously don't.
Newt is just a smart fiscal conservative who's managed to balance a Federal budget. That's good enough for me.
False. In both threads you brought up examples of the Democrat party's racist past to support your points.
You did get it wrong. There is no question about this. It's why you didn't reply.
And this is what I am trying to explain to you. He WAS in politics BEFORE he became a Senator, BEFORE the majority of Americans were born, BEFORE he engaged in a life of public service. Not whilst.
The personal failings of Newt relate to his job. He became a polarizing figure DURING his tenure in Congress, DURING his career in public service. Not AFTER. Do you not see the difference yet? It's not about the personal failings. It's about when these failings happened and their context in modern day history.
And he's part of the Social Conservative America that I dislike. Not good enough for me.
Newt has the highest intellect. I doubt there's a single Democrat who can debate him. But I voted for Pawlenty because I figure he's got the best chance.
When has he proven himself some master debater? Obama would wipe the floor with him
I don't know, Newt has a very big mind. I think a debate between the two would be fascinating. They are both teachers at their core. A part of them, anyway.
Of course he might ramble off on some policy issue... debating is a skill
Thank you for such an intelligent and well supported theory.I hope one of them run and win the right to be on the ballot because they will all lose.
Gingrich is a non starter and should get no ones support for any office. He disgraced his last office and should be considered only in an advisory capacity for others.
Pawlenty lacks the star power and is not a Statesman like figure nor is he a stand out at anything thus far.
A winning ticket could be Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. He has the brain power and ability to talk in terms people can understand and she scares the living hell out of the media and the Commie leftists that have taken over the Democrat because she does not fear them.
This country needs a Statesman at the helm to replace the Marxist Obama who is out to reduce the Nation to third world status and bring about a one world rule with Communism aa the guiding force. If Obama doesn't fail we all will. Mike Huckabee could be groomed into a Statesman with the right people and attitudes around him. But there still may be others to come who could be better.
The two things I know for sure are Gingrich is untrustworthy and Pawlenty is untested and therefore unworthy of the top job, he might work as VP but that's it for now.
When has he proven himself some master debater? Obama would wipe the floor with him
Pawlenty lacks the star power and is not a Statesman like figure nor is he a stand out at anything thus far.
I don't know if many politicians could stand up to actual debate. Not the contrived, scripted, and planned out events which we currently call debate where questions are screened and known before hand. I mean, actual debate with real questions from the audience in which politicians actually tell us what they plan to do.
Do you not accept the second "town hall debate"
The vast amount of "town hall debates" are exactly as I described. I don't trust most of them. I'd give the Presidential debates back to the League of Women Voters as it was in the past and try to set up actual debate. A forum in which actual ideas and political agenda are offered up and debated. Responding to unscripted, unknown questions by the audience.
What about the "gotchya" questions like the Rape one that Dukkakkis got asked?
How long ago was that? I mean, you can maybe get what, a handful of these "gotchya" questions. They're ok (depending on context of course), but I'd like to see more probing questions into platform, ideals, and plans.
that was when they started probing the audience. That question was one reason Dukkakkis lost. I can understand politicians trying to avoid questions like that.
While there is always room for reasonable restriction, I think we've gone well overboard and now do well more damage to the Republic than some "gotcha" questions can do to some politicians. They want to use my power and sovereignty, they're going to have to stand up to some rather intense scrutiny, that's all there is to it.
I would personally like to see something more like the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.
I hear those suckers were hours and hours long. I'd fall asleep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?