Also, see below the four clips about campaign finance. Citizens United vs. F.E.C. ruling was not 9-0, but actually a 5-4 vote. Conservatives on the court, plus Kennedy formed the 5. The Presidents response to the ruling is posted below.
16 comments:
Jacob T
said...
I think that Mitt Romney is strong about issues, but none of the candidates know what they're talking about, except Gingrich. The audience likes him more than the others.
I think that Gingrich was the clear victor in the arguments I saw. I don't know if he can stand up against Obama, but his answers here were decisive and well-worded. The other candidates seemed to tip-toe around a lot of the questions, but Gingrich didn't, and the crowd clearly appreciated that. Check out Ron Paul's face when Gingrich blasts him. :) However, Romney seems the most Presidential. I can't really explain why, but his persona seems more trustworthy and less argumentative than Newt's. I guess only time will tell.
Elizabeth Lapke: On the point regarding illegal immigration, I agree that we should not break up families that have been here for over a quarter of a century, and that we should be humane, but that they should not get citizenship or benefits. Regarding the issue of aid to Pakistan, I believe we should work on helping our own country first, so we would be better suited to aid foreign nations.
The law is the law, and the law quite clearly states that individuals who enter this country illegally face deportation. The issue is not the humanity of the law, it is the rule and supremacy of the law. Newt Gingrich has and will face opposition if he continues to take a softer stance. Texas' in-state tuition benefit for illegals has been a real sticking point for Rick Perry. Gingrich really needs to better articulate conservative positions, or his 15 minutes won't last. He has been sending mixed messages (criticizing the Ryan Plan, cutting a global warming spot with Nancy Pelosi, etc.). I'm a Newt supporter, but he needs to tow the line and control his message. If he does that, he could become the anti-Romney candidate that conservatives will push through primary season. Also, Romney and Gingrich have been pretty faithful to Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans.". Save the ammo for the big target: President Obama.
Elizabeth Lapke - On the issue of illegal immigration, I agree that we should not break up families and that we should approach the issue humanely, but that the illegal immigrants should not get citizenship/benefits. Regarding the topic of aid to Pakistan, I think that we should improve our own country first, so that we would be better suited to aid foreign nations.
I thought this was a very interesting video. It really helped give a clearer outlook on what some of the Republican Candidates believe and what they want to see done in America. I thought it was quite interesting to hear their thoughts on racial profiling during that brief period in the video.
The guy on the left made very few good points if all they had to show of him was who terrorists are profiled as. I think the man four in from the left made the best points. - Joshua Conrad
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debating about how many soldiers should be fighting in Iraq. Huntsman stated that we only need 10 to 15 thousand soldiers and not 100 thousand. Well, I disagree with this statement because I believe that if you want to win a war, then the more soldiers you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops to Iraq, then there isn't a concern of being outnumbered.
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debating on how many troops should be sent to Iraq. Huntsman said that we only need to send 10 to 15 thousand and Romney said that we need 100 thousand. I agree with Romney because I believe if you want to win a war, then the more you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops, then there isn't a concern of being outnumbered.
I think it's crazy how different all of the Republican candidates really are. They have very different points of view on all of the national security topics. Some of them are more conservative than others.
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debatin about how many troops should be sent to Iraq. Huntsman said that we only need to send 10 to 15 thousand troops and Romney said we need 100 thousand. I agree with Romney because I believe that if you want to win a war, then the more you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops, then there wouldn't be a concern of being outnumbered.
I found this debate rather interesting. I thought it was interesting how none of them could come to consensus on any single topic they talked about. Given the fact that they were all Republicans I thought they would share some of the same views, but they were split on almost every topic. The one discussion that bothered me was when one of the men talked about how we can easily target the terrorists through stereotyping. I do not believe in this at all and I think it would be wrong to drive out all of the Muslims just because of 9/11. I also don't think that killing all potenial terrorists before they kill us is a reasonable or humane way of dealing with the immigration and terrorist problem. Overall I found the debate interesting and informative even though I did not agree with all of the views.
Mitt Romney seems the most presidential to me, he is the most calm and collected throughout the debate. However, the radical tea party movement may not support him because he seems more moderate and less "fired up" than the other canidates
I think that a lot of the candidates were saying the same thing. They almost seemed to be arguing for the sake of argument. (Which I guesss is the point...) I also couldn't believe the comment about how we should use racial profiling t our advantage. I know that there is some truth in the statement but it was put very bluntly.
I'd strongly disagree with the scare tactic that Cain uses when he says,"The terrorists have one ojective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us, so we should use every means possible to kill them first". Terror can't be fought with terror. The United States (and it's potential leaders) should be careful when it comes to making assumptions and intervening where we have no right to be. We should be focused on ending the problem by destroying hate, rather than destroying people. That is an America I could be proud of.
I think this is very interesting. I love how Herman Cain is against almost everything everyone says at the beginning. Its weird how his charisma still shows despite the allegations against him. I also loved when Ron Paul was dissed at the beginning, haha.
16 comments:
I think that Mitt Romney is strong about issues, but none of the candidates know what they're talking about, except Gingrich. The audience likes him more than the others.
I think that Gingrich was the clear victor in the arguments I saw. I don't know if he can stand up against Obama, but his answers here were decisive and well-worded. The other candidates seemed to tip-toe around a lot of the questions, but Gingrich didn't, and the crowd clearly appreciated that. Check out Ron Paul's face when Gingrich blasts him. :) However, Romney seems the most Presidential. I can't really explain why, but his persona seems more trustworthy and less argumentative than Newt's. I guess only time will tell.
Elizabeth Lapke: On the point regarding illegal immigration, I agree that we should not break up families that have been here for over a quarter of a century, and that we should be humane, but that they should not get citizenship or benefits. Regarding the issue of aid to Pakistan, I believe we should work on helping our own country first, so we would be better suited to aid foreign nations.
The law is the law, and the law quite clearly states that individuals who enter this country illegally face deportation. The issue is not the humanity of the law, it is the rule and supremacy of the law. Newt Gingrich has and will face opposition if he continues to take a softer stance. Texas' in-state tuition benefit for illegals has been a real sticking point for Rick Perry. Gingrich really needs to better articulate conservative positions, or his 15 minutes won't last. He has been sending mixed messages (criticizing the Ryan Plan, cutting a global warming spot with Nancy Pelosi, etc.). I'm a Newt supporter, but he needs to tow the line and control his message. If he does that, he could become the anti-Romney candidate that conservatives will push through primary season. Also, Romney and Gingrich have been pretty faithful to Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans.". Save the ammo for the big target: President Obama.
Elizabeth Lapke - On the issue of illegal immigration, I agree that we should not break up families and that we should approach the issue humanely, but that the illegal immigrants should not get citizenship/benefits. Regarding the topic of aid to Pakistan, I think that we should improve our own country first, so that we would be better suited to aid foreign nations.
I thought this was a very interesting video. It really helped give a clearer outlook on what some of the Republican Candidates believe and what they want to see done in America. I thought it was quite interesting to hear their thoughts on racial profiling during that brief period in the video.
The guy on the left made very few good points if all they had to show of him was who terrorists are profiled as. I think the man four in from the left made the best points. - Joshua Conrad
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debating about how many soldiers should be fighting in Iraq. Huntsman stated that we only need 10 to 15 thousand soldiers and not 100 thousand. Well, I disagree with this statement because I believe that if you want to win a war, then the more soldiers you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops to Iraq, then there isn't a concern of being outnumbered.
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debating on how many troops should be sent to Iraq. Huntsman said that we only need to send 10 to 15 thousand and Romney said that we need 100 thousand. I agree with Romney because I believe if you want to win a war, then the more you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops, then there isn't a concern of being outnumbered.
I think it's crazy how different all of the Republican candidates really are. They have very different points of view on all of the national security topics. Some of them are more conservative than others.
Governor Huntsman and Senator Romney were debatin about how many troops should be sent to Iraq. Huntsman said that we only need to send 10 to 15 thousand troops and Romney said we need 100 thousand. I agree with Romney because I believe that if you want to win a war, then the more you have, the better. Also, if you send more troops, then there wouldn't be a concern of being outnumbered.
I found this debate rather interesting. I thought it was interesting how none of them could come to consensus on any single topic they talked about. Given the fact that they were all Republicans I thought they would share some of the same views, but they were split on almost every topic. The one discussion that bothered me was when one of the men talked about how we can easily target the terrorists through stereotyping. I do not believe in this at all and I think it would be wrong to drive out all of the Muslims just because of 9/11. I also don't think that killing all potenial terrorists before they kill us is a reasonable or humane way of dealing with the immigration and terrorist problem. Overall I found the debate interesting and informative even though I did not agree with all of the views.
Mitt Romney seems the most presidential to me, he is the most calm and collected throughout the debate. However, the radical tea party movement may not support him because he seems more moderate and less "fired up" than the other canidates
I think that a lot of the candidates were saying the same thing. They almost seemed to be arguing for the sake of argument. (Which I guesss is the point...)
I also couldn't believe the comment about how we should use racial profiling t our advantage. I know that there is some truth in the statement but it was put very bluntly.
I'd strongly disagree with the scare tactic that Cain uses when he says,"The terrorists have one ojective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us, so we should use every means possible to kill them first". Terror can't be fought with terror. The United States (and it's potential leaders) should be careful when it comes to making assumptions and intervening where we have no right to be. We should be focused on ending the problem by destroying hate, rather than destroying people. That is an America I could be proud of.
I think this is very interesting. I love how Herman Cain is against almost everything everyone says at the beginning. Its weird how his charisma still shows despite the allegations against him. I also loved when Ron Paul was dissed at the beginning, haha.
Post a Comment