Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...he's a good debater but then Barack Obama decides not to debate.
Seriously, you have to consider it.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't debate. He's the sitting President. Why should he debate when all he'd do is play defense all night long? In 2008, there was no incumbent so a debate was a natural thing. But Obama doesn't have to debate if he doesn't want to. The debate would be all about a criticism of him and what he's done for the last 3.5 years. No matter who his opponent is in a debate, he can't win. Remember the movie "War Games" with a young Matthew Broderick and the computer and the tic tac toe game where the computer learned the only strategy was not to play? If I was Obama, that would be my strategy, too. No debates.
You're right and the republican opponent would bring that to the attention of the country... That the president refuses to debate because his policies have been such miserable failures. He will concede it by omission.
People shouldn't choose a canidate exclusively based on debating skills, because being President involves much more than that. When the campaign is over, you have to actually do the job then. The debates have been important and do make some difference, you have to be able to speak, but it is not everything.
I think when it comes to Newt and Obama, Obama can give it to Newt on his record and past as much as Newt can to him. Newt has a whole lot more history there also. They will dig into every vote he ever cast and every position he ever took.
...he's a good debater but then Barack Obama decides not to debate.
Seriously, you have to consider it.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't debate. He's the sitting President. Why should he debate when all he'd do is play defense all night long? In 2008, there was no incumbent so a debate was a natural thing. But Obama doesn't have to debate if he doesn't want to. The debate would be all about a criticism of him and what he's done for the last 3.5 years. No matter who his opponent is in a debate, he can't win. Remember the movie "War Games" with a young Matthew Broderick and the computer and the tic tac toe game where the computer learned the only strategy was not to play? If I was Obama, that would be my strategy, too. No debates.
Obama is NOT the sitting president. He is running for the job in 2013 just like everyone else. A presidential term is only 4 years. You are not guaranteed a "pass" for a second term.
People shouldn't choose a canidate exclusively based on debating skills, because being President involves much more than that. When the campaign is over, you have to actually do the job then. The debates have been important and do make some difference, you have to be able to speak, but it is not everything.
I think when it comes to Newt and Obama, Obama can give it to Newt on his record and past as much as Newt can to him. Newt has a whole lot more history there also. They will dig into every vote he ever cast and every position he ever took.
The debate is about the future of the country not the ancient past of Newt Gingrich. What past does Obama want to go after? The balanced budgets and welfare reform that Gingrich delivered? Barry would be embarrassed because he has not passed a budget since being in office.
The debate is about the future of the country not the ancient past of Newt Gingrich. What past does Obama want to go after? The balanced budgets and welfare reform that Gingrich delivered? Barry would be embarrassed because he has not passed a budget since being in office.
Come on man you joking?
1) Obama is the sitting president as of now, and will be through the debates and through the election.
2) A persons past is definitely a valid perspective to take into consideration when predicting their future actions.. and Newt's had a shady past
a) taking money from Freddie Mac during the bailouts
b) his marital issues + he married his HS geometry teacher (who by today's standards should be in prison..right?)
These are two small potatoes but definitely are valid to consider.
I am not voting for Newt bc its true that he represents the status quo, if he took money from Freddie Mac during the bailouts what makes you think he is going to represent the common people in the office?
I am not voting for Obama because he promised change, promised troops would be out first thing, promised a lot of stuff and has not done anything.
Ron Paul has promised stuff that would likely get him killed, and for good reason too because he would be cutting a lot of people off from a lot of money, but also giving power back to the people. This is why I see Ron Paul as the only viable candidate, he promises real change and Obama did not bring it..so we'll try Ron Paul, and if Ron Paul can't bring it and/or does not get elected you can kiss American prosperity goodbye. That is no joke, many are not realizing the monumental importance of this upcoming election.
Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble ten years before it popped, it was no secret to anyone. AT this moment in time there is a lot of bad coming, and watch the news because they won't tell you about it until the stores have already been looted. The global economy is headed for a really bad spot and America is at the forefront of the global economy...
1) Obama is the sitting president as of now, and will be through the debates and through the election.
2) A persons past is definitely a valid perspective to take into consideration when predicting their future actions.. and Newt's had a shady past
a) taking money from Freddie Mac during the bailouts
b) his marital issues + he married his HS geometry teacher (who by today's standards should be in prison..right?)
These are two small potatoes but definitely are valid to consider.
I am not voting for Newt bc its true that he represents the status quo, if he took money from Freddie Mac during the bailouts what makes you think he is going to represent the common people in the office?
I am not voting for Obama because he promised change, promised troops would be out first thing, promised a lot of stuff and has not done anything.
Ron Paul has promised stuff that would likely get him killed, and for good reason too because he would be cutting a lot of people off from a lot of money, but also giving power back to the people. This is why I see Ron Paul as the only viable candidate, he promises real change and Obama did not bring it..so we'll try Ron Paul, and if Ron Paul can't bring it and/or does not get elected you can kiss American prosperity goodbye. That is no joke, many are not realizing the monumental importance of this upcoming election.
Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble ten years before it popped, it was no secret to anyone. AT this moment in time there is a lot of bad coming, and watch the news because they won't tell you about it until the stores have already been looted. The global economy is headed for a really bad spot and America is at the forefront of the global economy...
America will not elect Ron Paul.
But I certainly hope that Ron Paul decides to pull a Ross Perot (and run as an independent when he doesn't get the GOP nomination. That will be the absolute clincher for President Obama's 2nd term in office.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
For wingnuts, it's only the "ancient past" when we bring up embarrassing Republicans, like Gingrich, Dubya, Delay, Abrahamoff, Reagan/Oliver North & Iran-Contra, Joe McCarthy, Nixon, et al. Yet to hear some conservatives, you'd swear Bill Clinton just left office!
But for all but the "ethically-challenged", there's never any statute of limitations on some things, such as going, "Hi honey, tough break about your cancer. BTW, let me introduce you to my new girlfriend!"
Of course this is also the same piece of work who once said, "In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life." Except by now I think we all know which "God" Newt really worships...
Obama is NOT the sitting president. He is running for the job in 2013 just like everyone else. A presidential term is only 4 years. You are not guaranteed a "pass" for a second term.
He's gotta think "What's in it for me?" and I don't see him gaining anything by agreeing to a debate. His record will be the focus of any debate and since he's obviously not running on his record, he can't win. It's not like he has to debate to let the general public know who he is and what he stands for. Everybody knows that already.
Where does this idea come from that Newt is a master debater? Are the Republicans just excited that they can count ONE person in their ranks who is not a manifest idiot who can't count to three? That doesn't mean Newt is a genuis people. For some of us, you have to do a lot more than remember which federal programs you're going to cut to be considered smart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
