Who's watching the first GOP Presidential Debate tonight?

While that's would be an ideal situation, there don't seem to be too many of those in practice, and rhetoric makes them virtually indistinguishable. (with the exception of Ron, but he's quite a bit more idealistic than pragmatic, in my opinion)

coolbeans90

Mitch Daniels!

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While that's would be an ideal situation, there don't seem to be too many of those in practice, and rhetoric makes them virtually indistinguishable. (with the exception of Ron, but he's quite a bit more idealistic than pragmatic, in my opinion)

airshocker

Mitch Daniels!

Will look him up. Is he going to take part in the debate?

Will look him up. Is he going to take part in the debate?

coolbeans90

Unfortunately no. As Droid said, he pretty much called for a truce on social issues. The man has no fundraising capabilities, though.

Perhaps foster some more bipartisanship.

airshocker

I've really begun to hate this word. The problem with Washington is not a lack of bipartisanship. People don't vote for Republicans with the hope that they will pass watered-down, ineffective legislation that no one is happy with, and the same is true for people who vote for Democrats (although it is true that Democratic voters are much more open to compromise than are Republican voters). Moreover, there is no incentive to be "bipartisan" in Washington - the goal of the minority party is to get into the majority, not to work with the majority and produce positive results, because that would in effect help to keep the majority in power. Yet our political system gives a vast amount of power to the minority party - more power than any other developed democracy, and when they exert that power vituallynothinggets done no matter what.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

coolbeans90

The U.S. will not default on its debt. Words are words, and politicians use a lot of them.

I've really begun to hate this word. The problem with Washington is not a lack of bipartisanship. People don't vote for Republicans with the hope that they will pass watered-down, ineffective legislation that no one is happy with, and the same is true for people who vote for Democrats (although it is true that Democratic voters are much more open to compromise than are Republican voters). Moreover, there is no incentive to be "bipartisan" in Washington - the goal of the minority party is to get into the majority, not to work with the majority and produce positive results, because that would in effect help to keep the majority in power. Yet our political system gives a vast amount of power to the minority party - more power than any other developed democracy, and when they exert that power vituallynothinggets done no matter what.

-Sun_Tzu-

I don't really see any of that changing. I see a lot of power changing hands, and while I'd really like both parties to get along, deep down I kind of want to see how Republicans will do controlling all three legislative bodies.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Given the fact that the chances of the U.S. defaulting on its debt (for completely nonsensical reasons) are greater this year than they ever have been due to the GOP controlling the house while the Democrats control the Senate and White House is reason enough for me to want a more unified government. -Sun_Tzu-

The U.S. will not default on its debt. Words are words, and politicians use a lot of them.

Words matter, and it may cause a few people to sweat, but a default is not going to happen.

deep down I kind of want to see how Republicans will do controlling all three legislative bodies.

airshocker

Amen. Dems need to realize we have thousands of ready-to-go capped oil wells on land in TX & OK that were capped for the reason "not profitable to refine", and > 27,000 capped wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of the 27,000 are in deep water, we could open up the ones in shallow waters.

We have Reps controlling all three branches, the price of gas will drop.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

deep down I kind of want to see how Republicans will do controlling all three legislative bodies.

Amen. Dems need to realize we have thousands of ready-to-go capped oil wells on land in TX & OK that were capped for the reason "not profitable to refine", and > 27,000 capped wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of the 27,000 are in deep water, we could open up the ones in shallow waters.

We have Reps controlling all three branches, the price of gas will drop.

And yet tons of other things would also occur if they run all three branches. Oil isnt close to being the biggest problem the US has.gaming25

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

deep down I kind of want to see how Republicans will do controlling all three legislative bodies.

topsemag55

Amen. Dems need to realize we have thousands of ready-to-go capped oil wells on land in TX & OK that were capped for the reason "not profitable to refine", and > 27,000 capped wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of the 27,000 are in deep water, we could open up the ones in shallow waters.

We have Reps controlling all three branches, the price of gas will drop.

Gas prices do not need to go down in the U.S.. It's already too cheap.

The green movement is no proxy for the real incentive that high petrol prices create to foster actual change in fuel consumption habits over the long term.

cybrcatter

Gas prices absolutely need to go down. Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available, and cheap enough, for us to do so without inconvenience. We don't need anybody pushing us towards that "goal".

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The U.S. will not default on its debt. Words are words, and politicians use a lot of them.

coolbeans90

Words matter, and it may cause a few people to sweat, but a default is not going to happen.

Gas prices absolutely need to go down. Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available, and cheap enough, for us to do so without inconvenience. We don't need anybody pushing us towards that "goal".airshocker

I am. Should be interesting and make some of the GOP candidates stand out a bit more, who knows. Don't really have a lot to do on a Thursday night either way.

Not sure what other channels it's on except Fox News, but it starts at 8 CST/9 EST.

So who on OT is going to watch and what are you hoping to hear from the candidates?

airshocker

Evidently, we do need someone to push us since we aren't doing anything about it ourselves.scorch-62

It's no one's place to force us to do anything. We don't NEED to go to alternative energy right now. We don't. We have plenty of oil in our own lands that haven't even been tapped.

If we were going to run out of oil in the next decade I could see the need for forcing us to change our habits. But the most conservative estimates say, what, 50 years or so?

That is MORE than enough time to let the market change things. Not government.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

I've really begun to hate this word. The problem with Washington is not a lack of bipartisanship. People don't vote for Republicans with the hope that they will pass watered-down, ineffective legislation that no one is happy with, and the same is true for people who vote for Democrats (although it is true that Democratic voters are much more open to compromise than are Republican voters). Moreover, there is no incentive to be "bipartisan" in Washington - the goal of the minority party is to get into the majority, not to work with the majority and produce positive results, because that would in effect help to keep the majority in power. Yet our political system gives a vast amount of power to the minority party - more power than any other developed democracy, and when they exert that power vituallynothinggets done no matter what.

airshocker

I don't really see any of that changing. I see a lot of power changing hands, and while I'd really like both parties to get along, deep down I kind of want to see how Republicans will do controlling all three legislative bodies.

Then look no further than the last decade. We went from surplus to ever increasing deficits; the passage of irresponsible tax cuts, the beginning of 2 wars which have directly cost us almost $2 trillion and will cost us even more and the passage of a medicare expansion which caters only to the big pharm companies and costs as much as the PPACA and all of what I have listed is, unlike the PPACA, unfunded.

Then look no further than the last decade. We went from surplus to ever increasing deficits; the passage of irresponsible tax cuts, the beginning of 2 wars which have directly cost us almost $2 trillion and will cost us even more and the passage of a medicare expansion which caters only to the big pharm companies and costs as much as the PPACA and all of what I have listed is, unlike the PPACA, unfunded.

Former_Slacker

That's the past. I'm looking towards the future. Also, the Democrats have been no better since Obama took office.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Evidently, we do need someone to push us since we aren't doing anything about it ourselves.airshocker

It's no one's place to force us to do anything. We don't NEED to go to alternative energy right now. We don't. We have plenty of oil in our own lands that haven't even been tapped.

If we were going to run out of oil in the next decade I could see the need for forcing us to change our habits. But the most conservative estimates say, what, 50 years or so?

That is MORE than enough time to let the market change things. Not government.

You think 50 years is more than enough time? Think about all of the cars, and vehicles that currently depend on oil. We should at least keep some so that we wont completely run out of a natural resource.gaming25

For one, that's a conservative estimate. And yes, I do think 50 years is enough time for us to become independent of oil, completely without government forcing us and driving up the price of oil, which they are doing every day.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Then look no further than the last decade. We went from surplus to ever increasing deficits; the passage of irresponsible tax cuts, the beginning of 2 wars which have directly cost us almost $2 trillion and will cost us even more and the passage of a medicare expansion which caters only to the big pharm companies and costs as much as the PPACA and all of what I have listed is, unlike the PPACA, unfunded.

airshocker

That's the past. I'm looking towards the future. Also, the Democrats have been no better since Obama took office.

They have been considerably better than the reps, who have also abused the fillibuster to no end, unlike anything before, in an attempt to bring down anything the opposition has attempted to do. Also, whats this talk of bipartisanship? Why ignore their past actions? They screwed with the country before and will continue to do so.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Then look no further than the last decade. We went from surplus to ever increasing deficits; the passage of irresponsible tax cuts, the beginning of 2 wars which have directly cost us almost $2 trillion and will cost us even more and the passage of a medicare expansion which caters only to the big pharm companies and costs as much as the PPACA and all of what I have listed is, unlike the PPACA, unfunded.

That's the past. I'm looking towards the future. Also, the Democrats have been no better since Obama took office.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]You think 50 years is more than enough time? Think about all of the cars, and vehicles that currently depend on oil. We should at least keep some so that we wont completely run out of a natural resource.airshocker

For one, that's a conservative estimate. And yes, I do think 50 years is enough time for us to become independent of oil, completely without government forcing us and driving up the price of oil, which they are doing every day.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

Gas prices do not need to go down in the U.S.. It's already too cheap.

The green movement is no proxy for the real incentive that high petrol prices create to foster actual change in fuel consumption habits over the long term.

airshocker

Gas prices absolutely need to go down. Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available, and cheap enough, for us to do so without inconvenience. We don't need anybody pushing us towards that "goal".

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Evidently, we do need someone to push us since we aren't doing anything about it ourselves.airshocker

It's no one's place to force us to do anything. We don't NEED to go to alternative energy right now. We don't. We have plenty of oil in our own lands that haven't even been tapped.

If we were going to run out of oil in the next decade I could see the need for forcing us to change our habits. But the most conservative estimates say, what, 50 years or so?

That is MORE than enough time to let the market change things. Not government.

Wait, you think the gov't is raising oil prices?DroidPhysX

I don't think they're saying raise the prices, but I think they're contributing to it's rise by not throwing permits out like they're candy.

I think he was trying to say that we should look at what the Republicans have done to get a good indication of what they might do.gaming25

I'm willing to give parties second chances, unlike some.

They have been considerably better than the reps, who have also abused the fillibuster to no end, unlike anything before, in an attempt to bring down anything the opposition has attempted to do. Also, whats this talk of bipartisanship? Why ignore their past actions? They screwed with the country before and will continue to do so.

Former_Slacker

I would too if I wanted to prevent this country from spiraling down the drain. The Dems haven't done enough to fix this country. It's as simple as that. Time to let another party take the reigns and try something new.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]I think he was trying to say that we should look at what the Republicans have done to get a good indication of what they might do.airshocker

I'm willing to give parties second chances, unlike some.

Second chances at what? They are still clearly the party of big businesses.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Evidently, we do need someone to push us since we aren't doing anything about it ourselves.scorch-62

It's no one's place to force us to do anything. We don't NEED to go to alternative energy right now. We don't. We have plenty of oil in our own lands that haven't even been tapped.

If we were going to run out of oil in the next decade I could see the need for forcing us to change our habits. But the most conservative estimates say, what, 50 years or so?

That is MORE than enough time to let the market change things. Not government.

Yes, we definitely need a push towards that goal.

"Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available". This assumption is historically and conceptually false.

The same thing was said for about many European countries before gas prices started to climb significantly. Did anything change in the short-run? Of course not. Demand for gas is inelastic in the short run. But, as time passes and prices stay high, logistics change, discretionary consumption habits change, citizens demand better infrastructure, etc.. Only high prices over prolonged periods of time will change an entire peoples' attitude towards gas. In the long run, demand for gas is very much elastic.

cybrcatter

No, we don't.

How is it false? If hybrids were near the price of normal cars, people would buy hybrids. The same goes for electric cars. They aren't and won't be for awhile. So I see absolutely no need to cripple ourselves with ridiculous fuel prices when the alternatives aren't widely available or cost effective.

Most Americans couldn't care less about your entire third paragraph. I fall into that category. I know for a fact people will switch over to less fuel-consuming vehicles when they become cheap enough. It's ridiculous to try and force them to right now.

Yes, let's use all of the oil on the planet before we think about being more energy efficient.scorch-62

I never said that. Not in this thread and not once in the countless discussions we've had on this subject. I just see no reason to destroy ourselves in the short-term with this mad rush to alternative energy.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

Yes, we definitely need a push towards that goal.

"Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available". This assumption is historically and conceptually false.

The same thing was said for about many European countries before gas prices started to climb significantly. Did anything change in the short-run? Of course not. Demand for gas is inelastic in the short run. But, as time passes and prices stay high, logistics change, discretionary consumption habits change, citizens demand better infrastructure, etc.. Only high prices over prolonged periods of time will change an entire peoples' attitude towards gas. In the long run, demand for gas is very much elastic.

airshocker

No, we don't.

How is it false? If hybrids were near the price of normal cars, people would buy hybrids. The same goes for electric cars. They aren't and won't be for awhile. So I see absolutely no need to cripple ourselves with ridiculous fuel prices when the alternatives aren't widely available or cost effective.

Most Americans couldn't care less about your entire third paragraph. I fall into that category. I know for a fact people will switch over to less fuel-consuming vehicles when they become cheap enough. It's ridiculous to try and force them to right now.

Well see, you buy a hybrid and you won't pay as much for gas. Car doesn't look so expensive now.

DroidPhysX

And it'll take years for my gas savings to make up for the extra cost of the vehicla. No deal. And not while I haven't paid off my truck.

And before anybody says "hurr, shouldn't have bought a truck" keep in mind, I need it for my side business.

none of those guys in the debate are getting elected, they are minor candidates weezyfb

They said that about Clinton as well.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Well see, you buy a hybrid and you won't pay as much for gas. Car doesn't look so expensive now.

airshocker

And it'll take years for my gas savings to make up for the extra cost of the vehicla. No deal. And not while I haven't paid off my truck.

And before anybody says "hurr, shouldn't have bought a truck" keep in mind, I need it for my side business.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

Yes, we definitely need a push towards that goal.

"Fuel consumption will never change until the products are widely available". This assumption is historically and conceptually false.

The same thing was said for about many European countries before gas prices started to climb significantly. Did anything change in the short-run? Of course not. Demand for gas is inelastic in the short run. But, as time passes and prices stay high, logistics change, discretionary consumption habits change, citizens demand better infrastructure, etc.. Only high prices over prolonged periods of time will change an entire peoples' attitude towards gas. In the long run, demand for gas is very much elastic.

airshocker

No, we don't.

How is it false? If hybrids were near the price of normal cars, people would buy hybrids. The same goes for electric cars. They aren't and won't be for awhile. So I see absolutely no need to cripple ourselves with ridiculous fuel prices when the alternatives aren't widely available or cost effective.

Most Americans couldn't care less about your entire third paragraph. I fall into that category. I know for a fact people will switch over to less fuel-consuming vehicles when they become cheap enough. It's ridiculous to try and force them to right now.

lulz, yes, who cares about the underlying economic reasoning. Your anecdotes are all that matter.

I'll keep my comments to myopic political catchphrases from now on.

cybrcatter

You don't need to be an economist to see that it's folly to force someone into buying a product when we have the means of producing more of what we need and making it cheaper for the foreseeable future.

It also doesn't take a genius to see that when something is priced reasonably, people buy the superior product. Happens all the damn time.

-Searches- No catchphrases here.

I say the only person to really watch in the debate tonight is Ron Paul. I also think it was smart for Romney not to show up. Since he is seen as the front runner (one of the first tier candidates), it would have been easy for these lower tier candidates to attack him (and there is plenty to attack). I mean what better way to create headlines and get more exposure than to attack the person who leads in many polls.

But I really don't know what people see in Mitch Daniels. I really don't.

I mean he served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush, and during that time, the federal budget was at $236 billion surplus when he started, and then declined to a $400 billioin deficit by the end of his tenure. So he's tied to the Bush administration and their spending.

He called a truce on social issues. Yeah that's going to go over well with the base. Are we trying to keep them home on election day?

And just recently when asked if he were ready to debate Obama on foreign policy, he answered "Probably not." That's the courage.

He's lacks charisma. If you're boring, how are you going to inspire people and get them to vote for you?

And he's horrible at raising money. Whoever the GOP candidate is needs to be able to somewhat keep up with Obama in this area.

But hey...this is who the establishment keeps pushing to get in the race. He sure does sound like a winner. Just thinking of a Daniel's candidacy sends a thrill up my leg.

none of those guys in the debate are getting elected, they are minor candidates weezyfb

Obama was a minor candidate

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The U.S. will not default on its debt. Words are words, and politicians use a lot of them.

coolbeans90

Words matter, and it may cause a few people to sweat, but a default is not going to happen.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]none of those guys in the debate are getting elected, they are minor candidates scoots9

Obama was a minor candidate

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]none of those guys in the debate are getting elected, they are minor candidates scoots9

Obama was a minor candidate

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Pretty soon the GOP is about to vote against raising the debt ceiling - if I was the market I wouldn't feel to great about that. Words do matter. Keep in mind, the reason why the S&P has threatened to lower the U.S' credit rating is not because of the sheer amount of U.S. debt, but because of the political situation that the U.S. finds itself in vis-a-vis debt reduction. -Sun_Tzu-

Words matter, and it may cause a few people to sweat, but a default is not going to happen.

Which is why the children in D.C. will stop playing games when push comes to shove. Destroying U.S. credit isn't on the table given the potential for significant political fallout. I can't really disagree with the point regarding uncertainty aside from the fact that, unless the gentlemen in D.C. collectively lose their desire to remain there, there isn't a feasible way that a deal won't be reached.

That was a pretty sad debate, the only thing worse will be this Discussion over the debates that Fox News just started.

Ron Paul came out looking the best to me, but I didn't expect it to turn out any differently. Too bad he is a long shot. Commander-Gree