- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Have we had a debate of this level in 22 years?
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:00 pm
I haven't watched these since I was kid. Substance is critical. And we had three brilliant men really debating ideas, history, and patriotism. This debate made Clinton--likely the best pol of our generation. But President Bush and Ross Perot did a remarkable job.
Powerful stuff.
LINK
Hell, second debate.
LINK
Bush was stronger arguing for NAFTA. And when he brought Clinton up short on calling out his father and McCarthyism, etc.
President Bush was a true gentleman who rose to power on his talents. He was never a great politician. What an American, though.
Powerful stuff.
LINK
Hell, second debate.
LINK
Bush was stronger arguing for NAFTA. And when he brought Clinton up short on calling out his father and McCarthyism, etc.
President Bush was a true gentleman who rose to power on his talents. He was never a great politician. What an American, though.
This post was edited on 6/5/14 at 7:27 pm
5
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:19 pm to Navytiger74
I liked the way that was set-up. the first one at least I haven't seen the other two. I was only 1 at the time, but for whatever reason I trust the words coming out of their mouths more than I do today. I've studied a little political science in college for funsies, and I really like Clinton. I'm a republican(whatever that means nowadays) but Clinton seemed to be really driven to do whatever he deemed "right for the country" whether it was or wasn't.
I thought, along with many others, that Romney took a huge step forward after his first debate. I think it was a big mistake on his part to let his foot off the gas. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but I thought he had Obama on the ropes and running for cover. I think the national reaction to the first 2012 debate shows that the exercise is still needed, and widely followed by undecided voters. and with the increase in interest for independent candidates and parties, the amount of undecided voters should only increase
I thought, along with many others, that Romney took a huge step forward after his first debate. I think it was a big mistake on his part to let his foot off the gas. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but I thought he had Obama on the ropes and running for cover. I think the national reaction to the first 2012 debate shows that the exercise is still needed, and widely followed by undecided voters. and with the increase in interest for independent candidates and parties, the amount of undecided voters should only increase
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:22 pm to WinnPtiger
quote:
thought, along with many others, that Romney took a huge step forward after his first debate.
Romney's first debate was fricking strong. It was the only hope his campaign had, and it put Obama on the ropes for three weeks--a lifetime in the latter weeks of a general election.
But he couldn't close. And more than he, his supporters turned off too many people, and motivated too many more to vote against him.
This post was edited on 6/5/14 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:33 pm to Navytiger74
well, that's part of the problem ... we base our decision on who can run a campaign best or debate the best ... style points ...
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:35 pm to Navytiger74
I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Perot won. Could it have broken the 2 party system?
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:41 pm to Vols&Shaft83
probably, but that's the reason he didn't win ...
every republican's a conservative till it's in their back yard ... then, they want mitt romney to bring back those norfolk navy yard jobs ...
every republican's a conservative till it's in their back yard ... then, they want mitt romney to bring back those norfolk navy yard jobs ...
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:44 pm to tiderider
quote:
probably, but that's the reason he didn't win ...
I think it had more to do with him flaking out and dropping out of the race and citing his daughters wedding as the reason why.
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:47 pm to tiderider
quote:
well, that's part of the problem ... we base our decision on who can run a campaign best or debate the best ... style points ...
what else do we have to go off of besides their voting record? I'd rather attempt to put trust in someone who may eventually fail than bury my head in the sand and never try
This post was edited on 6/5/14 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:49 pm to constant cough
disagree ... americans are, by and large, conservative ... do we really think ross perot would've gotten in there and done a worse job than any of the previous 10 presidents? ... and it's not really the presidency that's the problem, is it? ... it's congress ... i want gary johnson as the president, but unless he has 300 other gary johnsons in congress, it won't matter one bit ...
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:52 pm to tiderider
quote:
i want gary johnson as the president, but unless he has 300 other gary johnsons in congress, it won't matter one bit ...
200 Other Gary Johnson's would do just fine
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:52 pm to Navytiger74
You'll never see another debate like that.
After Perot won the election for Clinton, both parties got together and practiced true bipartisan protectionism.
They got the FEC to guarantee that the presidential debates would only include one R and one D.
After Perot won the election for Clinton, both parties got together and practiced true bipartisan protectionism.
They got the FEC to guarantee that the presidential debates would only include one R and one D.
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:53 pm to tiderider
I hate the term "grassroots", because I think it is way overused and most often in the wrong context, but if that's the way you feel then a grassroots revolution is what the voting populace needs.
People get so wrapped up with national politics, specifically the presidency, while managing to complete ignore their local politics. Even at the federal level. It amazes me how many people I know that bitch incessantly about Obama, but can't name the representatives from their district
People get so wrapped up with national politics, specifically the presidency, while managing to complete ignore their local politics. Even at the federal level. It amazes me how many people I know that bitch incessantly about Obama, but can't name the representatives from their district
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:55 pm to WinnPtiger
quote:
WinnPtiger
Have we had a debate of this level in 22 years?
quote:
well, that's part of the problem ... we base our decision on who can run a campaign best or debate the best ... style points ...
what else do we have to go off of besides their voting record? I'd rather attempt to put trust in someone who may eventually fail than bury my head in the sand and never try
1. what voting record did mitt romney have? ... what voting record did ronald reagan have (he was governor of cali, not a rep) ...
2. voting records are shite when all the bs parliamentary rules are used for political games ... i remember reading an article about how devout hillary clinton followed robery byrd's use of voting rules in order to get what she wanted ... pols vote for/against bills for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the bill itself ... and richard shelby and jeff sessions voted to extend funding for the rural air travel subsidy ... there's no place in alabama that's more than 2 hours from h'ville, b'ham, mobile, or montegomery, but those two "conservatives" voted to spend 500 million to subsidize air travel from rural places ... that the voting record you're talking about? ...
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:56 pm to Navytiger74
I was really young when this debate occurred so I never saw it. Clinton was a fricking baller in debates. 
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:56 pm to WinnPtiger
Perot: "If you have a fairer solution, I'm all ears" 
Posted on 6/5/14 at 7:58 pm to tiderider
quote:
that the voting record you're talking about?
precisely. and if their eventual opponents didn't use it against them, I have no answer
Posted on 6/5/14 at 8:02 pm to tiderider
quote:
disagree ... americans are, by and large, conservative ... do we really think ross perot would've gotten in there and done a worse job than any of the previous 10 presidents?
I was for Perot I'm just disagreeing with your reason why he didn't win.
Posted on 6/5/14 at 8:07 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
After Perot won the election for Clinton, both parties got together and practiced true bipartisan protectionism.
They got the FEC to guarantee that the presidential debates would only include one R and one D.
Perot really scared the shite out of them.
Third party is something they've never considered a threat until it actually threatened them.
Posted on 6/5/14 at 8:16 pm to Sentrius
all bubbles burst.
once there is enough independent support, they can't have their own damn debate
once there is enough independent support, they can't have their own damn debate
Posted on 6/5/14 at 8:19 pm to Navytiger74
I love Ross. Have had several lunches with him but it's been since he sold Perot Systems to Dell. He would have changed everything. I will be there with him when he's gone. A really great American and a super person.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News