Anyone Watching the GOP Debate With Me Tonight?

[Amelia]

Huntsman puzzled/disappointed me when he was asked about Iran and his answer was that we need term limits.


I'm kindly disposed toward Huntsman and wish he had gotten more traction in the race but that was a very strange response.

 

[packeryman]

Well the debate is over and the talking heads are all saying Romney did good, no one really attacked him. No one really made any significant gains on him. Ron Paul gave some good answers as usual but he and his supporters have to come to the realization the hierarchy of the GOP will never let him become the nominee. Look at what happened in Iowa, it was really a race between Romney and Ron Paul, the GOP knew that if they did not push a third candidate to split the vote Paul would walk away with over 60% of the vote(he would have gotten the Evangelical vote) . In a few short days someone (would you say Republican operatives) got to the Evangelicals(pastors). Santorum only had 5% and overnite he is in the top, that just does not happen. Of course Newt and his ego rode the bubble for a few days, he declared himself the nominee(egotistical maniac) then the bubble burst and he left Iowa with no delegates and a defeated old man full of hate. In a moment of madness, claimed he would take Romney down in NH, as usual he did nothing. He is not on the ballot in VA. he is history. No one even knew Perry until he made the most ridiculous statement of the night, about sending troops back to Iraq, oops again, color him gone. This country is ready for a third party. Americans are tired of a corrupt corporate controlled two party system. Knowing Ron Paul will never get the nomination why can't he make a third party run?He would pull Dem's who don't like Obama, most Independents, Libertarians(only party on all state ballots), of course all Ron Paul Republicans, and the far right Republicans that were politically savvy enough to know a vote for a Republican would be wasted therefore if they wanted their vote counted against Obama they would have to vote third party. Go Ron Paul

 

[LoneLaugher]

Paul sure did create a following full of fucking whiners, though.

 

[JoeB131]

I love Newt, love his debating. But the fact is that it will still be Romney. It always was to be Romney. Which is fine. Romney is far more conservative than all the knownothings prattle on about. I don't want to hear about his positions running against Ted Kennedy in the mid 90's. Give me a break.

Romney is Thomas Dewey.
He's Adlai Stevenson
He's Walter Mondale
He's Bob Dole
He's John Kerry
He's John McCain.

He's the nice "safe" guy who bunts when your opponent is swinging for the bleachers.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It really was a pathetic debate. CNN sums it up nicely...

Republican Debate In New Hampshire: Worst Ever

This explains so much.

You have the inability to distinguish between CNN and Huffington Post.

 

[Sarah G]

Well the debate is over and the talking heads are all saying Romney did good, no one really attacked him. No one really made any significant gains on him. Ron Paul gave some good answers as usual but he and his supporters have to come to the realization the hierarchy of the GOP will never let him become the nominee. Look at what happened in Iowa, it was really a race between Romney and Ron Paul, the GOP knew that if they did not push a third candidate to split the vote Paul would walk away with over 60% of the vote(he would have gotten the Evangelical vote) . In a few short days someone (would you say Republican operatives) got to the Evangelicals(pastors). Santorum only had 5% and overnite he is in the top, that just does not happen. Of course Newt and his ego rode the bubble for a few days, he declared himself the nominee(egotistical maniac) then the bubble burst and he left Iowa with no delegates and a defeated old man full of hate. In a moment of madness, claimed he would take Romney down in NH, as usual he did nothing. He is not on the ballot in VA. he is history. No one even knew Perry until he made the most ridiculous statement of the night, about sending troops back to Iraq, oops again, color him gone. This country is ready for a third party. Americans are tired of a corrupt corporate controlled two party system. Knowing Ron Paul will never get the nomination why can't he make a third party run?He would pull Dem's who don't like Obama, most Independents, Libertarians(only party on all state ballots), of course all Ron Paul Republicans, and the far right Republicans that were politically savvy enough to know a vote for a Republican would be wasted therefore if they wanted their vote counted against Obama they would have to vote third party. Go Ron Paul

Santorum said he would send the troops back to Iraq. Romney kind of said he would in a dumb sort of flip flop way. Newt flat out said no he would not.

It surprised me that they would even consider that.

 

[JoeB131]

Santorum said he would send the troops back to Iraq. Romney kind of said he would in a dumb sort of flip flop way. Newt flat out said no he would not.

It surprised me that they would even consider that.

Not really. You don't see ANY circumstance where we wouldn't send troops back into Iraq?

I personally don't think it would be a good idea under most circumstances, but there are some where it would be justified- If Iran invaded or if a full out civil war broke out and hundreds of thousands were dying.

 

[cheetah440]

I love Newt, love his debating. But the fact is that it will still be Romney. It always was to be Romney. Which is fine. Romney is far more conservative than all the knownothings prattle on about. I don't want to hear about his positions running against Ted Kennedy in the mid 90's. Give me a break.

Romney is Thomas Dewey.
He's Adlai Stevenson
He's Walter Mondale
He's Bob Dole
He's John Kerry
He's John McCain.

He's the nice "safe" guy who bunts when your opponent is swinging for the bleachers.

Obama isn't Kennedy or Reagan or Clinton or Bush. Not even close. Obama is FAIL and a few petty ads about some whining layoffs 20 yrs ago aren't going to matter one bit.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama isn't Kennedy or Reagan or Clinton or Bush. Not even close. Obama is FAIL and a few petty ads about some whining layoffs 20 yrs ago aren't going to matter one bit.

Oh, quite the contrary, I think those ads will be very effective because they resonate.

In the last two recessions, we've all been there at least once. Some asshole in a suit messing with your life because he wants to stick a little more money in his pocket.

Four years ago, Huckabee called Romney on this sort of thing ("I look like the guy you work with, he looks like the guy who lays you off.") and the GOP establishment went nuts. Now both Gingrich and Santorum are going there, and getting a bit of traction. Obama will CREAM this guy with it.


As far as Obama, I think he's been an awful president, but he's an amazing politician.

He's a guy who went from being a back-bencher in the IL Legislature in 2004 to being President in 2009. Those other guys spent YEARS building their brand names. And on top of that, he's black. In a country with a racial history like ours, that's impressive.

 

[cheetah440]

Obama isn't Kennedy or Reagan or Clinton or Bush. Not even close. Obama is FAIL and a few petty ads about some whining layoffs 20 yrs ago aren't going to matter one bit.

Oh, quite the contrary, I think those ads will be very effective because they resonate.

In the last two recessions, we've all been there at least once. Some asshole in a suit messing with your life because he wants to stick a little more money in his pocket.

Four years ago, Huckabee called Romney on this sort of thing ("I look like the guy you work with, he looks like the guy who lays you off.") and the GOP establishment went nuts. Now both Gingrich and Santorum are going there, and getting a bit of traction. Obama will CREAM this guy with it.


As far as Obama, I think he's been an awful president, but he's an amazing politician.

He's a guy who went from being a back-bencher in the IL Legislature in 2004 to being President in 2009. Those other guys spent YEARS building their brand names. And on top of that, he's black. In a country with a racial history like ours, that's impressive.

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

 

[JoeB131]

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

 

[cheetah440]

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

Well it is a good point you raise. I guess I tend to dismiss the religious aspect since I'm not religious myself. I do pray quite a bit on Sunday mornings, but usually for those 4 footers.

My guess is those you speak of will hold their nose and vote for Romney over Obama. Time will tell because Romney is going to be the nominee.

 

[JoeB131]

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

Well it is a good point you raise. I guess I tend to dismiss the religious aspect since I'm not religious myself. I do pray quite a bit on Sunday mornings, but usually for those 4 footers.

My guess is those you speak of will hold their nose and vote for Romney over Obama. Time will tell because Romney is going to be the nominee.

I don't, because Evangelicals that I know really think the Mormons are heretics. The Southern Baptists are really the most opposed.

I wouldn't vote for a Mormon because I think their religion is a fraud, and something about fraud just annoys me on a personal level.

 

[Unkotare]

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

"our"? Speak for yourself, you fucking douchebag.

 

[JoeB131]

He also had a supremely failed presidency preceding him and he ran on an anti war platform against Clinton. Being black actually helped him. The country wanted to go as far from what we had and we sure did. The country will smarten up in 2012. I won't go as far as calling him an affirmative action President, but he's damn close.

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

"our"? Speak for yourself, you fucking douchebag.

Me and the 22% of Americans who say they won't vote for a Mormon...

Sorry, man, normal people just think you all are weird...

In U.S., 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012

Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967.

The new Gallup poll, conducted June 9-12, finds nearly 20% of Republicans and independents saying they would not support a Mormon for president. That is slightly lower than the 27% of Democrats saying the same.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know if they will or not.

I guess the question is our racial bias greater than our religious bias. I'm guessing it isn't.

"our"? Speak for yourself, you fucking douchebag.

Me and the 22% of Americans who say they won't vote for a Mormon...

Sorry, man, normal people just think you all are weird...

In U.S., 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012

Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967.

The new Gallup poll, conducted June 9-12, finds nearly 20% of Republicans and independents saying they would not support a Mormon for president. That is slightly lower than the 27% of Democrats saying the same.

Keep dreaming, you stupid fucking bigot. When faced with the choice of 4 more years of your hero obama, all but the most absurd fucking bigots like you will act like grown ups. And YOU will still be nothing but a worthless, OCD bigot obsessing on your petty little hatreds for the rest of your meaningless little life.