Debate streaming link

[LoneLaugher]

Huh...is right. Did u mean Newt at the end of that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Santorum gonna tell you that gay people hurt the economy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Santorum was right there. Fix the family and you will go far to fixing the economy.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

 

[Jackson]

Gingrich is too smart for the base. And he's too dishonest for the moderates. He goes nowhere.

Why do you say he's too dishonest?

 

[Avatar4321]

I am really tired of Bachmann mentioning her children. yes your a mother. Yes they are important. Not tell us what you are going to do!

 

[Avatar4321]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

A debate thats is based solely on economics.

 

[Foxfyre]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

They announced at the beginning that they would be focusing on the economy and subjects related to that. And I think they're all doing a pretty good job. I still have my favorites, I still haven't picked my candidate, but I am comfortable that any one of those guys (and our gal) would be competent as POTUS. I want more than competent though; I want visionary. And right now there's only two or three that are showing me that.

 

[CT9]

Damn I cant stand everyone starting off with the son of...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gingrich is too smart for the base. And he's too dishonest for the moderates. He goes nowhere.

Why do you say he's too dishonest?

Because he knows that the issues are very nuanced....and that without cooperation in Congress ( which was afforded him when he was Speaker ) nothing will get done. But.....his rhetoric denies those truths. Intelligent people see right through it.

 

[Avatar4321]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

They announced at the beginning that they would be focusing on the economy and subjects related to that. And I think they're all doing a pretty good job. I still have my favorites, I still haven't picked my candidate, but I am comfortable that any one of those guys (and our gal) would be competent as POTUS. I want more than competent though; I want visionary. And right now there's only two or three that are showing me that.

Id like to hear your opinion on who those two or three are.

 

[Avorysuds]

Damn I cant stand everyone starting off with the son of...

lol yup!

I'm just like you! err, was!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

They announced at the beginning that they would be focusing on the economy and subjects related to that. And I think they're all doing a pretty good job. I still have my favorites, I still haven't picked my candidate, but I am comfortable that any one of those guys (and our gal) would be competent as POTUS. I want more than competent though; I want visionary. And right now there's only two or three that are showing me that.

Ahh, I didnt hear that part. Thanks for the info you two

 

[Avatar4321]

What kind of debate concludes without a discussion about foriegn affairs? Is this amatuer hour? Who are these moderators?

They announced at the beginning that they would be focusing on the economy and subjects related to that. And I think they're all doing a pretty good job. I still have my favorites, I still haven't picked my candidate, but I am comfortable that any one of those guys (and our gal) would be competent as POTUS. I want more than competent though; I want visionary. And right now there's only two or three that are showing me that.

Ahh, I didnt hear that part. Thanks for the info you two

They did touch a bit on economic foreign policy with the talk of China and the European financial mess.

 

[Jackson]

Gingrich is too smart for the base. And he's too dishonest for the moderates. He goes nowhere.

Why do you say he's too dishonest?

Because he knows that the issues are very nuanced....and that without cooperation in Congress ( which was afforded him when he was Speaker ) nothing will get done. But.....his rhetoric denies those truths. Intelligent people see right through it.

But he was the author of the first Contract with America and worked with Clinton during his time of "triangulation" and Clinton went to the center. Gingrich was the successful tool for Clinton to reach across the aisle and get many ideas across and have a successful administration.

Gingrich is the only candidate that will successfully be able to reach across the aisle. That is why I feel if he is not the nominee, he will be the VP candidate.

 

[CT9]

I agree with all of the things said about Newt in this thread, however...

I think him and Romney has the potential to be another great let down...

 

[Avorysuds]

Well I still like Paul but I really like Newt. I'm glad Cain is getting attention it's to bad he can;t say anything else than 9 9 9 because I think people really wanted to hear something different. The Fed thing might really hurt him as well.

 

[AquaAthena]

Santorum, although I like most of his positions just comes across too angry.

He does have sensible and knowledgeable answers but I just can't like him. There is something tense and un-animated about him that I don't connect with. When the topic is the economy, I wish he would stay there, rather than go to the "family values" thing, which we all know is a problem but not in the time frame of tonight's type of venue. He's out, Perry's out, Paul's out and Huntsman is out, imo. Probably Bachmann too, even though I like her very much and she is a former federal tax lawyer and knows from whence she speaks on that issue. I like her, but she hasn't a chance for the nomination.

That Cain for POTUS and Gingrich/VP ticket, a poster mentioned earlier today, is still the one of my dreams...but I bet Romney takes it. He is good and purple( for the independents ) and has the money, and the country has gone too far to the left to swing radically to the right.... maybe in `16.

I congratulate them all, for even wanting to take on the job, and feel any would be better than a Marxist president, who doesn't share the traditional values of a center-right America.

 

[Toro]

Michelle......blank checks don't have an amount.

Lol

 

[LoneLaugher]

Santorum, although I like most of his positions just comes across too angry.

He does have sensible and knowledgeable answers but I just can't like him. There is something tense and un-animated about him that I don't connect with. When the topic is the economy, I wish he would stay there, rather than go to the "family values" thing, which we all know is a problem but not in the time frame of tonight's type of venue. He's out, Perry's out, Paul's out and Huntsman is out, imo. Probably Bachmann too, even though I like her very much and she is a former federal tax lawyer and knows from whence she speaks on that issue. I like her, but she hasn't a chance for the nomination.

That Cain for POTUS and Gingrich/VP ticket, a poster mentioned earlier today, is still the one of my dreams...but I bet Romney takes it. He is good and purple( for the independents ) and has the money, and the country has gone too far to the left to swing radically to the right.... maybe in `16.

I congratulate them all, for even wanting to take on the job, and feel any would be better than a Marxist president, who doesn't share the traditional values of a center-right America.

How in the hell did a center right America elect a marxist? It's a mystery.