Anyone watch the Republican debate?

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
Last night MSNBC and Politico hosted another Republican debate, anyone see it?
I thought there were some pretty good jabs at each other, but nothing really new. They were clearly biased toward Mitt Romney/ Rick Perry, since each of them probably got twice the airtime of any other candidate in the debate. I think they only specifically asked about 2 questions each directly to Santorum/Cain/Bachmann/ or Paul. They asked about 10 questions about Rick Perry's book, which must have been a nice free plug. It really looked like MSNBC was more interested in choosing the next candidate to lose to Obama, than providing information on each candidate to the voter.
Oh, and Rick Perry called Obama a liar. It is nice to hear a politician use that magic "L" word that they all try to avoid while using euphemisms for "liar". If you believe that someone lied, call them on it pussies.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#2
Last night MSNBC and Politico hosted another Republican debate, anyone see it?
I thought there were some pretty good jabs at each other, but nothing really new. They were clearly biased toward Mitt Romney/ Rick Perry, since each of them probably got twice the airtime of any other candidate in the debate. I think they only specifically asked about 2 questions each directly to Santorum/Cain/Bachmann/ or Paul. They asked about 10 questions about Rick Perry's book, which must have been a nice free plug. It really looked like MSNBC was more interested in choosing the next candidate to lose to Obama, than providing information on each candidate to the voter.
Oh, and Rick Perry called Obama a liar. It is nice to hear a politician use that magic "L" word that they all try to avoid while using euphemisms for "liar". If you believe that someone lied, call them on it pussies.
I watched it and agree with most of what you said.

Perry calling him a liar was one of my highlights. It was pertaining to Obama's recent visit to El Paso when he said that the border was safer now than at any time in history. Perry said, "either he has some of the poorest intel of any president in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people."
:clap:

Based solely on THIS debate I rank them:
Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman

How I rank them in who I think has the best shot at actually winning the nomination:
Perry, Romney, Cain, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#3
Perry's a career politician, he's amazing at knowing exactly when to pull out certain tactics and how to do it all while still coming across as the good guy.

He'll make a shit president, though.
 

SOS

ONA
Wackbag Staff
Aug 14, 2000
48,123
8,888
1,038
USA
#4
did it change anyone's impressions?
 

Badfinger

I shot the sheriff
Apr 26, 2006
3,319
685
593
Philly Burbs
#5
I watched it and I was hoping to like Rick Perry but I really don't. He seems like more of the same.

My main issue this time around is who can beat Obama and I don't think any of them can right now unless republicans and independents get serious about finding a candidate who will NOT be more of the same. We're really screwed if we don't realize that it's time for a drastic change in direction.

As time goes by I'm starting to like Ron Paul more and more.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Perry's a career politician, he's amazing at knowing exactly when to pull out certain tactics and how to do it all while still coming across as the good guy.

He'll make a shit president, though.
His attack on Paul about him shifting his support away from Reagan in the 80's was a major fail though. Paul should have ended that whole retort with "Doesn't matter if it's a Republican from California or one from Texas, there's no excuse for rampant deficit spending whether it was in the 80's or just a few years ago."

Loved how Romney threw in that little jab about him "inventing" all those jobs down in Texas and compared it to Gore inventing the internet. Romney should have prefaced it with "his buddy Al Gore" for maximum effect.

Really feel bad for people like Bachmann and Santorum. They should have definitely gotten more time. I've actually warmed up to her the last few weeks. Eight people in the debate is too much. There's no way Gingrich or Token should have been anywhere near that stage.

Still don't think Perry will end up getting it over Romney though. Maybe throw a bone to the conservatives with a VP slot like they did with Palin in '08.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#7
I didn't watch because I hate them all except Paul, and there's no way Paul is going to win with the media fucking he takes on a daily basis.

No matter what happens over the next year, it's going to be 4 more years of dogshit. Whether it's from the negro, the Mormon, or the stupid Texan, it'll be 4 more years.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#8
Really feel bad for people like Bachmann and Santorum. They should have definitely gotten more time.
no need... you can sum up their views without having them speak...

no gay marriage
no abortion ever
teach religion in schools
drop the EPA and let companies pollute all the want and make money doing it


what else do you need to know about them?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#9
no need... you can sum up their views without having them speak...

no gay marriage
no abortion ever
teach religion in schools
drop the EPA and let companies pollute all the want and make money doing it


what else do you need to know about them?
Your stupidity is astounding.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#13
Your stupidity is astounding.
wait, you mean to tell me they have some other staggering new plank to their platforms? no?

look, we get it, every time someone says something you dont like and have no rebuttal to you resort to personal attacks. Its a tired act.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#14
did it change anyone's impressions?
Not drastically.

Cain impressed me more than I thought he would. He usually comes off a bit uncomfortable and a tad too reliant on his pre-rehearsed talking points. Last night he was more relaxed and focused. He spoke of specifics at just about every opportunity. I just don't know if he rally has what it takes to lead a nation.

Gingrich was very similar. When this cycle began I would've ranked Newt DEAD LAST on my list. Now he's firmly in the middle of my pack. What I'm ultimately looking for in my next POTUS aside from a plan to get the economy fixed is someone who will lead the charge in exposing the ROOT of the problem which in my opinion is Progressivism, Keynesianism, the entitlement culture, and the decay of American values and exceptionalism. Essentially what I'm looking for is someone similar to Ronald Reagan. Of these 8 candidates I think Newt best recognizes and articulates those beliefs. His problem is that for all of the claps I give him during debates he almost always winds up going on Greta or something the next day and says something that makes me want to punch him.

Santorum is very similar to Gingrich. But even though I trust him more than Newt, the realist in me recognizes that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination. I think he would make a pretty good VP or perhaps something along the lines of Secretary of the Interior or even Homeland Security. He's also got that whole Catholic, anti-gay marriage thing that is ALWAYS placed front and center whenever his name comes up that even though I personally understand and respect his position, most do not.

Romney keeps slowly getting better, but I don't trust him at all. His failure to admit that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that's doomed to failure is just dumb. He seems determined to only highlight the benefit Social Security is to so many people, but simply because it helps doesn't mean it is a good program in its current incarnation. The fact that the establishment GOP has pretty much decided that Romney is their boy is reason alone for me to be VERY wary of him.

I don't trust Perry either, but for some reason he seems like he may actually understand where the root problem with our country lies. If it's just an act then he's fucking GOOD. He's great on the Border and Texas has been one of the few states showing any signs of life for the last few years. On the other hand the whole Gardasil thing is just despicable.

Bachmann continues to fade. It's not that she's been bad, quite the contrary actually, she just seems a bit too dependant on her pre-rehearsed talking points. I agree with her the majority of the time, but somehow she just comes off kinda plastic. I think she'll remain integral in fixing things, just she'll be doing it from within Congress or perhaps in a key Cabinet role, I just don't think she's quite right for our next President.

Ron Paul is so bizarre I don't even know where to begin. Economically he's dead on, but so are others. Constitutionally he's dead on, but again so are others. When he speaks it's as if he's battling some severe A.D.D., constantly peppering in barely relevant thoughts into his responses. Focus man! I always feel like I agree with his rambling, but he's just so all over the map. Don't even get me started on his views of the threat-level and motives of radical Islam or America's negative influence on the world. There's just no way I can support him in the primary.

Huntsman seems like he could be a very good speaker, but I disagree with him on just about every policy issue. Having the endorsement (if you can really call it that) of people like Chris Matthews and Michael Moore is really not a good sign. At the end of the day I would vote for ANY of the people over Obama. Huntsman is the only one who would really make me consider going 3rd party.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#15
Loved how Romney threw in that little jab about him "inventing" all those jobs down in Texas and compared it to Gore inventing the internet. Romney should have prefaced it with "his buddy Al Gore" for maximum effect.
That was pretty funny!

no need... you can sum up their views without having them speak...

no gay marriage
not brought up, not a key issue.

no abortion ever
not brought up, not a key issue.

teach religion in schools
not brought up, not a key issue. As a matter of fact, not even a part of the any of their belief systems. At least not as you seem to understand it.

drop the EPA
Yes, but massive reform is also on the table.

and let companies pollute all the want and make money doing it
This is just retarded. NOBODY wants companies to 'get rich off of polluting'. To even suggest such a thing is extremely naive.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
Would you care to explain this?
I used to think it was all a "bit" with her. After finding out more about her I can see basically her and Ron Paul are the only two out there right now that I would say are bonafide "Tea Party" candidates. They've both been championing Tea Party principles looooong before it was fashionable to do so.

Sure some of her stuff might be a little too extreme for my tastes but I really think her heart's in the right place and she really believes what she says. That's where I think she diverges with someone like Palin. And even with her staunch conservative views she wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me voting Republican again if she was on the ticket as a VP.

She absolutely killed in the first debate and think it was totally unfair that she didn't get more air time. I realize it was Perry's first one (and that he's leading in the polls), but I think they paid way too much attention to him.

And poor Ron Paul. If he didn't favor such an unrealistic isolationist foreign policy he could be totally up there. As it is, that even eliminates him as a VP pick since the Veep has to do all that diplomatic shit when the president is unable to attend. Love to see him get a Treasury cabinet nod though.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#17
not brought up, not a key issue.
cept for violating the constitution and being a plank in their platform


not brought up, not a key issue.
cept for their views on it running contrary to the majority of americans and being a plank in their platform

not brought up, not a key issue. As a matter of fact, not even a part of the any of their belief systems. At least not as you seem to understand it.
cept for violating the constitution and it being a stated plank in their platform that they DO want to teach the religious view of how the world was created as fact in public schools.


Yes, but massive reform is also on the table.


This is just retarded. NOBODY wants companies to 'get rich off of polluting'. To even suggest such a thing is extremely naive.
well then they are both extremely naive as they seem to the think that if it only were for those derned enviromental regulations, you know, the ones that keep you from polluting, businesses would be making WAY more money.


the point here wasnt to debate their platform. The point was that Bachmann and Santorum's platform are already well known. They espouse all of the things I posted. What else is there to know about them really?
 

Badfinger

I shot the sheriff
Apr 26, 2006
3,319
685
593
Philly Burbs
#18
I can't decide if Ron Paul is a genius or just crazy.
It would be great to live in his world of peace and prosperity. I just don't know how long it would last until someone stomped on us like a bug.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#19
Cain impressed me more than I thought he would. He usually comes off a bit uncomfortable and a tad too reliant on his pre-rehearsed talking points. Last night he was more relaxed and focused. He spoke of specifics at just about every opportunity. I just don't know if he rally has what it takes to lead a nation.
Cain definitely improved over the last one but I still don't get his appeal. He worked as a lobbyist and for the Fed. He supported the bailouts. How any true conservative can overlook especially the last one baffles me. I think maybe they're being a little-color blind... :icon_cool

Gingrich was very similar. When this cycle began I would've ranked Newt DEAD LAST on my list. Now he's firmly in the middle of my pack. What I'm ultimately looking for in my next POTUS aside from a plan to get the economy fixed is someone who will lead the charge in exposing the ROOT of the problem which in my opinion is Progressivism, Keynesianism, the entitlement culture, and the decay of American values and exceptionalism. Essentially what I'm looking for is someone similar to Ronald Reagan. Of these 8 candidates I think Newt best recognizes and articulates those beliefs. His problem is that for all of the claps I give him during debates he almost always winds up going on Greta or something the next day and says something that makes me want to punch him.
Gingrich is a career politician and has way too much baggage.

Santorum is very similar to Gingrich. But even though I trust him more than Newt, the realist in me recognizes that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination. I think he would make a pretty good VP or perhaps something along the lines of Secretary of the Interior or even Homeland Security. He's also got that whole Catholic, anti-gay marriage thing that is ALWAYS placed front and center whenever his name comes up that even though I personally understand and respect his position, most do not.
I agree with most of this. Still think it's too early to count him out.

Romney keeps slowly getting better, but I don't trust him at all. His failure to admit that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that's doomed to failure is just dumb. He seems determined to only highlight the benefit Social Security is to so many people, but simply because it helps doesn't mean it is a good program in its current incarnation. The fact that the establishment GOP has pretty much decided that Romney is their boy is reason alone for me to be VERY wary of him.
He's a realist. SS is not a ponzi scheme in the sense anymore than every other investment people put their money into basically is as well. It was taking in more than it was paying out until just a couple of years ago.

And by realist I mean he realizes there's no way he's going to get any senior Republican/independent votes threatening to take SS away from them. Face it, it's here to stay, so adjust the payroll taxes accordingly and up the retirement age to reflect changing demographics. I actually appreciate that he's got the balls to stand up to the GOP establishment on things like that.

I don't trust Perry either, but for some reason he seems like he may actually understand where the root problem with our country lies. If it's just an act then he's fucking GOOD. He's great on the Border and Texas has been one of the few states showing any signs of life for the last few years. On the other hand the whole Gardasil thing is just despicable.
He's not great on the border. Hiring half a dozen more Texas Rangers doesn't seem like he's doing anything all that extra special unless there's something on his policies I'm missing out on.

His "stats" on the economy, health care, education and others are also not so impressive when you delve into it a bit more. He really lost against Romneycare on that one last night.

Bachmann continues to fade. It's not that she's been bad, quite the contrary actually, she just seems a bit too dependant on her pre-rehearsed talking points. I agree with her the majority of the time, but somehow she just comes off kinda plastic. I think she'll remain integral in fixing things, just she'll be doing it from within Congress or perhaps in a key Cabinet role, I just don't think she's quite right for our next President.
Her inexperience in these national debates showed a little last night. I think she was seething from how Perry has commanded all the attention since her great showing in Iowa. And it's kind of not her fault. When you go from sort of center-stage like the last one to an also-ran like the rest it's got to be a huge blow to her. Not to mention she didn't really get the extra time to expound on her talking points like Perry and Romney did.

Ron Paul is so bizarre I don't even know where to begin. Economically he's dead on, but so are others. Constitutionally he's dead on, but again so are others. When he speaks it's as if he's battling some severe A.D.D., constantly peppering in barely relevant thoughts into his responses. Focus man! I always feel like I agree with his rambling, but he's just so all over the map. Don't even get me started on his views of the threat-level and motives of radical Islam or America's negative influence on the world. There's just no way I can support him in the primary.
That A.D.D./Focus comment made me LOL. I already commented on his foreign policy failings.

Huntsman seems like he could be a very good speaker, but I disagree with him on just about every policy issue. Having the endorsement (if you can really call it that) of people like Chris Matthews and Michael Moore is really not a good sign. At the end of the day I would vote for ANY of the people over Obama. Huntsman is the only one who would really make me consider going 3rd party.
Still (even after last night) don't know enough about him to really like him one way or another.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#20
wait, you mean to tell me they have some other staggering new plank to their platforms? no?

look, we get it, every time someone says something you dont like and have no rebuttal to you resort to personal attacks. Its a tired act.
Look, leave me out of your bullshit.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#21
oandapartycock;4253160And poor Ron Paul. If he didn't favor such an unrealistic isolationist foreign policy he could be totally up there. As it is said:
Ron Paul is the least isolationist of any of them, he just dosen't want to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

You can't do business if your fighting
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#22
FACT CHECK: Perry, Romney twist records in debate
By CALVIN WOODWARD - Associated Press,
JIM KUHNHENN - Associated Press | AP – 8 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — When Mitt Romney and Rick Perry thumped their chests over their job-creation records as governor during the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, they left the bad parts out.

Yes, employment has grown by more than 1 million since Perry took office in Texas. But a lot of those jobs are not well paid.

True, unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent when Romney was Massachusetts governor. But the state's employment growth was among the nation's worst.

A look at some of the claims in the debate, and how they compare with the facts:

___

PERRY: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

THE FACTS: To support the claim, the Perry campaign provided federal statistics for December 2010 showing only 5.3 percent of all jobs in Texas pay the minimum wage.

But those figures represent all workers, not just the new jobs, for which data are unavailable. And that does not account for low-wage jobs that may be barely above the minimum wage. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, 51 percent of all Texas workers make less than $33,000 a year. Only 30 percent make more than $50,000 a year. Nationally, Texas ranked 34th in median household income from 2007 to 2009.

About 9.5 percent of Texas hourly workers, excluding those who are paid salaries, earn the minimum wage or less, tying Mississippi for the highest percentage in the nation.

___

ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."

THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.

___

PERRY: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."

ROMNEY: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."

PERRY: "That's not correct."

ROMNEY: "Yes, that is correct."

THE FACTS: Romney was correct.

Romney accurately stated that George W. Bush — even without his predecessor — saw jobs grow at a faster rate during his 1994-2000 years as governor than Perry has during his 11 years governing Texas. Employment grew by about 1.32 million during Bush's six years in office. Employment during Perry's years has grown about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As for Perry's claim about Romney's record and that of Dukakis, he was at least in the ballpark.

Democratic Gov. Dukakis saw Massachusetts employment grow by 500,000 jobs during his two divided terms, 1975 to 1979, and 1983 to 1991, a rate of more than 41,000 jobs a year.

Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, saw employment grow from 3.23 million to 3.29 million, growth of about 60,000 jobs, or a rate of 15,000 a year. That means Dukakis' job growth rate was nearly three times Romney's.

___

MICHELE BACHMANN: "Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, but I know it firsthand from speaking to people. We see it this summer. There are 47 percent of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36 percent of Hispanic youth."

THE FACTS: The health care law that Obama pushed and Congress passed last year has long been labeled a job killer by Republicans, who often cite a Congressional Budget Office analysis to buttress their claims. But the CBO at no point said the law would result in job losses. Instead it made the more nuanced assertion that fewer people would chose to work.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount — roughly half a percent — primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," the CBO said in an analysis. That's not job-killing, that's workers choosing not to work because of easier access to health care. The budget office said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The Minnesota congresswoman also states the percentages of unemployment among minority youth. But there is no evidence that the health care law is responsible for that level of unemployment. In fact, the health care law is still largely unimplemented, with some of its key provisions not taking effect until 2014.

___

PERRY: On global warming, "The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. ... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."

THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-perry-romney-twist-records-debate-021556685.html
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#23
THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."
That's a fact as much as it's a fact that my cock is a fire-breathing purple dragon from Cocksylvania.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#24
I can't decide if Ron Paul is a genius or just crazy.
It would be great to live in his world of peace and prosperity. I just don't know how long it would last until someone stomped on us like a bug.
This is the problem with people who misunderstand libertarian views (no offense to you, just trying to explain). Are we safer by having nearly our whole military some place besides the United States, or would we be safer if the entire military was stationed inside the United States? Most people always forget the second part about ending wars in foreign countries: all those guys come home to protect it.
And poor Ron Paul. If he didn't favor such an unrealistic isolationist foreign policy he could be totally up there. As it is, that even eliminates him as a VP pick since the Veep has to do all that diplomatic shit when the president is unable to attend. Love to see him get a Treasury cabinet nod though.
I don't see how not fighting perpetual wars for shit that we know FOR A FACT was untrue (Iraq) is so unrealistic. Paul hates when people call him isolationist. Not attacking people is not isolationism. He is all for diplomacy and free trade. He even favors talking to our enemies, which is more inclusive than most conservatives.
“Isolationism isn't what I advocate,’’ Paul told Blitzer. “I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.

Under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world, Blitzer asked the candidate.

“When Congress directed me to in the act of war,’’ Paul replied. “If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_isolationism_isnt_wha.html