• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nationally Televised Rebublican Debate Tonight(ABC @ 9EST)

C

chris9641

Member
I don't know how many people will watch on a Saturday night, but I'm bored with nothing to do tonight so I'll probably watch some of it..

What do you guys think, does Romney have to finally go on the offensive to stave off the surge of Gingrich?
 
chris9641 said:
I don't know how many people will watch on a Saturday night, but I'm bored with nothing to do tonight so I'll probably watch some of it..

What do you guys think, does Romney have to finally go on the offensive to stave off the surge of Gingrich?
Click to expand...

Of course he does and he has.
 
Craig234 said:
Of course he does and he has.
Click to expand...

He hasn't in a debate yet.. let's see if he has the balls to go after him to his face. And unless Romey's done something else you're referring to(haven't been following too closely) I wouldn't call that sappy commercial about family values going on the offensive.
 
chris9641 said:
He hasn't in a debate yet.. let's see if he has the balls to go after him to his face. And unless Romey's done something else you're referring to(haven't been following too closely) I wouldn't call that sappy commercial about family values going on the offensive.
Click to expand...

No, he has in the campaign and he likely will in the debate.
 
Isn't there another clown car circus on another channel?

You know, one that doesn't pretend to be serious & is actually funny?
 
Craig234 said:
Current TV has a discussion about the debate after, with Al Gore included.
Click to expand...

Ill probably check that out, even knowing what the responses are most likely going to be from Al and company. I wonder if CNN will have some analysts discussing it too?
 
For what its worth, I just watched the last 100 minutes of the GOP debate.

As a partisan dem I was disgusted with the spectacle, and did not stayed tuned to the various talking heads that that followed so I could be told who won and lost.

As for me, I might have concluded that Ron Paul won, had not I already concluded that not a single GOP contender really addressed a single US domestic or foreign policy issue.

As every single GOP contender was stuck on stupid in failing to realize complex issues cannot be solved by siding with one extremist view or its polar opposite on the other extereme.
 
The Current TV discussion from the part I saw so far was pretty useful.

Every commentator though, including them, seems to be making too big a deal of the Romney 'bet for $10,000'.

It was yet another 'Romney offensive rich guy' gaffe, but not substance.

I'm giving Newt 80% odds. If so, he'll be the worst nominee since... ever?
 
Craig234 said:
I'm giving Newt 80% odds. If so, he'll be the worst nominee since... ever?
Click to expand...

Since Obama...the man with almost no leadership experience who won because of his skin color alone.

It is sad the nation still votes based on skin color instead of substance. That said, McCain was not a real good candidate either...though he was a better one than Obama.

But before Obama, there were many candidates who were far worse. Usually, a party will run a crappy candidate against someone who they already know will win, such as with Reagan's second term when the dems ran Mondale against him.
 
cybrsage said:
Since Obama...the man with almost no leadership experience who won because of his skin color alone.

It is sad the nation still votes based on skin color instead of substance. That said, McCain was not a real good candidate either...though he was a better one than Obama.

But before Obama, there were many candidates who were far worse. Usually, a party will run a crappy candidate against someone who they already know will win, such as with Reagan's second term when the dems ran Mondale against him.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but wow really... he won solely based of the fact that hes half black. It had nothing to do with the disgusting and blatant corruption of the previous administration.. just the fact that he was black. Shit for the past 200 years who would have known it only took being black to become president of the US.

No disrespect but... come on son, he was voted in because he promised to end at least some the corruption that's been plaguing this country like an infected disease. Unfortunately we were duped but it was a chance the country had to take. To say that a frail 72 year old man, whos been in the system for who knows how many years, with a bimbo for a VP would have been a better choice, I don't know what to say to that really...
 
Lemon law said:
For what its worth, I just watched the last 100 minutes of the GOP debate.

As a partisan dem I was disgusted with the spectacle, and did not stayed tuned to the various talking heads that that followed so I could be told who won and lost.

As for me, I might have concluded that Ron Paul won, had not I already concluded that not a single GOP contender really addressed a single US domestic or foreign policy issue.

As every single GOP contender was stuck on stupid in failing to realize complex issues cannot be solved by siding with one extremist view or its polar opposite on the other extreme.
Click to expand...

No secret that I support Ron Paul, but I also respect a ton of what you say Lemon Law, since you seem to actually apply logic to your thoughts.

For your last point that they are all stuck on stupid about issues not getting resolved by extremist views, I do agree with you too. Ron Paul's views are pretty extreme, and just having him as President, doesn't mean his ideas and plans will instantly come to fruition. The problem though, with these "farces we call debates" is, one can not really stand on stage and outline real details, and or all the steps they would take to try and work through the issues.

Ron Paul has often said, his plans are to ultimately do away with some parts of government, but he knows you can't just kill it on the spot, but must transition the changes over time, and has come up with ideas to do such a thing. So even if his ideas are completely radically to libertarian, all that means ultimately is, the Congress and Senate will temper what he wants to do, to make it less extreme, and he will temper what they do, to try to make the government more fiscally conservative, and hopefully help give people the semblance that their individual liberties are increasing as well.

What was telling to me, about Ron Paul, was his insistence on bringing up the Oath of Office that they all take, and how he believes so many politicians are deviating from it. And I find it hard to disagree with him there.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ron Paul won this debate, his answer about being true to your oath of office is one of the most important things and that we need people that we can trust was the best answer of the night. He's also the only one who's offered any hard plans to cut spending / government.

He comes off as the most sincere and doesn't need to hide from or explain his record like Newt Romney. Both Perry and Romney acknowledged the wisdom of Ron Paul on the last answer as well as the passion of his supporters.

Romney had that 10k bet thing that will hurt him and I thought Gingrich looked pretty weak last night, though he usually does well at these things.

I predict Gingrich will win Iowa and then close second place Ron Paul or vice versa .With Romney in third.

--

If Ron was the nominee he would easily beat Obama because of the independent vote, in all polls they show they favor him strongly over Obama.

I predict Romney would win against Obama but it would be a tough race.

I predict Newt would lose against Obama.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me? Just seems like there's been a fuckton of these Debates and I don't recall this happening in past Election cycles.
 
chris9641 said:
I don't know how many people will watch on a Saturday night, but I'm bored with nothing to do tonight so I'll probably watch some of it..

What do you guys think, does Romney have to finally go on the offensive to stave off the surge of Gingrich?
Click to expand...

Romney has been a non issue from the start, don't see that changing.
 
matt0611 said:
I thought Ron Paul won this debate, his answer about being true to your oath of office is one of the most important things and that we need people that we can trust was the best answer of the night. He's also the only one who's offered any hard plans to cut spending / government.

He comes off as the most sincere and doesn't need to hide from or explain his record like Newt Romney. Both Perry and Romney acknowledged the wisdom of Ron Paul on the last answer as well as the passion of his supporters.

Romney had that 10k bet thing that will hurt him and I thought Gingrich looked pretty weak last night, though he usually does well at these things.

I predict Gingrich will win Iowa and then close second place Ron Paul or vice versa .With Romney in third.

--

If Ron was the nominee he would easily beat Obama because of the independent vote, in all polls they show they favor him strongly over Obama.

I predict Romney would win against Obama but it would be a tough race.

I predict Newt would lose against Obama.
Click to expand...

I think you overestimate the collective intelligence of the American populace and underestimate the power the media has over the populace. To me Ron Paul is the purist conservative, by definition, running, yet I've seen many conservatives on this board who say they wouldn't vote for him. I voted for Obama(will not this time), but will vote for Paul if he somehow becomes the nominee .. he seems like the least of a corrupt sell-out out of all the candidates, and for me that's the number 1 criteria right now.
 
dmcowen674 said:
I think it is proportional to the amount of candidates.

Even with Herman Cain out there is a shitload of them.
Click to expand...

hmm, seems like more, but perhaps, for whatever reason, they are just receiving a lot more attention than in the past. Probably due to the sheer nuttiness coming from the Candidates. It is quite the spectacle.
 
The other thing somewhat remarkable, given the fact Newt is now the front runner, is that none of the other candidates in last night's really attacked Newt Gingrich in any real way.

And if you listened to the Newt version of the past 14 years, he voluntarily left Government so he could refocus on the real world, and that other than the small business he and his new wife now have, that is the only Newt source of income or activity that Newt has had in the last 14 years. And when no other candidate in the GOP debate opened up their mouth to challenge that rosy narrative, we can understand why Newt emerged from this GOP debate unscathed.

But those of us that look at Newt statements, its Newt's worst nightmare that his past 14 year records as a lobbyist up to all kinds of genuine rat fink activity, will come out for every voter to see. Even other members of the GOP are doing what they can to sink the Newt candidacy, but I suspect when the free press really gets to work, the American public will have an eyeful and earful of Newt's credibility melting melting melting away.

If the GOP really wants a lobbyist and a rat fink for Prez, why not choose a more genuine article, when a recently released from Prison Jack Abramoff is now available. Or go whole hog, and nominate Bernie Madoff. Who best defines swindler and lobbyist in a single persona.
 
The cybrsage hypothesis that, "Since Obama...the man with almost no leadership experience who won because of his skin color alone." , can be tested with various reality checks.

Because long before Obama became Prez, Clarence Thomas became the first Black to get a GOP nomination to SCOTUS. And when Clarence got confirmed by the Senate, according to cybrsage, every black voter in the nation instantly switched their voting allegiance from D to R.

Somehow recent American voting history failed to record that black vote GOP surge. Them darkies must be really stupid. They just need more convincing, A Hermain Cain Presidency will thrill them more than Obama, after all, Herman has darker skin and therefore the more genuine black article.

But wait, ole Cain has recently suspended his campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination, for some inexplicable reason, so no second time is a charm for the GOP.

But now cybrsage, now that your black vote hypothesis does not seem to hold any water, you can try to explain why, when GWB nominated Alberto Gonzales for AG, it locked up the Hispanic vote for the GOP.

Or you might find more profit in reading Aesop fables, the story about the fox and sour grapes was specifically written to describe you to a T.
 
Lemon law said:
The other thing somewhat remarkable, given the fact Newt is now the front runner, is that none of the other candidates in last night's really attacked Newt Gingrich in any real way.
Click to expand...

I will admit I didn't watch the full thing, so I probably missed some areas where Newt could have been attacked. Ron Paul was asked a question directly, and he did bring up Newt and his getting money, but Ron Paul, isn't going to aggressively attack another politician, he did stand by his positions, and so I think, you have to give him credit for what he did say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top