The 2012 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate

[hippie_hunter]

Lulz DVR. But we both know it's the same ****, different day.

I'm not DVRing a GOP debate

I save that for the good **** like Pawn Stars

 

[enterthemadness]

I'm not DVRing a GOP debate

I save that for the good **** like Pawn Stars

Pawn Stars is shockingly good. I watch it sometimes with my Dad.

 

[8wid]

Ron Paul Highlights in 01/07/2012 Debate

 

[Matt]

I had my doubts about David Gregory taking over for Tim Russert. I thought he was too young and needed to cut his teeth a bit more. But the more I see him, the more I like that youthful edge that he brings. He has an aggression that Russert lacked (not to take anything away from Russert, the man was a legend). Gregory doesn't let people off the hook. Hell, look at his first question of this debate, "Speaker Gingrich, why shouldn't Governor Romney be the nominee?" He gets right into it. No softballs.

He also pushed Santorum, when Santorum said Romney is not a leader he asked him why he used that exact work do describe Romney in 2008.

Holy ****....people are taking the gloves off and going after Romney! Romney is doing decently. And I'm pretty sure he called for Congressional term limits in passing. If only....

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The idea of congressional term limits fascinates me. I wonder how much it would change the way DC works, if at all.

 

[Matt]

I think quite a bit.

At any rate, Huntsman is the only one of these guys who comes off as genuine to me. Well, him and Paul but Paul is crazy. Huntsman's response to Romney, "That is the attitude that has divided America," brilliant. Unfortunately, it is also the attitude that most people have bought into and has made him unelectable.

 

[enterthemadness]

I hate to say this, but this is on the DVR...gotta watch In the name of the king 2...with dat Dolph...yeah, judge away Matt

I did see debate from 10:02-10:15 though. Attack him now attack him in SC.

And shut up Perry..Paul ain't a insider.

 

[Matt]

Yes he is. You don't spend 20 years in the United States Congress unless you're an insider.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yes he is. You don't spend 20 years in the United States Congress unless you're an insider.

....let me get this clear...is Paul corrupt because he's a insider? Paul doesn't come off corrupt to me.

Then again I think Uwe Boll is a good visually director whose weakness is getting the best out of actors and he has bad taste in scripts.

 

[Matt]

I never said that he was corrupt. Being an insider doesn't automatically make you corrupt. But you don't spend 20 years in Washington without being an insider.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I never said that he was corrupt. Being an insider doesn't automatically make you corrupt. But you don't spend 20 years in Washington without being an insider.

I disagree. He gets voted on by a small district in Texas. Rick Perry is being bankrolled by a bunch of millionaire (billionaire?) GOP elites. Paul gets his money from small donations on the Internet. He isn't an insider. Perry is a lot closer to being one than Paul is.

 

[Prison Mike]

It's such a shame that Huntsman won't become the nominee. He was the only one that seemed reasonable in last night and this morning's debate.

 

[Kelly]

Long story short, Paul has his 10% to 15% of "loud voters" just like he is a "loud representative" that doesn't really have that much power, but is loud. He doesn't need money because that 10% to 15% follows him from state to state on the ground because they have nothing else to do. They vote in straw polls, they are like that demographic of 13 to 15 year olds that vote and put Taylor Swift at the top of every damn poll out there....they have time to walk the streets, go door to door, and volunteer......so he doesn't really need the money. The problem for Paul is that HE has to be the "barking dog" against the other candidates. He doesn't have SuperPACS to do it for him. So he ends up looking like a jerk. Now, back to Paul being an insider? He is an insider (simply because of time inside the beltway) that is loud but only has a 6 inch knife instead of a 3 foot sword. He can still do some damage to whomever the GOP candidate is, but in the end will go off into the sunset "an angry sounding old man". Much like Perot. If he runs as a 3rd party, if his followers that WANT OBAMA OUT do not get smart in time and either "don't vote" or "give an angry vote to Obama" they will also go into the sunset as a group of "angry young people, who didn't get their way" and they will have 4 more years of a Chicago style politician that goes against EVERYTHING they believe in.....and they will have less influence than they do now.

That 10% to 15% of voters will drop to around 7% when it comes to their vote for President, BUT.....that will be enough to give Obama 4 more years.

So, the GOP has to give this 10% to 15% their due time, their due voice, and realize that they are not going away, so they had better show some respect. Romney needs to begin talking to Paul asking him advice on fiscal issues, showing him respect in the debates on fiscal issues (which he did last night)....and even promise him a large role in his adminsistration in the area of fiscal policy. MUCH the same way that Obama did with Clinton in the area of "foreign policy"......REMEMBER THE PHONE CALL AT 3 a.m. commercial? THAT is how Obama brought votes over from Clinton to his house. Romney needs to begin to do the same.

Sorry if what I've said makes Paulites mad, but that is how I see them. I will back Paul all the way as far as his fiscal policy, but his foreign policy is scary as hell.....and since as President that is where he has the bigger sword as President.....no way in hell will he get my vote, and anyone that thinks that foreign policy is ok? Is not even drinking kool aid, they are drinking 99 proof.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Ron Paul followers will never like Romney. To them he's just a slimy neo-conservative.

The Republicans are facing the defection of the Libertarians if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul or Hunstman. It's unavoidable.

I see the libertarians taking third party politics very seriously once they realize they can't overpower the neocon agenda and religious right within the Republican Party.

 

[Kelly]

Depends if the Libertarian is more fiscal or social in their policy demands....if they are more fiscal....they will vote for anyone other than Obama. If they are more social in their policy demands they will eithr not vote, or vote for Obama. If that is the case, then it will probably give maybe 3% to Obama.....If Paul runs as a 3rd party, that % will go up maybe even to 9% or 10%.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ron Paul followers will never like Romney. To them he's just a slimy neo-conservative.

The Republicans are facing the defection of the Libertarians if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul or Hunstman. It's unavoidable.

I see the libertarians taking third party politics very seriously once they realize they can't overpower the neocon agenda and religious right within the Republican Party.

And if they nominate Paul or Huntsman they will lose the religious right.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The religious right will stick with the GOP regardless of who the nominee is.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The religious right will stick with the GOP regardless of who the nominee is.

Doubtful. Paul or Huntsman are unacceptable to many of them. The GOP is just asking for a third party challenger if that happens.

Not that it matters. Paul & Huntsman have no chance at being the nominee so there isn't much point in continuing this argument.

 

[Kelly]

Doubtful. Paul or Huntsman are unacceptable to many of them. The GOP is just asking for a third party challenger if that happens.

Not that it matters. Paul & Huntsman have no chance at being the nominee so there isn't much point in continuing this argument.

Why are they unacceptable? or so unacceptable that it would sway them to another, knowing that not voting for the GOP candidate they have would bring back Obama....?

And who would be the 3rd party candidate for the "religious right"?

 

[SV Fan]

Not that it matters. Paul & Huntsman have no chance at being the nominee so there isn't much point in continuing this argument.

I do think with the right backing if the Republicans wanted to get Obama out, Hunstman would be there best chance. He isn't much different then Mitt other then he doesn't come off robotic and doesn't have a history of flip flopping. Huntsman has a great record as a governor and I think he is very appealing to independent voters

 

[Kelly]

He is extremely appealing to independent voters.....his main problem is that he has a tie to Obama, much like Romney has, but he doesn't have the name recognition Romney has....

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Depends if the Libertarian is more fiscal or social in their policy demands....if they are more fiscal....they will vote for anyone other than Obama. If they are more social in their policy demands they will eithr not vote, or vote for Obama. If that is the case, then it will probably give maybe 3% to Obama.....If Paul runs as a 3rd party, that % will go up maybe even to 9% or 10%.

I think social policy is what really divides the tea party from the libertarians and libertarians take social policy very seriously because it includes civil liberties.

What's the point of having tax breaks if you lose your personal rights and freedoms based on the War on Terror or "family values".

Libertarians have a choice to make because the neo-con establishment have an iron grip on the Republican Party.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Why are they unacceptable? or so unacceptable that it would sway them to another, knowing that not voting for the GOP candidate they have would bring back Obama....?

And who would be the 3rd party candidate for the "religious right"?

Huntsman's stance on science and education runs completely opposite the religious right. It is possible that they might put up with him if they hate Obama enough, and they do hate Obama. I may have overreacted with him.

With Paul though, I stand by my statement. They would never accept Paul. The idea of abandoning Israel and doing nothing about Iran and Islam would not be tolerated at all. I don't know who they would run, but it would certainly be somebody.

 

[SV Fan]

With Paul though, I stand by my statement. They would never accept Paul. The idea of abandoning Israel and doing nothing about Iran and Islam would not be tolerated at all. I don't know who they would run, but it would certainly be somebody.

Don't underestimate the power of the all important John "The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews" Hagee vote right. lol

[YT]mhJjl4bHQco[/YT]

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A divided Republican Party will only help Obama and so far no Republican candidate has been able to unify the Tea Party, religious right, neo cons and Libertarians.