[EpShot]

I apologize, I didn't watch the debate but i was curious, did anyone say they would balance the budget and then say what they would actually cut?

[Rummy00]

Originally Posted by EpShot

I apologize, I didn't watch the debate but i was curious, did anyone say they would balance the budget and then say what they would actually cut?

I didn't hear anything specific. Although I did start watching at 9 so maybe they said something earlier.

I thought Cain, Newt, and Paul did well. Romney and Bachmann didn't do well. Santorum, Huntsman, and Pawlenty should just drop out of the race.

Too bad Newt won't be elected, cause he is very smart. Paul has some good ideas but he was jumping all over the place.

[P0ontang 4 Peace]

It is a disgrace to this country that a ****wad such as Michelle Bachmann could ever seriously be considered for the highest office in this country.

[情けない]

Originally Posted by P0ontang 4 Peace

It is a disgrace to this country that a ****wad such as Michelle Bachmann could ever seriously be considered for the highest office in this country.

Newsweek cover photo got ya brainwashed, son?

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by 情けない

Newsweek cover photo got ya brainwashed, son?

Not to speak for another poster, but I agree with him, Bachman is a joke to be POTUS.

She reminds me far too much of Palin/GW in the fact that she doesn't seem to generate ANY new ideas on her own. The only vibe I got from her last night is that she is anti-Obama (leik rly, no way!) that Obamacare should be repealed, and that she won't raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

There was nothing specific in her responses, and out of all the candidates, she resorted to talking points more than anybody else. Gingritch actually stated actual positions he would take, and showed leadership ability if elected President.

I'm sorry, but once you're president, you are going to be faced with 1000 issues a day, and you need to be able to think on your feet and lead by example. So far, Bachman's main mantra seems to be "whatever Obama does, I will do the opposite." My question for her would be, "As President, there will be no more Barack Obama, so what specific policies will you initiate/enact to lead our country in a better, more prosperous direction?"

Sorry, not impressed at all with her.


On another note: I like Romney a lot as a candidate, and I'm hoping that deep down, parts of Romney from 1994 still exist. He get's a lot of flack in primaries (due to the nature of the voting bloc in these elections) about being a "flip-flopper'', but honestly his more moderate stances on social issues will make him a lot more attractive as a candidate in the general election.

His main position with governement as been that States should decide what is best for their state, and people are free to move to a new one whenever they want. Personally, I like this position much more than Santorum's position of conservative dictating from DC on how people need to live their lives.

[kjjm4]

Originally Posted by Pail Ail

Not trying to troll, so quit derailing the thread with accusations.

Anyway, to the serious posters here, how much of an influence do you think modern libertarianism will have in the public debates?

Not much. Non interventionist foreign policy, open borders, and maximum individual liberty are things that most rank-and-file Republicans find abhorrent. I'm aware that the GOP claims to support individual liberty, but the fact that Republicans created the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, and that many of them would have us living in a theocracy if they could get away with it, leads me to believe otherwise.

[情けない]

Originally Posted by kjjm4

Not much. Non interventionist foreign policy, open borders, and maximum individual liberty are things that most rank-and-file Republicans find abhorrent. I'm aware that the GOP claims to support individual liberty, but the fact that Republicans created the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, and that many of them would have us living in a theocracy if they could get away with it, leads me to believe otherwise.

And which conservative started the "war on drugs" exactly?

[licence_to_kill]

idk nixon?

[情けない]

Nixon used the term once, but supply prevention was already a policy long before that. Nixon added demand prevention methods which is exactly what the legalize it crowd claims will be the answer to the drug problem.

The "war on drugs" is pretty much existent only as a talking point for those that shill for legalizatin.

[licence_to_kill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

wow i don't see how any rational person can support this

[kjjm4]

Nixon coined the term "war on drugs" and escalated the effort to enforce drug prohibtion, then Reagan escalated things even more and established mandatory minimum sentences. I'm not saying Democrats are blameless in the failure of the War on Drugs, but the GOP has generally loved it.

[Matt.is.back2011]

Riiiiiigggghhhtttt....so about that debate last night...which had nothing to do with the war on drugs....

[licence_to_kill]

they're all a bunch of crazy loons

now back to the war on drugs...

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

they're all a bunch of crazy loons

now back to the war on drugs...

And you're a left-wing liberal california hippy. See what I did there with ad-homs?

Now back to not derailing the thread, which is against forum rules.

But in all seriousness, I think some of the candidates bring quality points up, while I believe many of them need to go.

A field with Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney would be ideal IMO.

[inkjt510]

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

Check out state view

[The Ralpst]

Originally Posted by 情けない

Newsweek cover photo got ya brainwashed, son?

Speaking as someone who lives in her district, she is a terrible candidate for the presidency. Her ideological zealotry is so pure that she often refuses to take actions that would benefit her own constituents, just because they don't mesh with her very right-wing and narrow world view. This has compunded the fact that the St. Cloud area has one of the highest poverty rates in the state (more than double the state average).

One of the only reasons she continues to get elected is because her district spans from the extremely wealthy western Minneapolis suburbs to the extremely catholic St. Cloud area, making her fundamentalist religious and low-tax positions appealing.

She does little to nothing for the non-religious or the non-wealthy in her district, and I get to see the effects of it literally every day.

[情けない]

Originally Posted by The Ralpst

Speaking as someone who lives in her district, she is a terrible candidate for the presidency. Her ideological zealotry is so pure that she often refuses to take actions that would benefit her own constituents, just because they don't mesh with her very right-wing and narrow world view. This has compunded the fact that the St. Cloud area has one of the highest poverty rates in the state (more than double the state average).

One of the only reasons she continues to get elected is because her district spans from the extremely wealthy western Minneapolis suburbs to the extremely catholic St. Cloud area, making her fundamentalist religious and low-tax positions appealing.

She does little to nothing for the non-religious or the non-wealthy in her district, and I get to see the effects of it literally every day.

So which gop candidate is it that you support?

[The Ralpst]

Originally Posted by 情けない

So which gop candidate is it that you support?

Of all the candidates, Romney. He has his own set of problems that will make his campaign difficult and he pretty much kept his head down during the debate (which was probably a good call), but I think he's the only one with a chance in the general election. His "corporations are people" gaffe probably isn't going to do much for him though given the feelings about corporations right now though, regardless of what he intended to get across in the statement.

[情けない]

So in other words your problem with her is really that you don't agree with her ideologically, and you prefer Romney because he is the furthest to the left of the field.

His corporations are people "gaffe" was in fact correct also. You may enjoy this:

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-petho...es-are-people/

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

According to his website because of CNN.

I like Cain simply because he doesn't come off as a career politician. Paul has the brains of the bunch though.

Newt is the smartest person running IMO. He completely buried Chris Wallace and Brett for attempting gotcha questions and distorting the truth by completely taking him out of context. I could give a **** he's been married 3 times and the "Drama' of why he stopped down as Speaker of the House was trivial and nonsensical. I wrote Newt off months ago thinking he would just step out of the race, but he made a valid point about Reagen's campaign quitting.

Ron Paul had the crowd, always does, in regards to our aggressive foreign policy. He killed Santorum who clearly had his facts wrong on why we have bad relations with Iran. Santorum and Bachmann both lose on that topic.

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

No I said objectionism is silly. Get it right before you get banned again for trying to derail the thread with more of your drug talk.

Oh snap

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

Not to speak for another poster, but I agree with him, Bachman is a joke to be POTUS.

She reminds me far too much of Palin/GW in the fact that she doesn't seem to generate ANY new ideas on her own. The only vibe I got from her last night is that she is anti-Obama (leik rly, no way!) that Obamacare should be repealed, and that she won't raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

There was nothing specific in her responses, and out of all the candidates, she resorted to talking points more than anybody else. Gingritch actually stated actual positions he would take, and showed leadership ability if elected President.

Agree entirely. I found it odd she stated she was submissive to her husband because a woman should always be submissive to a man. What was that? I would have to look it up further, but it seems like she did indeed state that. I do like that she is adamantly against replacing our dollar with some bull**** foreign currency or any type of NAU currency for Canada, USA ad Mexico.

Bachmann: "We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders" So basically gays are damaged people with a disorder. OK that's her take, that's fine.

Meh, she's not horrible in my book, but certainly not my first choice. I agree with you that Gingrich showed leadership, and gave very specific things that needed to be done. He was the only person who didn't spend all night making talking points and pandering to the crowd....actually Ron Paul gave specifics too I suppose. Herman Cain gave specifics and was very direct, but his inexperience hurts him. I actually gave him a lot of credit for essentially admitting he didn't know certain things, but went and learned about them. I'd rather have a guy with some gaps on foreign policy who can surround himself with good people knowing he'll lead and make smart decisions as opposed to someone who may know more and makes poor ones.

I really don't think it should harm Herman Cain. It certainly didn't matter in regards to getting Obama elected.