New Hampshire Republican Debate

news.yahoo.com...-container

It's on CNN...live but can be watched here as well.

just have to state...it's just more of the same BS. Same rhetoric....no one gives a good straight answer and just pushes the blame to someone else. If Republicans claim they have the answer to fix the economy...why in the hell can't they even give an answer? It's just the same BS over and over again. The private sector needs to create jobs...government has to get out of the way...yada yada yada.

No details..no ideas....just rhetoric. Many of the questions are terrible....and some just plain silly...Coke or Pepsi??? American Idol or Dancing with the Stars? REALLY??? At least they were able to answer those questions....wow those were doozies!

For "average Americans" those are important issues which will influence their votes. It is sad, but true. Most people now lack the capacity to meaningfully contribute to the political/economic discussions that need to be had.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Was starting to wonder if i was the only one who watched it....was probably better off not. It was terrible. I missed McCain's...."I'll get the corruption of out Wershington my friends!"

i agree with some of the questions asked musical taste tv viewing habits.even the coke pepsi question.

the gop will back romeny which i hate

i liked paul but he needs to relax like he does on televsion interviews

newt had a couple of good answers but he will never be president.

santorum and palenty well status quo republicans.

cain was too amateurish.

bachman well 5 kids and 23 foster kids needs to stay at home and be a good mom cant imaging 28 kids in the whitehouse.


utlimately tho coke and pepsi sums up the left and right the best.

are you a coke or pepsi person? your answer is sitting in the white house.

coke is the real thing altho people forgotten what the real thing is.

pepsi the new generation and hows that hope and change worked out.


if its between obama and romney i think romney has a shot at pulling it off but romney is a rino.

and romneys administration will be no different than obamas.

which is why i want paul to win but i dont think he can pull it off.

I will post this here since I do not want to create another thread on the subject. CNN did a poll released just prior to the debates tonight. Below is the link, and someone should investigate further as there is some interesting numbers going on here that are telling about the American public.

i2.cdn.turner.com...

The poll shows of course that Romney is in the lead across the board. You want proof that the tea party was hijacked just look at this how many people from the Tea Party support Romney. Do they even know what the Tea Party is about? Anyway Ron Paul appears to be 2nd for peoples 2nd choice, since Guliani and Palin are not running. I think RP might actually have a chance this time around, if he gets enough exposure. It certainly would be a good debate between RP and Romney before actual voting time. I hope he makes it that far.

reply to post by neo96

if its between obama and romney i think romney has a shot at pulling it off but romney is a rino. and romneys administration will be no different than obamas. which is why i want paul to win but i dont think he can pull it off.

Romney dodged virtually every single question. You can't keep saying "obama failed, he's horrible" as your reply every single time. He extended the bush tax cuts and passed Romneycare. come on romney!! Romney may win the nomination....or even Gingrich really. Regardless of what conservatives think, i think he made the right move criticizing Paul Ryan's plan. He was playing to independents and the elderly. Was a smart move on his part IMO.

I'm just trying to look at this realistically. Don't think Paul can do it as you stated. Too many of his ideas are out of the mainstream, people here have to accept that. When people see that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights act, or wouldn't have taken out Bin Laden as Obama did if he had the chance, or that he's for legalizing all drugs...i'm sorry but that's way too much for people to swallow....regardless of his reasons for doing so. I will give him credit though on actually answering some questions...the others could only answer pepsi and american idol questions.

I just don't see how conservatives could have watched this debate and seen a bright future out of the 7 people on stage.

I'm watching the replay now. It's pretty funny, they can't name one thing they will change, just a lot of words.

reply to post by David9176


i agreed with newt on pauls plan newt hit it right on get the publics nodd first and then go from there

they have learned nothing from obama we dont like crap shoved down our throats.

i agree with the question evasion most of them did exception of paul and if you noticed when he was speaking

he had their respect i even saw newt agree with paul.

now pauls stand on bring home the troops didnt get looked on highly but paul was in the right and even romney steered clear of the response and tried to have it both ways.

reply to post by neo96

now pauls stand on bring home the troops didnt get looked on highly but paul was in the right and even romney steered clear of the response and tried to have it both ways.

Did you see Santorum dodge it? he damn near ducked behind the podium!! lol All 6, besides RP, would continue the wars in the middle east. Was easy to see.

One thing I can agree with on Ron Paul is his foreign policy....but again...he's up there with 6 other guys who will have no problem continuing the wars..and from a party who has had no problem spending money on them and has used that same foreign policy as part of their platform for years.

We are going to be warring for a LONG LONG TIME it looks like....doesn't matter if Obama wins or loses. It was pretty apparent after watching this debate.

reply to post by David9176




the continuation of iraq and afghanistan,pakistan for bush and obama

and obams libya and yemen and possibly syria.

seems to me doesnt really matter if its left or right anymore.

which is why i prefer paul.

reply to post by neo96

the continuation of iraq and afghanistan,pakistan for bush and obama and obams libya and yemen and possibly syria. seems to me doesnt really matter if its left or right anymore.

in terms of foreign policy, I agree. Imagine if McCain had won the election...wouldn't be any different right now...actually probably worse..lol...as he's been pushing for us to do even more out there lately.

Frickin wars.....thousands of soldiers dead, innocent people dead, trillions wasted with no end in sight.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I think RP might actually have a chance this time around, if he gets enough exposure. It certainly would be a good debate between RP and Romney before actual voting time. I hope he makes it that far.

Ron Paul can debate...but he's definitely not camera friendly...at least I don't think he is...and whether we like that or not...it's a factor.

My father is a die hard Republican. he doesn't like Ron Paul at all. He tells me that he's too whiny and looks like Gandalf from Lord of the Rings. He's called him a loon a few times as well. He actually likes Newt Gingrich of the bunch because of what he stated about Medicare and Social Security regarding Paul Ryans plan..and he was actually angry that Republicans buried him after that happened. Republicans seem to have lost the realization that they have voters who check R at the ballot box every year who are on both programs...as my father is.

I've often wondered but never checked...does Ron Paul use the same government provided health care that the rest in washington use or does he elect to buy insurance based on his principles?

I watched the debate, then the commentaries and the re-run. I got tired of the same old stuff and kinda disappointed in the line-up. Surely, there's gotta be something, err, someone better than GOP. Maybe we are looking for a second term. Prove me wrong. Some good ideas were mentioned during the debate but I've yet to see SOLID results... I really don't like the favored one presented tonight.

There won't be a real debate until there is a nominee.

I liked the way they all kept the focus on Obama's failure in the economy. Who was it, Romney?, called it the Obama Recession. This is what they need to do - keep the economy in the forefront of the election. Make it a single issue election, if necessary.

I also liked the time that they - Santorum, I think - focused on Obama's failure in developing America's energy. Romney also talked about that, iirc.

They all had some good points. I don't know if there was a clear 'winner'. Cain made some great points on the benefits of privatizing SS. But Ron Paul continues to scare me with his lax policy on immigration and his foreign policy ideas.

reply to post by David9176

Too many of his ideas are out of the mainstream, people here have to accept that. When people see that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights act, or wouldn't have taken out Bin Laden as Obama did if he had the chance, or that he's for legalizing all drugs

Argh. Just to quibble (I know doesn't do a whole lot of good here), I just wish people would understand that he DID authorize the action in Afghanistan originally to go after bin Laden, as well as introduced legislation to go after him/them likely more effectively than our resulting military action did (marque & reprisal) - he would have done something better, sooner - this misunderstanding on that drives me crazy.

Also, Paul isn't for legalizing all drugs - he's for telling the federals to keep their noses out of state business, even if all the states then choose to keep all the same (idiotic) drug policies in place.

Small distinctions, but they lead to big moves in understanding his stances that might be more palatable if not so frequently misrepresented or omitted.

reply to post by mishigas

I liked the way they all kept the focus on Obama's failure in the economy. Who was it, Romney?, called it the Obama Recession. This is what they need to do - keep the economy in the forefront of the election. Make it a single issue election, if necessary.

Good to keep the economy in focus as it's such an important issue, but to put it so heavily on Obama bothers me (Bush pt. 2 was a BIG part here) - the problems leading to where it's now at were caused by both parties over the course of decades, as well as the Fed. Ron Paul's been prescribing the needed medicine for years now (before it even imploded visibly) and been ignored until AFTER the fact - now they're all almost quoting him on how to address parts of it.

I also liked the time that they - Santorum, I think - focused on Obama's failure in developing America's energy. Romney also talked about that, iirc.

Again, did Bush or anyone prior really do anything more significant to help here? And again, Ron Paul's been offering solutions for a long time now - end federal subsidies for big energy, remove regulations that choke out start ups and innovation (let the free market work to stimulate energy solutions), and let people & companies keep more of their own money so they can afford to look into all this.

They all had some good points. I don't know if there was a clear 'winner'. Cain made some great points on the benefits of privatizing SS. But Ron Paul continues to scare me with his lax policy on immigration and his foreign policy ideas.

And again, jeez...SSI doesn't even really need to be privatized, but that's an option - Ron Paul's been pushing for cuts to foreign and other spending for some time to help keep the system solvent for those who choose to remain in it, as well as let those who want out do so. So much of what we heard last night originated with Ron Paul it's ridiculous.

I'm curious how bringing the troops home and focusing on strengthening our borders, as he discussed last night, makes Ron Paul lax on immigration. Additionally, Paul would address the root causes, and not just the effects - you subsidize anything, expect to get more of it. No anchor babies. No free treatment and welfare.

And foreign policy - I don't see anyone else having it RIGHT. Trade with everyone, have good relationships with other nations, but not interfere in their personal business and don't spread our defenders out across the globe at an expense of funds and lives we can't afford while kicking the hornet's nest. It's simply the moral option, as well as the safest - don't antagonize, and be prepared to defend & respond appropriately - not excessively and in ignorance.

reply to post by Praetorius

reply to post by mishigas

Good to keep the economy in focus as it's such an important issue, but to put it so heavily on Obama bothers me (Bush pt. 2 was a BIG part here) - the problems leading to where it's now at were caused by both parties over the course of decades, as well as the Fed. Ron Paul's been prescribing the needed medicine for years now (before it even imploded visibly) and been ignored until AFTER the fact - now they're all almost quoting him on how to address parts of it.

The Bush effect is well past. ASk yourself - are you better off than you were 3 years ago?

If Bush was so terrible, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?

The main issue that caused our current condition was, and continues to be, the collapse of the housing market. And that was the love child of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and their cronies.

Again, did Bush or anyone prior really do anything more significant to help here? And again, Ron Paul's been offering solutions for a long time now - end federal subsidies for big energy, remove regulations that choke out start ups and innovation (let the free market work to stimulate energy solutions), and let people & companies keep more of their own money so they can afford to look into all this.

Ending subsidies for big energy is sure to get the emotions pumping, but it is nothing more than a panacea, or worse yet, a placebo. The oilcos are not responsible for high gas prices; Obama is.

His other "solutions" are common sense ideas that everyone endorses - nothing original from RP here.

And again, jeez...SSI doesn't even really need to be privatized, but that's an option - Ron Paul's been pushing for cuts to foreign and other spending for some time to help keep the system solvent for those who choose to remain in it, as well as let those who want out do so. So much of what we heard last night originated with Ron Paul it's ridiculous.

Let's be honest here - the privatization of SS was promoted by Bush. And it was sold by the Dem's as a bad idea. The original plan was to make it voluntary and only applicable to a portion of your contribution; iow, you couldn't invest your entire contribution.

But guess who was the strongest opponent? The Dems. Why? They are "smarter" than us, and besides, they need your contributions to fund their slush funds.

There is over $1 trillion in US corp. money being held out of the country, to escape US taxes. We need to create the environment that would coax that money back home.

I'm curious how bringing the troops home and focusing on strengthening our borders, as he discussed last night, makes Ron Paul lax on immigration. Additionally, Paul would address the root causes, and not just the effects - you subsidize anything, expect to get more of it. No anchor babies. No free treatment and welfare.

It's his general philosophy. He is against things like E-Verify, because he doesn't think private employers should be helping to enforce the laws.

And foreign policy - I don't see anyone else having it RIGHT. Trade with everyone, have good relationships with other nations, but not interfere in their personal business and don't spread our defenders out across the globe at an expense of funds and lives we can't afford while kicking the hornet's nest. It's simply the moral option, as well as the safest - don't antagonize, and be prepared to defend & respond appropriately - not excessively and in ignorance.

It scares me - he is for isolationism. He may label it as 'non-interventionism', but he's not fooling anyone. And to be an isolationist in this day and age is suicide.

And we haven't even touched unemployment or the anemic growth rate.

reply to post by mishigas
First off, sorry for taking so long to catch back to this...

The Bush effect is well past. ASk yourself - are you better off than you were 3 years ago?
If Bush was so terrible, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?
The main issue that caused our current condition was, and continues to be, the collapse of the housing market. And that was the love child of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and their cronies.

In order of asking: No; because he offered no chance (I will by no means defend Obama, just so we're clear - just saying Bush or most others recently haven't honestly been better or offered any change); and that's a myopic understanding. You have to look at what CAUSED the housing crisis, and it was a conflux of events including bad legislation aimed at getting homes into the hands of unqualified buyers, bad monetary policy implying a demand and sustainability for a market that wasn't actually there, and risky ventures as a result of fractional reserve banking and the availability of a lender of last resort - most of this falls at the feet of the Fed, but Congress certainly didn't help.

Ending subsidies for big energy is sure to get the emotions pumping, but it is nothing more than a panacea, or worse yet, a placebo. The oilcos are not responsible for high gas prices; Obama is.

His other "solutions" are common sense ideas that everyone endorses - nothing original from RP here.

I'm not just talking about high gas prices though, and would additionally like to know how exactly you can blame Obama for them? What did he do or not do here that anyone else realistically did any better?

Regardless, as to subsidies, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. You artificially alter the market structure by affecting where people will focus their efforts, in addition to unbalancing the playing field and giving some an unfair advantage at the detriment of others.

And I'd like to know who else in government, currently running for president, has been saying such things of so little originality? Who else is in a position such as this to be able to either directly address these issues or to continue educating people on them and enacting change via the bully pulpit the presidency allows?

Let's be honest here - the privatization of SS was promoted by Bush. And it was sold by the Dem's as a bad idea. The original plan was to make it voluntary and only applicable to a portion of your contribution; iow, you couldn't invest your entire contribution.

But guess who was the strongest opponent? The Dems. Why? They are "smarter" than us, and besides, they need your contributions to fund their slush funds.

There is over $1 trillion in US corp. money being held out of the country, to escape US taxes. We need to create the environment that would coax that money back home.

I'll be the first to admit that a bad person can have good ideas, and that Bush didn't necessarily only do bad things - same with anyone (hopefully there aren't COMPLETELY rotten ones out there...). Again as to what I said about Obama, I won't defend the democrats, either. More or less ALL of Washington has been off-track for awhile now.

As far as coaxing corporations and money back into the US - well, you're starting to sound a little like Ron Paul there.

It's his general philosophy. He is against things like E-Verify, because he doesn't think private employers should be helping to enforce the laws.

From what little I've heard - not enough, admittedly - E-Verify has some warts and issues to work out. But you neglected to address any of the other points I mentioned, and attack what's effectively a strawman. You take away their driving factors for coming here, stop subsidizing it, and you will have to worry less about enforcement in the first place. I won't bother getting into an involved discussion about the possible pros or cons of the illegals as I've seen conflicting articles both one way or the other - fix the problem, secure the borders, and then deal with the after-effects - and Ron Paul has offered his solutions here.

It scares me - he is for isolationism. He may label it as 'non-interventionism', but he's not fooling anyone. And to be an isolationist in this day and age is suicide.

And we haven't even touched unemployment or the anemic growth rate.

Oh gumdrops - can you please explain to me how trading with other nations, engaging in diplomacy, and building positive relationships with them while staying OUT of meddling in their internal affairs or violating their sovereignty unless there's a clear and present danger to the US (that actually exists, unlike what we've dealt with recently...) is isolationist? Pissing everyone off and alienating ourselves is isolationist, it breeds contempt and hostility, and prompts retaliation.

It's simply common sense AND one of the founding doctrines of our nation, and is not a recipe for suicide. Continually kicking the hornet's nest, however, IS - especially when we can no longer realistically afford to do so, have porous borders, and a diluted and worn-out military.

As far as unemployment and growth rates, we've danced around the edges a bit. We have to lure the corporate jobs back. We have to stop choking small business (regulations that only big business can comply with, and can afford to ignore or buy their way out of anyway) and stop centralizing power in big business (subsidies). We have to get out of these idiotic "free trade" agreements which are anything but - Ross Perot warned us, and he was right about what would happen. We have to shrink government and let people keep more of their own money to invest in themselves and the economy. Hell, let's get rid of some government jobs and put those people to work in an honest living rebuilding out collapsing infrastructure - instead of leeching off society, they can start fixing it for us. We can also end the lunatic and unsuccessful war on drugs (or at least the war on cannabis, and simply decriminalize the rest to end the power of the cartels and treat it as the public health issue it is instead of the criminal issue it ain't) and build up a thriving hemp industry to help out farmers, alleviate our dependence on a whole host of harmful substances/products to help the environment, address hunger issues, and stimulate a whole host of decentralized jobs and production services.

What we've got isn't working, and most of it is more of the same as before. Obama certainly hasn't helped much (if at all), but you can't take the blame away from others it also lies with - Bush led us into fruitless and unnecessary wars (a policy Obama continues). Bush and his ilk pushed for the first bailouts and corporate protection while leaving the rest of us hanging (a policy Obama continues). In this argument and blame game, there really is nothing new under the sun. Obama is effectively a failed continuation of Bush-era and former doctrines.

reply to post by Praetorius

reply to post by mishigas
First off, sorry for taking so long to catch back to this...

The Bush effect is well past. ASk yourself - are you better off than you were 3 years ago?
If Bush was so terrible, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?
The main issue that caused our current condition was, and continues to be, the collapse of the housing market. And that was the love child of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and their cronies.



In order of asking: No; because he offered no chance (I will by no means defend Obama, just so we're clear - just saying Bush or most others recently haven't honestly been better or offered any change); and that's a myopic understanding. You have to look at what CAUSED the housing crisis, and it was a conflux of events including bad legislation aimed at getting homes into the hands of unqualified buyers, bad monetary policy implying a demand and sustainability for a market that wasn't actually there, and risky ventures as a result of fractional reserve banking and the availability of a lender of last resort - most of this falls at the feet of the Fed, but Congress certainly didn't help.

Please. I know what caused the bubble to expand, and to burst, and it wasn't a 'conflux' of bad luck or bad timing. We can pin the mess almost entirely on the shoulders of Barney Frank, powerful chair of several key committees, and his statement that Fannie and Freddie were in great shape, his personal goal of pushing subprime ninja and liar loans, and his enriching of his friends and lovers at the expense of the taxpayer. All the other stuff you mention were incidental.

I'm not just talking about high gas prices though, and would additionally like to know how exactly you can blame Obama for them? What did he do or not do here that anyone else realistically did any better?

In a nutshell, it is his restrictive enviro policies and promises to bankrupt energy industries that stifle our energy needs. Things like his support of cap and trade. Like drilling moratoriums. Like stopping sand oil from Canada and oil from AK because of emissions from ONE ICE BREAKER

And I'd like to know who else in government, currently running for president, has been saying such things of so little originality? Who else is in a position such as this to be able to either directly address these issues or to continue educating people on them and enacting change via the bully pulpit the presidency allows?

All the candidates?

From what little I've heard - not enough, admittedly - E-Verify has some warts and issues to work out.

So what? Work them out. But that's not even the reason RP is against it. His is a silly reason - because E-Verify would require employers to run all prospective employees through the check, is his reason. He doesn't think employers should be "in the law enforcement business".

He's also for amnesty. His NumbersUSA grade is F, surpassed only by Obama's F-. And NumbersUSA is non-partisan.

Oh gumdrops - can you please explain to me how trading with other nations, engaging in diplomacy, and building positive relationships with them while staying OUT of meddling in their internal affairs or violating their sovereignty unless there's a clear and present danger to the US (that actually exists, unlike what we've dealt with recently...) is isolationist?

You say that like RP is the original and sole proponent of those points. They are just platitudes. Everyone is for mom, apple pie, and the USA.

That's all I'm gonna address from your post; the other stuff is universal and has nothing to do with the candidates.