It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opinions on GOP debate

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
This is pretty simple just give a numerical grade for each candidate, numbers range 0 (bad) to 10 (good), then list the two candidates you thought really stood out during the debates. Tell us who your favorite candidate is so far this season and finally state (objectively) who you believe has the best chances of defeating President Obama in November 2012.

If there is anything else you would like to add please do so.

My answers:

Rick Santorum – 2
Michele Bachmann – 6
Newt Gingrich – 3
Mitt Romney – 7
Ron Paul – 7
Tim Pawlenty – 3
Herman Cain – 0

I thought Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney truly stood out among that crowd even though my favorite candidate is Ron Paul I did not believe this was a good debate of his, most likely due to the limited time for answers and from what I see so far the best candidate imo to defeat President Obama is Mitt Romney.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I didn't get to watch all of it..but from the part I did see I didn't think rpaul got many chances to speak. They always called on romney or santorum.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   


I thought the debate sucked arse mainly because the questions sucked!!!!

This is more like the everyone have fun debate

OP, you interested in Romneycare?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

OP, you interested in Romneycare?


Since it is done on the state level I do not particularly have a problem with it to be honest. Would I have ever voted for such a measure given the opportunity? No because I do not believe government should be involved in the business of health care. Would I hold such a vote against Romney? No because he has already repeated time and time again that he believes such legislation should be kept on the state level not the federal.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I didnt get to watch it lastnight but its on my DVR, so definetly tonight.
Im pretty sure my stance wont change.

RON PAUL all the mother truckin way to the white house!!
Its a rEVOLution people.

Im proud to be in the trenches,
while cowards are on the fences



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
look at this


I find it so hard to believe anything this clown of a semi woman says.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

This is pretty simple just give a numerical grade for each candidate, numbers range 0 (bad) to 10 (good), then list the two candidates you thought really stood out during the debates. Tell us who your favorite candidate is so far this season and finally state (objectively) who you believe has the best chances of defeating President Obama in November 2012.


My thoughts - and honestly I would need to watch again to possibly re-appraise as was distracted:

Rick Santorum – 3 (seemed a little less unlikable to me this time around but not too substantive)
Michele Bachmann – 6 (came off a lot better than I was expecting, and looks good - said a lot of right things although I know she's got some big warts)
Newt Gingrich – 5 (definitely came off much better than I was expecting him to)
Mitt Romney – 4 (TOO 'politician-y' and pandering. Looks good but I didn't get much from him other than attacking Obama, and pushing questions and moderator aside to go off on his own tangents annoyed the heck out of me)
Ron Paul – 7 (format definitely didn't help him out here, but I don't get a 'politician' vibe from him, and his answers are honest & direct, not pandering, and if paying attention you can tell he actually has some background understanding of most of these issues as well as their priorities and how to address them)
Tim Pawlenty – 3 (dodging the Obamneycare thing to push it back on Obama and not going after Romney bothered me, and I couldn't really appreciate his presentation - too much nervousness and usual neoconning - thankfully not QUITE as much of a huckabee vibe this time)
Herman Cain – 2 (disappointed again - the muslim thing really bothers me [religious test for oath of office, anyone?] and as usual no real answers or knowedge presented - "You gotta have a plan, advisors, blahblahblah". He looks & sounds good, but does it without really offering anything in my opinion - and we all know that the advisors are usually life-long attractions on the Hill that don't lead to any change or solutions.

It was nice AND really bothered me to hear so many people regurgitating things Ron Paul has been talking about for decades - he's definitely influenced the discussion in the right way, but the thought that such will help any of the others annoys me. How I wish he was at least a decade younger and more polished for these formats, as well as able to readily package his thoughts and topics in ways most people can readily understand.

I still feel he's the best bet to beat Obama in a general election, honestly, as can outflank from the left and the right, and his record is consistent over many years, in addition to the faith that he's faithful otherwise, with 54 years of marriage under his belt - Romney seems to adjust when is politically expedient, as well as pander and be inconsistent in word and deed (2nd amendment, abortion, and so on).

We'll have to see how things develop and how chances to win a general election stack up as we start getting closer, but I just can't bring myself to get behind anyone other than Paul at this point. I haven't heard anyone (other than Johnshon, who is effectively discounted) addressing other issues very serious to me (drug war) or consistently represent a faith most claim to hold - too many for military lunacy and aggression. Some I know about are inconsistent as discussed, too many have made bad decisions like supporting the PATRIOT act and not understanding the proper constraints on government, and some have just shown such bad judgement in their personal decisions that I can't have faith in their political ones if they make office (Gingrich).

For me, Paul offers pretty much the whole deal - with everyone else (without a lot more research pleasantly surprising me) as compared to Obama, it effectively comes down to "The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't".

I've just heard too many things from republicans in the past that went out the window as soon as they were in office and a reason was presented for them to change course to trust any of them other than Paul.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Hey so, Romney and his subversive Soviet style healthcare dictate does not bother anyone here?
I thought the problem with you know who is the fact that government was outstepping its bounds
by requiring participation in a private scheme? I have heard that at least a couple hundred times here,
but I guess big government force only refers to federal activities and not the roll of government?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I can only speak for myself when saying that my problem is mostly with federal government activities. Mind you I am not a big fan of state government becoming all-intrusive or becoming the new nanny but the reason it is tolerable (to an extent) is that it is easier for people to influence and control their state and local government than the federal government. Besides that fact each state has its own constitution stating what can and cannot be done within the state so the US Constitution applies to the federal government.

Romney passed ‘RomneyCare’ in Massachusetts, not a one-size-fits-all bill for the whole 308 million Americans. If it is a failure in Massachusetts then the chances of reform it is far greater than in Washington. Plus if people are that upset with the state government they can move somewhere else, when it is the feds getting involved where do you go without leaving the country?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Why Ron Paul is even running is beyond me. If he ever does get the nomination he will be crushed by Obama on his stance on not voting for civil rights and the racist columns in his newsletter. Those two things put together will label him a racist and whether it's true or not it will be a stygma he will not be able to get rid of.

People's perceptions of him will set once these charges are leveled at him in a national forum and he will not be able to speak his way out of it.

He's a no-go for that reason alone.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I don't agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I will say this...

His biggest problem as a political candidate is his uncontrollable urge to be honest about the issues. He is not always right, but when you watch him speak their is no doubt about his honesty and that is unique in politics.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


It is only "government overstepping it's bounds" to the party not in power. It was so during the Bush years and it is the same now.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I don't agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I will say this...

His biggest problem as a political candidate is his uncontrollable urge to be honest about the issues. He is not always right, but when you watch him speak their is no doubt about his honesty and that is unique in politics.


It's also a downfall for a President. While negotiating with other countries and foreign leaders you never want to throw all your cards on the table. Sometimes you must play poker and your skill will dictate the outcomes. By being so honest you give away your ability to bargain effectively.

Ron Paul will say this is the way it is and we won't bend. The same way he thinks that the Constitution is what it is and nothing in it is open to interpretation.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I watched the entire debate and personally, I wasn't impressed by any of them. It seemed to be, for the most part, an Obama bashing party where their primary offering was a continuous rant against the President accompanied by hollow slogan inspired remedies to our problems.

When ask specifically how to address any given problem, the only answers I heard were; "Turn it over to the states," "Lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy elite," "Privatize Social Security and turn Medicare into a voucher program" and "Eliminate the federal reserve and the EPA."

To put in plainly, what I heard was that if we eliminate taxes on the wealthy, allow corporations to pollute our environment, turn Social Security & Medicare over to the "For Profit" private sector, defer the cost and responsibility of enforcing illegal immigration off on the states, eliminate the Federal Reserve, allow outsourcing corporations to re-patriate their enormous overseas profits tax free and agree to work for wages & benefits equal to those offered in China, then and only then, we can have our jobs back.

I never heard one new idea for addressing the problems we currently face, just a bunch of the same old crap that republicans have been historically spewing out. Furthermore, I thought that many of the questions asked could have been written better by 6th graders. Who gives a crap what kind of pizza a candidate likes or whether they prefer Pepsi over Coke, what a joke!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Honestly, as it stands right now, Romney is the GOP's only hope to get enough votes in 2012. Well, unless he chooses Bachman as his running mate. Then there is no GOP hope. I suspect that Moderate America (the majority of voters) would vote for Romney if he doesn't screw up. Otherwise, they will re-elect Obama.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
look at this


I find it so hard to believe anything this clown of a semi woman says.


"Clown of a semi woman"?! Wow, way to unvalidate anything you could possibly have to say on the subject.


In any case, my opinion on the debate:
Rick Santorum – 1 As usual, what came out of his mouth lived up to his name-sake.
Michele Bachmann – 3 I have to admit, she was far from the worse debater. Though... It did scare the hell out of me when she mentioned that she was privy to all kinds of top secret information.
Newt Gingrich – 4 Another surprise. I can't stand this guy but he really sounded pretty sensible out there.
Mitt Romney – 5 If elections were based strictly on looks, he would have the Evil Dead vote. He was looking especially Ashley J Williams last night.
Ron Paul – 8 Unfortunately, he didn't get the questions that he specializes in. It seemed everytime one of those talking suits got a good question, they would purposely go over the time limit so nobody else (ahem, Ron Paul) would get to answer it. Romney and Santorum both did it.
Tim Pawlenty – 3 This dude is sooooo eternally awkward and brings nothing new to the table. I don't understand why he is as popular as he is.
Herman Cain – 1 Papa Murphy needs to shed his xenophobic baggage before anybody will take him seriously again. "Loyalty tests" are not cool. It's not a frat club.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Rick Santorum – 1
Michele Bachmann – 1
Newt Gingrich – 3
Mitt Romney – 2
Ron Paul – 6
Tim Pawlenty – 1
Herman Cain – 1

newt had a couple of good answers but way to much baggage

santorum,bachmann,pawlenty.cain status quo republicans.

paul is the only guy up there that is not business as usuall

the left and right aint been working out so well and leans to a direction that this country needs to go.


i like paul but considering the game of political chess the gop will back romney.

and the romney admin will be no different than the obama administration.

romney care and his wishy wash stance on gun control and his answer of trying to have it both ways last nite.

as all of them did save 1

ron paul.

i think paul would be good for america but does america think that.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join