|
On January 08 2012 12:38 JinDesu wrote: ABC's group discussing the debates is pretty anti-China or anti-Huntsman, or both
Huntsman is the candidate closest to the left among the main Republican contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul on social issues. Not too surprising.
|
And to end the debate an idiotic question.
|
Canada11272 Posts
What the hell kinda question is this?
(Where would you be on Saturday.)
|
|
Haha! Ron Paul is so fucking awesome.
|
|
"I'd be at the shooting range."
what the fuck is wrong with him
|
Ending responses were basically "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" with the exception of Ron Paul.
|
wait why are they saying goodnight if they are saying there is more to come???
|
On January 08 2012 12:42 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: wait why are they saying goodnight if they are saying there is more to come???
Because there isn't more to come.
|
Ron Paul because he openly opposes SOPA
|
I thought Romney was really weak on Job creation compared to the other candidates. The 'analysts' don't seem to think so at all though. His plan basically was to shuffle some tax things around and add tariffs to Chinese goods. At least that's all I got out of it.
Really wish these debate moderators had the balls to talk about the privately owned federal reserve some more though. Also, the massive bailouts.
On January 08 2012 12:52 Heff87 wrote: Ron Paul because he openly opposes SOPA
Also, I was hoping he would get a chance to talk about the recent defense bill. 1,000,000,000 cut from it, boohoo. That's terrible.... >.>
Being able to classify any citizen as a terrorist is just peachy though. That's no big deal.
|
So to summarize the debate: Ron Paul makes valid points especially about Drug Policy, Gingrich wants WWIII, Santorum hates the Gays, Arabs, etc. Romney thinks John Adams wrote the Constitution and doges a tax loophole question, Perry was just there, Huntsman had a very good performance.
|
On January 08 2012 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So to summarize the debate: Ron Paul makes valid points especially about Drug Policy, Gingrich wants WWIII, Santorum hates the Gays, Arabs, etc. Romney thinks John Adams wrote the Constitution and doges a tax loophole question, Perry was just there, Huntsman had a very good performance.
Sounds pretty agreeable to me.
This these post-show analysts are pretty silly though lol, it just seems like they're trying to sway votes one way or another
|
On January 08 2012 12:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So to summarize the debate: Ron Paul makes valid points especially about Drug Policy, Gingrich wants WWIII, Santorum hates the Gays, Arabs, etc. Romney thinks John Adams wrote the Constitution and doges a tax loophole question, Perry was just there, Huntsman had a very good performance. Sounds pretty agreeable to me. This these post-show analysts are pretty silly though lol, it just seems like they're trying to sway votes one way or another
Don't forget that Perry wants to be back in Iraq yesterday.
|
On January 08 2012 12:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So to summarize the debate: Ron Paul makes valid points especially about Drug Policy, Gingrich wants WWIII, Santorum hates the Gays, Arabs, etc. Romney thinks John Adams wrote the Constitution and doges a tax loophole question, Perry was just there, Huntsman had a very good performance. Sounds pretty agreeable to me. This these post-show analysts are pretty silly though lol, it just seems like they're trying to sway votes one way or another
Yeah wtf. These guys are pretty terrible, I'm sorry.
|
Canada11272 Posts
I think Ron Paul missed the mark with the 'what is your vision for America' question. I don't think that was the time to talk about business cycles, which people have heard before. I think it's more the time to talk about personal freedoms/ responsibilities, and curbing the debt.
Edit. That Ridge guy seemed a pretty decent guy.
|
Guardian pointed this out:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/08/new-hampshire-republican-debate-live
We're back. And it's Rick Santorum's mad notion that states have the right to ban contraception. Does Mitt Romney think that states have the right to ban contraception? "But no state wants to," complains Mitt, although he does say he thinks no state would want to ban contraception nor should they.
Eventually the moderater draws Mitt Romney into saying that he doesn't think there's a right to privacy in the constitution, as declared by Griswold v Connecticutt, which established a right to privacy.
Ron Paul is next up and he gives chapter and verse on the fourth amendment and the right to privacy.
Now Rick Santorum appears to side with Romney on the Griswold v Connecticutt question.
For those of you confused by this, it's a long story but since Roe v Wade was predicated by Griswold (I'm glossing over things here), stanch anti-abortion types such as Santorum want to see Griswold overturned as a means of undermining Roe v Wade. So this isn't about privacy or contraception, really, but abortion.
Romney's reluctance to answer that question on contraception and the right to privacy makes a lot more sense. Props to Paul for calling him out.
|
^Paul didn't really call out Romney, he just gave his opinion on the matter
|
Wow. Ron Paul womped Gingrich with his serving in Vietnam. He absolutely crushed him, it was so amazing hahaha.
Also, Rick Perry killed his campaign with his Iraq stance...I can't believe he said what he did.
|
|
|
|