Republican Tea Party Debate- Sept 12

[Perpetual Change]

So, did anyone actually watch this?

I did, and it made me pretty sad. Mostly the audience made me sad, proving once again that standards of human decency haven't really developed much since the days of the Circus Maximus.

Anyway, thoughts on each of the candidates:

Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.

Mitt Romney: Kinda the Mitt we all know. He's less of a grand-stander than he was 4 years ago, which is good, but he's still seriously lacking in some areas. I wish he would adopt a position on foreign policy more akin to Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul.

Newt Gingritch: Seemed decent some of the time, but he seemed to just be going on and on without saying anything. Surprised he's still in the race. Anyone who knows him  knows he can't win.

Jon Huntsman: I kinda wanted to like him, but he was just so damn smug and sarcastic that I wound up really not being able to get on board with what he was saying. Then again, maybe the debate needed some more of that.

Herman Cain: Seemed like a decent guy. Not presidential material. Every time he says he wants to make politics "simpler" I can't help but think it's because he himself doesn't really understand what he's talking about.

Rick Perry: Liked him more than I thought he would. His policies toward immigration were moderate, which was cool. And he was getting ganged up on alot, which I guess made him more sympathetic.

Ron Paul: Performed badly, again. I like the guy, but I think he's past his peak. He's really having trouble delivering his message with the same clarity and conviction that he had 4 years ago.

Rick Santorum: Completely forgettable. Who is he, again?

God save us all if Michelle Bachman wins the primary.

For those who haven't seen it:
part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu0HTlxWjHI
part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-UTG6UUno&feature=related

[MasterShakezula]

I didn't watch it, but I will share my thoughts on (some) those people:

Michelle Bachman: Is an idiot, and probably an extremist.

Mitt Romney: Sounds alright.  If he doesn't win the primary, something's seriously wrong with their voting base.

Newt Gingritch: Has been irrelevant for some time.

Herman Cain: Is still running?

Rick Perry: Don't agree with his ideas, but I find him easier to take seriously than Bachman

Ron Paul: Will not win.

Rick Santorum: Was a sexist and homophobic Repub Sen. who hasn't even held office for a few years, now.  Visit this link for more info: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rick%20Santorum

[William Wallace]

Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.

Idiot. It blows my mind that these people make it to the national stage.

EDIT:
By the way, it sucks that Blitzer didn't give Ron Paul a chance to answer the question about the federal reserve. The man brought the issue into mainstream politics and they sideline him.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, I found that so bizarre. Issues that Ron Paul brought to the table 4 years ago, like "should we leave Afgahnistan?" "How much are your dollar do you get to keep?" were given to other candidates while Ron Paul got to answer questions about whether the government should cut off someone's life-support system.

[William Wallace]

Yeah, I found that so bizarre. Issues that Ron Paul brought to the table 4 years ago, like "should we leave Afgahnistan?" "How much are your dollar do you get to keep?" were given to other candidates while Ron Paul got to answer questions about whether the government should cut off someone's life-support system.

Yeah, people treat him like he's the host of "Ask a libertarian" instead of giving him an opportunity to fairly participate in the debate.

[livehard]

What I noticed from this and the democrats is that nobody really runs on a coherent moreal philosophy except for maybe Ron Paul.  I want a president that has 2 or three core beliefs concerning ethics, moralism, etc... and then derives his political beliefs from these truths.

All I see is a bunch of beurocrats whose actions constantly contradict what they have said/done in the past and what they prupose to do in the fuutre.

[El Barto]

Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.

To be fair, I don't think her issue is the vaccination itself, but that he issued an executive order requiring them despite the opposition from Congress.  Almost certainly because he's very tight with Merk, and one of his staffers was a lobbyist for them.  I suspect Perry would be of the mindset that HPV is a great thing for keeping girls chaste, but he appears to have sold that out.  Congress nixed his executive order, by the way.

[jsem]

Michelle Bachman: How can she even be on the national stage? She did point the gun @ Rick Perry though, which is good. Executive order for the vaccine is anti-freedom - even though I totally normally see the reason for forced vaccination.

Mitt Romney: The establishment candidate, but Romneycare is going to continue to bug him.

Newt Gingritch: He knows he can't win, he just wants to bring attention to himself again after being semi-absent from the political scene for a little while. No one would ever vote for him, and I can't believe he's being put on the stage instead of Thaddeus McCotter or Gary Johnson.

Jon Huntsman: LolHuntsman. I like the guy, but he never really gets to the core of what he wants to do to fix anything. At least he's a bit less authoritarian than the other candidates, and he said in a previous debate that troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Herman Cain: Has good fiscal policy imo, want to hear more from him on monetary policy - which is the obvious area where he has no clue. Also, I'm suspicious of his possible foreign policy and as he has no experience in public service he wouldn't be the best candidate. He's better than at least half the bunch though, but won't win.

Rick Perry: Backpedaled on Social Security, just like Mitt did not too long ago. Plus his death penalty crap last debate was absolutely horrific. He's in the top tier though, but I don't know why he should be. He's fairly establishment otherwise though.

Ron Paul: Performed badly, unfortunately. He's not as sharp as he was two debates ago or whatever it was. Plus, he didn't get to answer some of the questions where his views differed the most from the other candidates. And he should've gotten the question of how much one should get out of an earned dollar. I hope he does win though, at least he has brought libertarianism and Austrian school to the forefront and mainstream discussion again.

Rick Santorum: Idiot neo-con. He is a tool of the military industrial complex, and corporations. Really, bringing the corporate tax rate down to 0% is going to create MANUFACTURING JOBS IN AMERICA AGAIN? America is a post-industrial nation, manufacturing jobs aren't going to come back. He won't win but he might get the vice-presidential role... which is scary.


I watched the crap the day after it aired, I was very dissapointed in many ways.

Also, Gary Johnson and Thaddeus McCotter should be included in the debates. Kick out Newt Gingrich, he's not going to win anyway.

[Sigz]

Yeah, I've actually been really surprised at how inarticulately Paul's been conveying his points recently.

[Scheavo]

I think the Daily Show did a great job covering the horrendous way this debate was presented / performed by CNN. It was fucking horrible, and it is very telling a bout the actual political debate going on in this country. It was all theatrics, no substance, and more of a show for the the voters than a debate for them to be informed.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and many to come.

[jsem]

I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and NY to come.

Ron Paul completely owning on foreign policy two debates ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4

[Scheavo]

I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and many to come.

This one seemed over the top to me, to the intro, to the way they introduced the candidates, to the stage set up.

[soundgarden]

Its still mind boggling that the RNC don't realize they are doing the whole Palin thing again with Bachman.  The "America-f*** yea!" attitude will not work in the upcoming century.  Of anyone up there,

I have most respect for Ron Paul.  I disagree with more than half the things he says; but my lord what a breath of fresh air to have a politician with such fortitude.

I would love to see Huntsman get more attention; even not as president maybe a major influence in RNC.  His world experience and ambassadorship will be crucial (particularly with our growing economic foe, China, of whose' culture and language hes fluent with).

I enjoy that Perry has a more moderate stance on Immigration; rather than just parading out "fences" and "they took our jobs."  It shows critical understanding of the topic.  Though I find his religious ties to the far right unsettling (though then again that may be just a political ploy to win favors)

That said, i find Romney the most favorable.  So much so that if he runs up against Obama next year I will be voting for him (first time voting republican!)

I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and NY to come.

Ron Paul completely owning on foreign policy two debates ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4

 

[rumborak]

I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4

That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.

I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".

rumborak

[Chino]

This is enough of a reason for me to believe Perry would be useless.

"Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of more than 20,000 Christians Saturday, asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized."

I know that was weeks ago, but still. I know I'm not religious to begin with, but this is just too much. Granted America is not doing great, but to ask God to get us out of this mess while Japan is still leveled and Lybia is nothing but chaos, is just selfish and delusional to me.

[Perpetual Change]

Rick Perry is really like the Stannis Baratheon of the Republican Party. I wonder if anyone will get that.

[GuineaPig]

Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy. 

[El Barto]

This is enough of a reason for me to believe Perry would be useless.

"Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of more than 20,000 Christians Saturday, asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized."

That was another example of the mindset I referred to in the execution thread.  He really just doesn't give a damn about anything except is only opinion of how things should be.

[Genowyn]

Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy.

So W was Aerys, incapable and a little off balance. Obama would be Robert: didn't do much of anything

[pogoowner]

I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4

That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.

I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".

rumborak

He would make every effort to end the nonsense we have going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least.

[William Wallace]

I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4

That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.

I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".

rumborak

What's wrong with trade? Anyway, I think you're wrong. Paul has one of the more developed foreign policy of any of the candidates.

[rumborak]

There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.

rumborak

[Ryzee]

Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy.

So W was Aerys, incapable and a little off balance. Obama would be Robert: didn't do much of anything

So does this mean we're waiting for Jenna Bush to come flying in on a dragon to save us from the chaos?  And I guess Sarah Palin represents the Others, being a scary creature from the frozen North that most people don't take seriously?

[William Wallace]

There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.

rumborak

Assuming that you're right, his foreign policy is essentially "let's trade stuff," That would be above and beyond anything we've had in many years - blowing shit up and pissing people off. But what would you like to see him add to his foreign policy?

[Scheavo]

There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.

rumborak

Assuming that you're right, his foreign policy is essentially "let's trade stuff," That would be above and beyond anything we've had in many years - blowing shit up and pissing people off. But what would you like to see him add to his foreign policy?

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul mentioned how he might consider putting someone like Kuccinish in his cabinet, and how you'd need a "Deparmtnet of Peace."

[Dellers]

Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.

[Super Dude]

Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.

Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.

[Perpetual Change]

Man Bachman's eyes are spooky.

[rumborak]

I find most American female politicians are creepy as fuck. They're all these botox monsters.

rumborak

[kirbywelch92]

Anyone feel like these shouldn't be public events? Broadcast them all you want, but the audience is just a distraction. Rather than let the words they say actually take measure, it's just one big race to see who can get the most claps.

[rumborak]

What's needed in those debates is a much harsher refereeing. You're not answering the question or start rattling off standard phrases? Cut off the microphone, and you forfeit your next response.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I agree with the two previous posts.  I can't believe Bachmann's grievous misquote of Jefferson.

[William Wallace]

Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.

Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.

I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.

[Super Dude]

I derive that conclusion more from the fact that the only place they deviate from Republican policy is by taking it to the most ridiculous extreme possible, as we saw in the deficit raise deal.