• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bloomberg TV GOP Debate 10/11

Gina said:
Thanks for that link. It's always good to check how factual their statements were.
Click to expand...

Bachmann either needs to hire a research team so she can know what the **** she is actually talking about, or fire the one she already has because they are not doing her any favors. I'm consistently amazed at just how blatantly false a lot of her statements are in all of these debates, and her seemingly pathological tenuous grasp/understanding of these economic issues. You'd think after awhile of spewing complete BS and getting called out for it, a Presidential candidate might bother to actually research some of these issues before running her mouth...
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
I lost major respect for Cain for lying about his views on fed audits.

He constantly dismissed the need for them on record, and when asked point blank, he claims something different entirely.
Click to expand...

The fed not being his main priority pretty much done it for me. Then endorsing Greenspan which makes me question whether he knows anything about our monetary system and how it effects the economy. Even mental midget Santorum knew it was wrong.



Put it simply, if you like living in a recession, inflation/devalued dollar, bubbles, continue growing debt, same foreign policy and status quo, Well, Rommeny, Cain, and Perry are your men.
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem

"moderate Republicans aren't the ones who could derail a Romney candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base--a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate and that wields particular influence in primary states like South Carolina and Virginia. Just as it is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don't have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some Americans do. For them it's a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes that can't be overcome by personality or charm or even shared positions on social issues. Romney's journalistic boosters either don't understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won't make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn't just another religion. It's a cult."
 
StillBallin75 said:
Bachmann either needs to hire a research team so she can know what the **** she is actually talking about, or fire the one she already has because they are not doing her any favors. I'm consistently amazed at just how blatantly false a lot of her statements are in all of these debates, and her seemingly pathological tenuous grasp/understanding of these economic issues. You'd think after awhile of spewing complete BS and getting called out for it, a Presidential candidate might bother to actually research some of these issues before running her mouth...
Click to expand...

yup - that whole 999 upside down into 666 was simply creepy ... for a moment I flashed back to the "I am not a witch" from last years Senate race in Delaware from Christine O'Donnell ... or is she?
 
haymarket said:
yup - that whole 999 upside down into 666 was simply creepy ... for a moment I flashed back to the "I am not a witch" from last years Senate race in Delaware from Christine O'Donnell ... or is she?
Click to expand...
Can you say "dog whistle?";)
 
Catawba said:
I agree, I would not rule Perry out of a comeback just yet.
Click to expand...

I'm going to gamble as say Perry's 15 minutes is over. I expect him to make some really out of bounds statements to try and get cameras on him again but I think he's toast.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Bachmann either needs to hire a research team so she can know what the **** she is actually talking about, or fire the one she already has because they are not doing her any favors. I'm consistently amazed at just how blatantly false a lot of her statements are in all of these debates, and her seemingly pathological tenuous grasp/understanding of these economic issues. You'd think after awhile of spewing complete BS and getting called out for it, a Presidential candidate might bother to actually research some of these issues before running her mouth...
Click to expand...

Bachman's team walks out on her about every eight months. I figure they realize she's batsh*t crazy after a couple of weeks, but it takes them that long to work out a career salvage plan.
 
poweRob said:
I'm going to gamble as say Perry's 15 minutes is over. I expect him to make some really out of bounds statements to try and get cameras on him again but I think he's toast.
Click to expand...

I disagree, not because I expect a sudden sprint of competence by Perry, but because there is a strong chance that Romney will just not be able to make a connection with both his parties evangelicals and the tea party wing. If Romney can't make it over that obstacle, and people finally learn that Cain really meant it when he said he doesn't know anything about politics, then it would likely fall back to Perry by default.
 
poweRob said:
I'm going to gamble as say Perry's 15 minutes is over. I expect him to make some really out of bounds statements to try and get cameras on him again but I think he's toast.
Click to expand...

stick a fork in him; he's done
the only question now is who will be romney's running mate
christie or raisin


without a viable opponent, Obama is a lock for a second term
only personal corruption or sanctioning sleaze can unseat him now
gop should now look to 2016 and figure out who to run that is possibly electable
especially against anything like an Elizabeth Warren-Russ Feingold ticket
 
Catawba said:
I disagree, not because I expect a sudden sprint of competence by Perry, but because there is a strong chance that Romney will just not be able to make a connection with both his parties evangelicals and the tea party wing. If Romney can't make it over that obstacle, and people finally learn that Cain really meant it when he said he doesn't know anything about politics, then it would likely fall back to Perry by default.
Click to expand...
Why would they go back to Perry if they think Cain doesn't have enough knowledge about politics. Perry knows less than Cain, and I don't think lack of knowledge will be Herman Cain's biggest weakness.
 
Camlon said:
Why would they go back to Perry if they think Cain doesn't have enough knowledge about politics. Perry knows less than Cain, and I don't think lack of knowledge will be Herman Cain's biggest weakness.
Click to expand...

Have you not seen this video?

 
Catawba said:
Have you not seen this video?

Click to expand...


This video was made in June. Herman Cain does not have 100 people working for him, and can not do like Mitt Romney and get someone to create a massive plan for him. His answers are completely appropriate. He needs to surround himself with the best economists, and then figure out the correct answer to these problems.

If he says, I am going to abolish this regulation that hamper innovation, and then when he conducts with the experts he figures out that the problem is somewhere else. That will hurt him in the election.

However, Rick Perry has shown he really lack information. He says that he doesn't believe the science is settled, but can not mention one scientist who agrees with him. Also, every single time he is asked a question, he just repeats something he has rehearsed. Still you think they will go back to Perry because they don't think Cain is intelligent enough. Come on!
 
Camlon said:
This video was made in June. Herman Cain does not have 100 people working for him, and can not do like Mitt Romney and get someone to create a massive plan for him. His answers are completely appropriate. He needs to surround himself with the best economists, and then figure out the correct answer to these problems.

If he says, I am going to abolish this regulation that hamper innovation, and then when he conducts with the experts he figures out that the problem is somewhere else. That will hurt him in the election.

However, Rick Perry has shown he really lack information. He says that he doesn't believe the science is settled, but can not mention one scientist who agrees with him. Also, every single time he is asked a question, he just repeats something he has rehearsed. Still you think they will go back to Perry because they don't think Cain is intelligent enough. Come on!
Click to expand...


What??? Cain has been spouting the GOP mantra for months that regulations are holding back innovation, yet when asked to name just one such regulation, he couldn't do it! And he seems to be oblivious to the fact that his 999 plan wouldn't bring in enough revenue.

There is no other popular candidate (in the minds of the majority of GOP) to fall back on but Perry, if Romney and Cain fall by the wayside.

I'll stick with my prediction, thanks,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom