Who's watching the first GOP Presidential Debate tonight?

I am. Should be interesting and make some of the GOP candidates stand out a bit more, who knows. Don't really have a lot to do on a Thursday night either way.

Not sure what other channels it's on except Fox News, but it starts at 8 CST/9 EST.

So who on OT is going to watch and what are you hoping to hear from the candidates?

There's a debate today?

First I've heard of this.

Is Hunstman going to be there?DroidPhysX

Not on this one. I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it, all I've heard is speculation. Here's a quote from a CNN article about the five candidates appearing:

" ... Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Godfathers Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson."

I'm interested in T-Paw and Johnson.

There's a debate today?

First I've heard of this.

GabuEx

You don't watch Fox News, so how could you know? :P

I plan to, even though a fair amount of the notable contenders will be absent from the debate.

Is Hunstman going to be there?DroidPhysX

Never heard of that guy, but Huntsman could be there if he's released from his ambassador role.:P

Didn't all the big names blow it off, leaving only fringe candidates attending this thing?

Nah I'll probably sit on OT instead, more intellectual debates here. Ace6301

Yeah, yeah. :roll:

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Is Hunstman going to be there?airshocker

Not on this one. I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it, all I've heard is speculation. Here's a quote from a CNN article about the five candidates appearing:

" ... Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Godfathers Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson."

I'm interested in T-Paw and Johnson.

Didn't all the big names blow it off, leaving only fringe candidates attending this thing?

Oleg_Huzwog

That wouldn't have been a wise thing to do. The entire thing is going to be on Fox News, why would they pass up the free publicity?

T-Paw is probably the only one I wouldn't call a fringe candidate.

:( Huntsman or Romney are the ones I would likely supportDroidPhysX

Well, you'll have plenty more chances to watch Romney in the future. He's the top dog right now.

I so wanted to see Gingrich square off on Trump.:lol:

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]:( Huntsman or Romney are the ones I would likely supportairshocker

Well, you'll have plenty more chances to watch Romney in the future. He's the top dog right now.

I so wanted to see Gingrich square off on Trump.:lol:

topsemag55

I would pay money to see Gingrich go toe to toe with Obama in a debate.

We're already back in election season? Jesus.fidosim

Indeed we are! And awesome signature, as always, sir.

I would pay money to see Gingrich go toe to toe with Obama in a debate.

airshocker

I would pay big bucks for that, watching Gingrich corner him.:lol::lol:

I plan to, even though a fair amount of the notable contenders will be absent from the debate.

coolbeans90

I'm hoping SOMEONE gets some huge publicity points from this thing. We need more of our candidates to stand out.

I would pay big bucks for that, watching Gingrich corner him.:lol::lol:

topsemag55

It would be pretty awesome. Even though I really, really like Newt, he has far too much baggage to be electable. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

It would be pretty awesome. Even though I really, really like Newt, he has far too much baggage to be electable. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

airshocker

Who doesn't have baggage - Obama can't even lift his anymore.:lol:

Nobody on this planet has zero baggage, except maybe Mother Teresa or Gandhi.:P

Who doesn't have baggage - Obama can't even lift his anymore.:lol:

Nobody on this planet has zero baggage, except maybe Mother Teresa or Gandhi.:P

topsemag55

Moral baggage killed Giuliani, it's going to kill Newt too. :(

I don't vote in the primary for Republicans (usually not in the general either TBH)...and Santorum...ugh.

Moral baggage killed Giuliani, it's going to kill Newt too. :(

airshocker

That depends. on the voters. His private life has little to no bearing on his ability to make executive decisions.

But if you want to get technical, then Huckabee's gone for releasing a murderer, Trump's gone due to Ivana, Huntsman's out for working with Obama, Romney's out for major flip-flopping on social issues and Romneycare - the list goes on.

May watch...

I don't vote in the primary for Republicans...and Santorum...ugh.LJS9502_basic

You can still watch it, though, if only to get a better idea where the candidates stand.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't vote in the primary for Republicans...and Santorum...ugh.airshocker

You can still watch it, though, if only to get a better idea where the candidates stand.

That depends. on the voters. His private life has little to no bearing on his ability to make executive decisions.

But if you want to get technical, then Huckabee's gone for releasing a murderer, Trump's gone due to Ivana, Huntsman's out for working with Obama, Romney's out for major flip-flopping on social issues and Romneycare - the list goes on.

topsemag55

The only other moral issue seems to be with Trump, and he's been gone from the start. By moral I mean the fact that both Giuliani and Gingrich have troubled pasts. Gingrich concerning his marriages and infidelity, and Giuliani because he was...well, quite frankly, weird.

I have no doubt Newt is probably the most experienced and qualified man to be President, and I would love to see him hold the oval office, but I think his infidelity is something he can't get past.

But when it comes to actual decision I'll have to balance one Republican against one Democrat. So I just have to wait to see who it will be. At this point I'm probably going to vote Obama...unless the Republicans can surprise me. But it doesn't look likely. Still I'll keep an open mind....LJS9502_basic

Obama + Bernanke has broken the back of our dollar - DXY has dropped from 79 to 74 on the stock exchange.

But when it comes to actual decision I'll have to balance one Republican against one Democrat. So I just have to wait to see who it will be. At this point I'm probably going to vote Obama...unless the Republicans can surprise me. But it doesn't look likely. Still I'll keep an open mind....LJS9502_basic

That's why I watch these debates, to be surprised.

So do you just dislike every possible Republican candidate, or do you just not know enough about them? I'm curious because you're fairly outspoken about Obama, like myself, and I wouldn't vote for Obama no matter what.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But when it comes to actual decision I'll have to balance one Republican against one Democrat. So I just have to wait to see who it will be. At this point I'm probably going to vote Obama...unless the Republicans can surprise me. But it doesn't look likely. Still I'll keep an open mind....airshocker

That's why I watch these debates, to be surprised.

So do you just dislike every possible Republican candidate, or do you just not know enough about them? I'm curious because you're fairly outspoken about Obama, like myself, and I wouldn't vote for Obama no matter what.

I haven't seen any particularly interesting Republican Candidate....and I have to consider the shift of balance in the legislature...LJS9502_basic

Probably won't change much. Republicans will lose a few in the house, possibly gain one or two in the senate, but I don't think they will change hands.

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

The only other moral issue seems to be with Trump, and he's been gone from the start. By moral I mean the fact that both Giuliani and Gingrich have troubled pasts. Gingrich concerning his marriages and infidelity, and Giuliani because he was...well, quite frankly, weird.

I have no doubt Newt is probably the most experienced and qualified man to be President, and I would love to see him hold the oval office, but I think his infidelity is something he can't get past.

airshocker

We all need to look in the mirror prior to voting.:P

What if that skeleton in the closet tries to get up and walk?:lol:

Gingrich will do a good job if the electorate will give him a chance.

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

coolbeans90

Me either. I think it's best to keep it at a 2-1 ratio.

Perhaps foster some more bipartisanship.

My only fear is that they will go waaay over the top when it comes to social issues to appease social conservatives.

We all need to look in the mirror prior to voting.:P

What if that skeleton in the closet tries to get up and walk?:lol:

Gingrich will do a good job if the electorate will give him a chance.

topsemag55

It might be fickle, but people want their Presidents to be of the highest moral caliber.

We're both in agreement that Newt would be an excellent president, he just needs to get past his infidelity.

My only fear is that they will go waaay over the top when it comes to social issues to appease social conservatives.

DroidPhysX

Social conservatives know they are in the minority this election. People are far more concerned about the economy than they are with social issues. I honestly see no conceivable gain by beating the drum on them.

With that said, I take everything the Republicans say to pander to social conservatives with a grain of salt, and frankly, so should democrats. We all know this election will be about the economy and jobs. Nothing more.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

My only fear is that they will go waaay over the top when it comes to social issues to appease social conservatives.

airshocker

Social conservatives know they are in the minority this election. People are far more concerned about the economy than they are with social issues. I honestly see no conceivable gain by beating the drum on them.

With that said, I take everything the Republicans say to pander to social conservatives with a grain of salt, and frankly, so should democrats. We all know this election will be about the economy and jobs. Nothing more.

Well then Mitch Daniels might be the ideal candidate. He said that we should put social issues aside and focus on the economy.

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

airshocker

Me either. I think it's best to keep it at a 2-1 ratio.

Perhaps foster some more bipartisanship.

Well, I'm more concerned that Republicans tend to get a bit too spend-happy when left unrestrained.

Well then Mitch Daniels might be the ideal candidate. He said that we should put social issues aside and focus on the economy.

DroidPhysX

I do like Mitch Daniels. I really wish he had more fundraising power, though. The GOP needs lots of money to compete with Obama's "billion dollar" campaign.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In all honesty, I am not at ease with the idea of either party possessing both of the legislatures and the presidency, given events in the past decade.

-Sun_Tzu-

The U.S. will not default on its debt. Words are words, and politicians use a lot of them.

Well, I'm more concerned that Republicans tend to get a bit too spend-happy when left unrestrained.

coolbeans90

Indeed. Which is why we need a true fiscal conservative in the oval office. Not just a blowhard.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, I'm more concerned that Republicans tend to get a bit too spend-happy when left unrestrained.

airshocker

Indeed. Which is why we need a true fiscal conservative in the oval office. Not just a blowhard.

While that's would be an ideal situation, there don't seem to be too many of those in practice, and rhetoric makes them virtually indistinguishable. (with the exception of Ron, but he's quite a bit more idealistic than pragmatic, in my opinion)