Who do you think won the GOP debate?

Ok for the first time I watched the GOP debate and found it to be interesting. One thing that I found very interesting is that Michele Bachmann was asked very few questions throughout the debate so that makes me wonder if anybody really takes her seriously. I was also interested in Herman Cain. He some decent answers to the questions that were asked of him and he had an overall decent presence at the debate. To me the three top "winners" of the debate were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain.

So for those who watched who do you think won the debate and who do you think will be part of the primary election?

I do have a question for my own benefit because I am not affiliated with any party and US politics still confuse me. How many candidates can be on the primary ballot?

Obama is the winner if those bozo's don't debate any better than they have!

That is another question I have. Does the current president have to run for re-election? What if the current presidents party did not want him to run for re-election what would happen?

That is another question I have. Does the current president have to run for re-election? What if the current presidents party did not want him to run for re-election what would happen? Originally Posted by Miss_Mya

He can run if he chooses to, and if his party chooses to withdraw support that's political suicide for that party in the overall election results as well as an attempted death sentence on his presidential campaign.

But to answer the premise of the thread... when Republicans speak publicly and debate, nobody wins.

I honestly did not watch it but read from various sources that Perry did bad- is that true from anyone who watched it?

Not that I am into politics that much I did not like Perry or what he had to say and he seem to do a lot of back peddling from his book. I would say that the general consensus is that Perry did do a bad job but I am surprised that (according to some polls) he came in third in the debate. To me Herman Cain did a much better job and should have come in third. Of course I am no expert in politics or the candidates and watched the debate just to see what it was all about.

Oh and thanks Tellsoftly for answering my question. I am having to do a lot of studying for my citizenship test coming up so I have a lot of information to take in. Thanks again.

Ah. Well, I've taken a heck of a lot of civics, politics, and international relations courses, so anything you want to know just drop me a line.

Oh, and as to the primary ballot... if I recall correctly there is no upper limit on the number who may run, but as a practical matter only so many are taken seriously. Also primary rules vary a great deal state to state, some are open, some involve run offs some are closed, it gets kind of funny.

Perry blew it. Bachman is falling back badly as expected. Romney probably fared best from a political perspective because he hurt perry but did not get hurt in return. Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Cain kept themselves in the running. Hopefully Gingrich and Ron Paul will pass Perry and give Romney a strong challenge.

Mya, in order to counter the rabid libs on this board that think Obama walks on water, please listen to what some of the republicans are proposing and decide for yourself if their ideas have merit.

Obama does not have to run but he has already announced that he is. Everything he does now is aimed at getting reelected. While it is unlikely that a democrat would challenge him for the parties nomination there are some that wish Hillary would.

In the primary election there can be as many people on the ballot as meet the eligability requirements in the state. So in New Hampshire an early primary state there will probably be all of the people you saw last night on the ballot. As candidates drop out due to lack of support there will be fewer and fewer on the ballot until only one is left or all of the states have had primaries. That will determine who the republican and democratic parties have chosen as their candidate for the general election in November. There could be other presidential candidates on the ballot in November but histrically they have little impact. The only recent exception to that was Ross Perot. He ran as an independant in 1992 and pulled enough votes from Bush the first so that Clinton got elected.

Mya, in order to counter the rabid libs on this board that think Obama walks on water, please listen to what some of the republicans are proposing and decide for yourself if their ideas have merit. Originally Posted by Laz

Now now, some of us liberal types think Obama has done a rather lackluster job.

Thanks Laz for the information. I was reading up on the primary elections and honestly it was a little confusing. I did hear a lot of good things from the three candidates that I mentioned. How many more debates are there going to be?

Here is a link to the debate schedule:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionn...ebate-schedule

Feel free to ask any more questions. I like people that actually care enough to want to listen and learn.

There are two types of candidates in the debate. Those that take away freedom and Ron Paul. Ron Paul clearly won the debate, as he is the only candidate advocating freedom and liberty and actually downsizing the federal government to its Constitutional limits and he means it. The others just offer lip service. So you have but one choice....Freedom, or someone else.

I dislike Michelle Bachmann more and more each time I hear her. She is nothing more than a big government theocrat, former tax attorney that prosecuting people and then she lies about thinking everyone should keep every dollar they make.

If you want to drink raw milk, avoid the Patriot ACT, end the wars and fake wars, abolish the IRS, end the Fed, eliminate the EPA, FDA, etc, then vote for Ron Paul. if you want more government, more regulations, less freedom and less liberty and less money to spend, vote for someone else

If you want to drink raw milk, avoid the Patriot ACT, end the wars and fake wars, abolish the IRS, end the Fed, eliminate the EPA, FDA, etc, then vote for Ron Paul. if you want more government, more regulations, less freedom and less liberty and less money to spend, vote for someone else Originally Posted by Houston65

I agree with ending the Patriot Act and withdrawing from the quagmires we have found ourselves in, but the rest of that makes zero since, even as drunk as I am on my way to being.

So, you want a government with no budget, no capacity to prevent speculative attacks on the nation's currency, dangerous chemicals in both your home drinking water and store bought goods? Because all of those organizations, in spite of some situation screw ups and policy snafus, serve a necessary purpose.

Nothing says the state or city couldn't have them, or a private agency. The FDA is bought off by Big Pharma anyhow. The water already has a dangerous chemical in it....fluoride, which is a toxin. It is the responsibility of the individual to choose what to buy. Those companies that don't put what chemicals in their goods, might not have any buyers.

With the gold standard, there won't be any speculation and about zero inflation. Abolish the IRS and let everyone have more money to hobby with. The USD is going to collapse soon anyhow and the last hope is electing Ron Paul.