@schitaco Yes, really he was the smartest one who entered the race. It really is a shame that in a country of over 300 million people the best that can be found to oppose Obama are a bunch of outright idiots.
Santorum is just too weird to get elected. The republican party has trouble already attracting women voters. With him on the ticket the numbers would hit a new low.
Romney wants to be president very badly. Make up your own joke here.
This wasn't a debate. It was a series of 5 minute expressions of each candidates views on different topics. There was no dialogue between the 2. However, it was an excellent opportunity for Governor Huntsman to get some exposure. Unfortunately, he was by far the best candidate. I hope he is willing to run again in the future or is a VP for the eventual nominee.
@CombatWombat1987 The nominee will almost certainly be Romney. I don't think that the party will like two LDS in the two spots. The VP slot is likely to be filled by someone from the south. At this point I would bet on it being a white male from the south. Politically, it would be a better move to make the VP a member of some minority but I don't see that happening. Since the era of Nixon's southern strategy, that has been the direction of things.
I liked Huntsman. He criticised Romney fairly. He said Romney was unelectable. Then when he got out he endorsed Romney. Now I think of him as just another politician. I will vote for either Gingrich or Obama. I like them both. Maybe Neut will choose Huntsman as his vice presidental running mate.
@Iambigcougar As be backed out of the race, Huntsman had to endorse someone. There is no way he would say "they are all awful" or endorse Obama or something. We can take his endorsement of Romney as being his opinion of the least bad of those who remain in the race. I seriously doubt that Newt will be the nominee. At some point people are going to remember his past. Ron Paul is opposed by too many of the powerful. Santorum is just too weird.
@Iambigcougar Huntsman, it appears disagrees. At this point, we can say that the party has reduced its long list of people down to a weak few.
Over 300 million people to choose from and the best they can come up with is someone who is known to be a corrupt politician and a vulture capitalist. There isn't time to start the process again for this year. Perhaps the party can get its act together in 2016.
@knowledgemonger You made my point why I can not choose Rommey. He is a greedy vulture capitalist which I don't like. And Newt does have some corruption problems. I can't understand why Huntsman endorsed Romney. Baukmen and Cain didn't endorse anyone. I think Huntsman made a big mistake and would not be able to support him in the future.
@Iambigcougar Newt has some corruption problems sort of like the pacific ocean is a bit damp.
I really think it may be time for the whole republican party to call it a day. Notice how they never mention G. W. Bush. That was 8 years ago that they messed up that badly in picking a nominee. Somehow that idiot got elected. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that the powers that be in the party learned their lesson. It really is time for a new party.
@knowledgemonger Romney keeps attacking Obama like he is the blaime for everything. Our country was losing 750,000 jobs per month when he took office. I blaime Obama for some things, but not for that. I blaime the congress for not working with the president on job creation. Huntsman sounded like he might work with democrats.
@Iambigcougar Nobody is going to mention G. W. Bush. It points up what a disaster the republican party has become. We can only hope that the party gets its act together by 2016 or perhaps it is time for the people who care about the deficit to abandon the republican party and start an new one. There is enough time between now and 2016 to have a new party up and running. Perhaps there should be a math test required for those who want to join.
@knowledgemonger I agree. Romney is going to get creamed in the general election. However no one can agree on everything when starting a new party. There would be arguement over what should be included and excluded in the policies.
@Iambigcougar Yes, if a new party was to be started, there would be an argument over the policies. That would be a good thing. Perhaps some of the nonsense claims would get aired out and corrected. We would stop hearing so many silly ideas staying around just because they got accepted in the past. Maybe we could get the "Bush tax cuts" changed to the "Bush tax delays" because that is really what they are. Cutting taxes and increasing spending only raises them in the future.
@knowledgemonger Yes. Taxes need to be raised to cut our deficit. The top rate was over 90% when I was a teanager. Probably too high, but the country paid its debt and we got along great. It can be argued how much and who pays what, but we needs to pay our debt. There also needs to be cuts. No one can agree on what to cut. We need to keep taxes up until we make cuts (I have my own ikeas on what shoud be cut)and until our deficit is reduced. Washington is broken. I could join a new party
@Iambigcougar In the Eisenhower admin, the top rate was about 90%. ie: the last dollar a very rich person earned was taxed at a high rate. This made businessmen want to spread the earnings out and thus made them want the company to survive. The economy grew much faster in that era. In part this was because people nearer the bottom of the economy spend a larger fraction of what they earn locally. They make the market that needs to be serviced.
@knowledgemonger Yes. I lived before the Eisenhower period. The rate was lowered to 90% during that period. No matter who is elected president they will not be able to work with congress. It reminds me of Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
@Iambigcougar The fiddle wasn't even invented in Nero's era. In many ways this crowd is worse than the Nero of common understanding and much worse than the real Nero. In the era of Rome, people didn't have the technology to understand what was going on. Today the facts are all at their finger tips. They have to actively work at being ignorant of the real effect of letting "investment banks" get into the regular savings market. It was understood at the time they did it.
Jon Huntsman is like the Republican Bill Richardson; he blows away the competition with executive and foreign policy experience, but can unfortunately never seem to get momentum or stand out.
@Anotora I just heard that Huntsman has pulled out of the race. This is really sad. He was a grownup. Now the billions in special interest money will choose among the children who they can best control.
It's actually refreshing to see Gingrich and Huntsman showing genuine respect towards one another. I don't think Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain, or Romney could hold their own without resorting to slander.
Huntsman is way smarter than Newt. How did Newt get this reputation for being smart in the first place? Huntsman would have a chance against Obama. Newt would embarrass the party.
@knowledgemonger To say if Newt someway manages to win the Republican nomination, because it looks at this point maybe it will change, but Romney will be the GOP nominee, he would probably embarass himself by losing to Obama's 1 billion dollar re-election campaign, because that's how much the Democrats are going to put in to get him re-elected. If the GOP wants to beat Obama, they need the candidate who can go up against Obama's billion dollar re-election campaign and who can defeat him.
@Crankee78 The republicans will have billions and the democrats will have billions. Te airwaves will be full of ads. The biggest problem is one that comes from the "citizens united" case. Just like a super pac can form just to support Romney, take millions from who knows who and then go away, there will be super pacs in the general election. They will be spending money from multinational corporations and foreign governments but nobody will be able to find out who funded whom.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
In 1979 Ron Paul voted yes for the Martin Luther King Holiday... Who voted NO? 1. Newt Gingrich 2. Dick Cheney 3. Phil Graham 4. Trent Lott. This was 11 years before the news letter scandal. Does that sound like Ron Paul is a racist to you? Please allow your brain and facts to guide your decision making, not some corporate news station. You're smarter than that.
I used to think Jon Huntsman was a decent guy. Unfortunately, he's just another textbook politician willing to disregard the truth for political gain. Jon Huntsman's morally reprehensible attack ad against Ron Paul propagates a falsehood that is easily disproved. I guess that's why Huntsman disabled comments on that video. It shows Jon Huntsman cares more for his career than the truth. Therefore, Jon Huntsman is not worthy of your trust. For a good laugh, search "Huntsman sugar daddy Colbert"
Its amazing how far Newt is willing to go to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. His logic is he will attack Iran because they threatened to wipe Israel off the map with a few nukes. But Iran doesn't have a history of attacking other countries (unless in defense of course but never any pre emptive strikes). And if Newt does go ahead with the bombing of Iran, the consequences of that will bring Russia and China into open warfare with the United States where the threat of MAD is quadrupled
In 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry, quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
Ahmadinejad then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet.
@DesignCBTs There is a big difference in saying he wants Israel wiped off the map and actually trying to accomplish that. Now Ahmadinejad is not THAT stupid and he knows his entire country will be glassed if he does carry out a bombing on Israel or any other Western country. Second off, if you look at the history of Iran over the past 100 years you will see they never attacked any country ever and they have only defended themselves when needed. So to think they're just going to is preposterous.
@Democracy420 Alas, you've discounted Iran's operatives, working in Iraq. They sent operatives, penetrating IEDs and other bomb-making materials. These directly resulted in U.S. casualties. Your words scream PACIFISM. We saw how that worked out for us...
@DesignCBTs Oh yes since we haven't been using our own operatives to overthrow the Iranian government 3 times starting in 1953 so you just expect them to love us and be our trustee puppet right? So don't get mad at them for playing the same game we have been for decades and don't call me a pacifist because I think war is necessary in DEFENSE ONLY. Yet this clearly wasn't the case for Iraq if you knew anything at all. I'm against war if we are the provocateurs.
@Democracy420 Unfortunately, we can't always make the correct decisions. It's true we have interfered with other nations affairs. With this particular issue, the question is whether we are willing to risk Iran having a weapon of mass destruction. We made a mistake with Iraq. The potential upside is that we may have a staunch ally once their oil revenues get straightened out. Will Iraq be our "trustee puppet"? Hardly. Still it was a major intelligence failure...
@DesignCBTs We have to look at Iran very seriously. Do you think if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would automatically use it on Israel when they know very well they will get glassed immediately? I think Ahmadinejad has a little more sense than that. Secondly if we did a preemptive strike on Iran that would immediately bring Russia and China do their defense which increases the possibility of nuclear weapons going off 100. So is it worth starting WW3 over the POSSIBILITY that they might get 1?
@Democracy420 Given their comments regarding Israel, it may be. Whoever wins the next election (or perhaps Obama in the coming weeks) will have some very difficult choices to make. My personal opinion is that Obama or Huntsman would opt for a preemptive military strike.
@DesignCBTs No way. If you look at the history of Iran over the past 100 years you will see that they have never really invaded or attacked another country. They have been in wars but it has been only in defense. Lets not forget in the 80's when the U.S. armed Iraqis with weapons (some chemical) to wage war against the Iranians. I know many Americans forget about that, but I can assure you the Iranians haven't. Also, don't forget Pakistan has over 100 nukes and they are way more irrational byfar
@Democracy420 The last hundred years have seen much turmoil in Iran. Of course, we supported the Shah until his overthrow. Iran was our "ally" back then. As the political climate has changed, we have had to adjust our policies...just as we will with Pakistan. I still believe the world will be much better off without Iranian nuclear weapons. You are correct that Pakistan having them is quite scary.
@DesignCBTs There are either two options. We either A) attack Iran and start a thermonuclear war with China and Russia because they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon (which is insane and not worth it) or B) Let Iran have a nuclear weapon and not spend the next 7+ years fighting another war. I really don't understand how any sane person would choose option A...I can assure you the troops do not want option A also.
@Democracy420 Don't forget, we've already got economic sanctions in place. That's one of the reasons Tehran is postering so loudly...we hope they're working. As far as I know, no one has mentioned attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. We shouldn't have to. Military action is the path of last resort. It must be implemented with appropriate force and accuracy to ensure mission success. Being retired USAF, I would not desire a military option - but know we can if we must.
@DesignCBTs I didn't say attack Iran with nuclear weapons...I simply stated that if we attack Iran's nuclear facilities there will be retaliation from Russia and China which could very well lead to nuclear war over time. China has already stated publicly it will come to Iran's defense if it is attacked. And sanctions (being an act of war) only provoke a nation into an offensive strategy as it did with Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor
@AlecBoy006V2 It proves that Huntsman is wiser than his more "popular" opponents. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with lobbyist extremists. It's almost to the point where I'm considering switching to being an Independent.
@DP3mo24hofosho look at the republican party straw polls!!! Ron paul has won most of them, the media is in the special interest so they manipulate the polls
@Ddstairclimber - Straw polls are not good indicators of anything. Take two of the biggest in the US, the Ames and Texas Straw Polls. Both are privately run and are not beholden to public oversight or verifiability. Some of these straw polls merely speak to how many people the candidate can pay to vote.
Could be worse though - I'm from the UK and we have a small right wing party (UKIP - similar to Ralph Nader's Green's, but on the right), who divide the right wing vote and frequently prevent us Conservatives from winning elections - Grrr!!
@tdp1909 If the conservatives and UKIP are going after the same people, the conservatives deserve to lose. Sorry but going after the "goose stepping" minority is a really bad idea. With how badly Labor messed up, the Conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves for having to work with the Lib-Dems.
@knowledgemonger Every1 knows that UKIP took many of Thatcher's finest Tory activists and that they came 4th in the popular vote (at 919,471 votes- which averages out at 1400 votes for every constituency in the country - enough to deny Cameron a number of key marginals, possibly even the 20 he needed)
As for 'Goose-stepping', UKIP are perfectly respectable and are libertarian rather than fascist. Comparing them to the Nazis infringes Godwin's law, meaning u lose ur argument :-p
@tdp1909 UKIP only offered ideas. The activists went there because those ideas matched with their thoughts. It is not like they came in with lassos and carried them away. The Conservatives couldn't attract enough of the votes to get a clear majority because their ideas were not good enough. "The fault is not in our stars" Next time they may come to the electorate with better ideas. Unfortunately for them Labor will too. The work is cut out for you.
@knowledgemonger Define irony - a Labour (not spelt 'Labor' btw) supporter boasting of 'better ideas'! Like creating the biggest budget deficit in the G20? And nationalising RBS & HBOS with the promise that "the state will make a profit from them eventually"?
As for UKIP, maybe you're right- by the same logic you're using you can dispense with Ed Miliband's idea of a 'progressive majority' of Lib Dems and Labour as clearly their collective ideas aren't 'good enough' to make it happen...
@tdp1909 Nationalizing the Royal Bank Of Scotland was the right thing to do. They were faced with three bad options. They could let it just fail and take the economy down the drain. Do like the US did with the TARP or take the thing over and fire the guys who were running it. The US took the TARP route. Look at what happened with that. In 1929 the US took the "let them fail" route. That didn't come out very good. The real problem happened long before the take over.
@knowledgemonger Arguable- the way the banking system originated in the 18th century was trial and error- i.e. letting banks experiment/fail. As it is RBS is now a vast Zombie company.
Oh, and there's also HBOS, which would have been less of an issue had Labour not encouraged Lloyds to take them over and create an even bigger f*ck up.
And you say about the Great Depression, but have you ever seen the rebound the US made after? The worse the recession, the bigger the recovery...
@tdp1909 The making of even bigger banks is what the US did in spades. It was encouraged. It is one of the very dumb things done.
The US's growth coming out of the 1929 crash is a very interesting thing and very instructive. 1929 was the crash. 1930, 1931, 1932 things got worse. In 1933, the government dumped huge fist fulls of cash into the system and there was a little growth. 1933-1936, growth was reasonable but not extremely fast. The trend ran to about 1980.
@tdp1909 LOL WHAT!? You stopped supporting him because other people call him "nuts"? That's sad. What's "nutts" is that the only sane person running for president is perceived as "nuts". Because of other imbeciles who don't understand how these wars work and fall victim to the propaganda machine that is the main stream media, you don't support him anyone. Tell me, if heroine is legal, would you do it? Oh you wouldn't? So you don't need the government to hold your hand? Oh, learn freedom
@Sylinic I agree, but most people do not have squeegeed third eyes, and would rather dismiss him as 'nuts' than think about what he says. As Bertrand Russell put it "Most people would rather than think, and the majority do". Sadly that same majority would never vote Ron Paul (even though they should)
I also think Huntsman has more of a chance as he is more moderate, knows his beans (esp with Taxation + debt) and will know how to stand up to China...
@tdp1909 I'm...just shocked. How can, because others cast him off as nuts, someone stops supporting him. That line of reasoning, just utterly baffles me. Like, you even acknowledge he's the best, but won't fight for him and inform people. Call me crazy, but i'd rather fight for what's right, than roll over. Ron Paul is first in Iowa btw, even with the MSM censoring him and glorifying newty boy. Huntsman has absolutely no chance, come on man, help us inform people of the truth.
@Sylinic I have to confess that, though I like Ron Paul, I really don't think he'd make a good President. He'd be perfect if they put him in charge of the US Treasury (or one of the departments he doesn't want to abolish lol), but as President for 1 he's too old and for 2 he'd need a very strong fixer as number two to deliver his agenda.
Huntsman fits better as President - maybe even with Ron Paul as a running mate! I also think his ratings will pick up in the next few days as the New kid...
@tdp1909 Huntsman won't win, he has what, 1%? His daddy funds his campaign?(I don't care, but the media will kill him). The man is in better shape than most of the other candidates, the age argument is a fallacy. Just, whatever man, keep doing what ever it is you do, his actual supporters will do everything they can to get him elected. I don't need to come off like such a dick, but jesus.
@Sylinic Mark my words - Paul won't win - the machine will stop him. Huntsman is the Dark horse...
I confess- I'm actually a Brit + we have people like Ron Paul here- Dan Hannan MEP, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell etc. Look up any of these 3 + they mostly speak a great deal of sense (expt 'Rivers of Blood') but they never achieved high office. Why? Because they are prophets, not leaders.
And the age thing is important - Paul looks worn out (unlike Reagan), which is not what u want in a President.
@tdp1909 Worn out old men aren't cyclists. Yes you're right, the elite will do everything they can to stop him from winning, that's why it requires people like me with spines to spread the word. I'd rather fight for what's right than roll over like a coward.
@Sylinic I ain't no coward, I just want to back someone who has a chance of winning, and I think Huntsman is better and is the thing Democrats fear the most: a moderate Conservative.
Anyways, I'm not going to convince you, but maybe a Paul/Huntsman ticket (either way round) is a good compromise, eh?
NUMBER ONE REASON WHY USA IS IN ECONOMICAL CRISIS, IS COS REPUBLICAN REAGAN OPENED EYES TO SOVIET UNION, NOW RUSSIA IS BECOMING CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY AND USA IS BECOMING POOR COUNTRY, THANKS TO REPUBLICAN REAGAN FOR MAKING SOVIET UNION DISAPPEAR. SO WHEN I HEAR GINGRICH TALKING ABOUT REAGAN I WANNA TAKE MY BLOODY TAMPON AND PLUG IT IN HIS MOUTH, I SHOULD WAIT WHEN I AM ON A HEAVY FLOW! RUSSIA IS BECOMING SMART COS NEIGHBOUR CHINA SELLS CHEAP COMPUTERS TO RUSSIA.
The reason we justify waste in defense is because of corruption, it is not because of big government or anything else, and that is why until we get rid of the corrupting influence of money we will not see "lean six-sigma" or anything else to whip the system into fiscal discipline. Look who started this whole contractor thing in the military (Gingrinch) that has been a complete boondoggle sucking money out of the US military and putting it Blackwater, no in Yemen. Idiots! Liars! Both!
China is an econ & mlt. threat, also "social" threat. Moving aggressively into US politics and powerbrokering, just like they have all over the rest of the world,they are much more ethnocentric & racist now than the US & the West & are closed. China is trying to inherit the world-they work together to do that, even Chinese in the West. We have given everything to China along with lots of money - it may just be too late, they have done to use what we have to the world.
I believe in confronting Iran, but no one knows what to do and everyone is leaving it up to the US and Israel. I think that is exactly what we are doing and waiting for. China is playing a 19th/20th century imperial game, so it is to their advantage to let everyone else fight and weaken themselves. The problem is no matter what happens with Iran there is a distributed threat of Islamic radicalism - centering around Saudi Arabia that has been the greatest threat. and they love this scenario.
Gingrich is all about words, even more so than Obama, he just says whatever he has schemed will attract people's interest. He is clever, but you cannot trust or believe a word he says. If one of these Republican candidates has the potential to be a very dangerous bad actor it would be Gingrinch.
I like how Gingrich says he will cast no stones at his fellow Republican Nominees.
He acts like he is taking the High Road when in all actuality he knows that if he throws 1 stone he will get 6 back.
I got bored ,so with no chance of hearing an Honest and Informative debate ,because Ron Paul was not there ,I stopped watching.If there was anything note worthy from this "Debate" would someone please write me and tell me the time stamp (or make a vid with Highlights).
@YouAreOneOfUs It boggles the mind that, even if you disagree with the positions of these candidates, you don't find this debate informative or interesting. That's simply not possible if you are intelligent enough to listen to and understand the issues being discussed.
Gingrich: "there is no effective deterrent" to stop suicide bombing. Are you kidding me?! How about reading Pape's "Dying to Win" or "Cutting the Fuse". The majority international relations specialists agree; to stop suicide bombing, stop occupying. If China sent troops to the U.S. and occupied our streets and accidentally killed our civilians I bet people would suicide bomb them too. Even if you don't agree with this theory, we should at least try it because what we're doing now isn't working.
Gingrich is a fear monger. Even if the Iranians did possess nuclear weapons, it will only be for defensive needs. Just Google "USA flag Iran" to see why. US bases surround Iran. The US invaded two nations that border Iran. The US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and replaced it with the despotic Shah.
Ahmadinejad did not say he will wipe Israel of the map. That was a mistranslation which was then tied to Iran's pursuit of nuclear power to drum up hysteria.
Huntsman seems to me all talk, no substance. he uses a lot of airtime with no specific aim. Newt is much more focused, and comprehensible about Islam, because islam works according to rules incomprehensible to Huntsman
I agree with the description that Huntsman clearly stated a modern vision. Gingrich seems to fill the air with ideas that don't lead to description. He has enough ideas to fill all the time, but his ideas don't tie together. They don't have cumulative importance. He does this by saying history. He isn't really pushing any effort which leads to problems with leadership ability. Because of that I don't thing anybody would be able to control outcome and he'd be a puppet.
@rexbreed Due to my last comment I'd hope it could explain some of the comments that go to Gingrich. First he is a fear monger. Not that he does it intentionally! But if you throw out a certain set of generalizations without your solution . . . Fear. I think that's a big problem. Even with his open opinion about Palestinians technically not existing he doesn't have a clear goal and that's an issue :-)
Jon Huntsman seems to be a much more wiser politician than Newt. His views on foreign policies is much more progressive than the old not working view of Newt to show the world U.S. is number one..which is a huge mistake.
Very good overview by two of the most important Global Progressives who support the NEW WORLD Order.
The only view missing from the argument is Ron Paul's... but of course, the Global Progressive movement does not allow a complete and free flow of information, does it?
Gringrich is just another CFR puppet-- a mouthpiece for the international bankers who have engineered a financial collapse and have reduced Americans to debt slaves. Gingrich is just another neo fascist like Bush.
@damienrockaterror Then Obama is a neo socialist like every other ultra-liberal in this country. First, it's spelled Gingrich. Not Gringrich. If you didn't know, Republicans are not the only people to have contributed to the debt crisis. President Obama has added $4 trillion to the previous $10 trillion we had in debt. Don't be so quick to blame Republicans because there is PLENTY of shit we could say about Democrats.
@Murray13j Are you living in a bubble? It is known fact that Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the same special interests. The US is essentially a one party fascist dictatorship run by a banking oligarchy. Dollars mean nothing it is just paper made by the ruling elite who run the privately owned federal reserve. When your dollar system collapses I will be in gold and silver. Who cares about bankpuppet Obama he is the same as CFR puppet Newtzi. Watch the movie OBAMA DECEPTION
Huntsman is one of the few GOP candidates that could seriously be president. But unfortunately for the Republicans they prefer some person that is more mean spirited and even foaming at the mouth. If this happens they will lose the election. The Independents or the middle crowd will have to go towards Obama.
As an European I'm amazed by the knowledge of Huntsman, especially with regard to China. However, I do not understand why he only has about 2% of support in the polls. Although I do not approve of his policies, I must also say that Gingrich did well in this debate.
shame on the people of the early voting states. huntsman would have made a fantastic candidate.
schitaco 1 week ago
@schitaco Yes, really he was the smartest one who entered the race. It really is a shame that in a country of over 300 million people the best that can be found to oppose Obama are a bunch of outright idiots.
Santorum is just too weird to get elected. The republican party has trouble already attracting women voters. With him on the ticket the numbers would hit a new low.
Romney wants to be president very badly. Make up your own joke here.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
Newt 2012!! We love ya buddy!!
FloridaRepublican941 1 week ago
This wasn't a debate. It was a series of 5 minute expressions of each candidates views on different topics. There was no dialogue between the 2. However, it was an excellent opportunity for Governor Huntsman to get some exposure. Unfortunately, he was by far the best candidate. I hope he is willing to run again in the future or is a VP for the eventual nominee.
CombatWombat1987 2 weeks ago
@CombatWombat1987 The nominee will almost certainly be Romney. I don't think that the party will like two LDS in the two spots. The VP slot is likely to be filled by someone from the south. At this point I would bet on it being a white male from the south. Politically, it would be a better move to make the VP a member of some minority but I don't see that happening. Since the era of Nixon's southern strategy, that has been the direction of things.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
its the medias fault that ron paul wont win....fuckn bullshit our countrys screwed
scribbie145 3 weeks ago
thank you thank you thank you thank you very much ten million times in first 15 seconds :/
TheDusty123456 3 weeks ago
Great performance from Newt.
stevelatinner 3 weeks ago
I liked Huntsman. He criticised Romney fairly. He said Romney was unelectable. Then when he got out he endorsed Romney. Now I think of him as just another politician. I will vote for either Gingrich or Obama. I like them both. Maybe Neut will choose Huntsman as his vice presidental running mate.
Iambigcougar 1 month ago
@Iambigcougar As be backed out of the race, Huntsman had to endorse someone. There is no way he would say "they are all awful" or endorse Obama or something. We can take his endorsement of Romney as being his opinion of the least bad of those who remain in the race. I seriously doubt that Newt will be the nominee. At some point people are going to remember his past. Ron Paul is opposed by too many of the powerful. Santorum is just too weird.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger You made a good point. But I feel Newt is better than Romney, It is just a matter of opinion. Obama would probably beat either one.
Iambigcougar 1 month ago
@Iambigcougar Huntsman, it appears disagrees. At this point, we can say that the party has reduced its long list of people down to a weak few.
Over 300 million people to choose from and the best they can come up with is someone who is known to be a corrupt politician and a vulture capitalist. There isn't time to start the process again for this year. Perhaps the party can get its act together in 2016.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger You made my point why I can not choose Rommey. He is a greedy vulture capitalist which I don't like. And Newt does have some corruption problems. I can't understand why Huntsman endorsed Romney. Baukmen and Cain didn't endorse anyone. I think Huntsman made a big mistake and would not be able to support him in the future.
Iambigcougar 1 month ago
@Iambigcougar Newt has some corruption problems sort of like the pacific ocean is a bit damp.
I really think it may be time for the whole republican party to call it a day. Notice how they never mention G. W. Bush. That was 8 years ago that they messed up that badly in picking a nominee. Somehow that idiot got elected. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that the powers that be in the party learned their lesson. It really is time for a new party.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger Romney keeps attacking Obama like he is the blaime for everything. Our country was losing 750,000 jobs per month when he took office. I blaime Obama for some things, but not for that. I blaime the congress for not working with the president on job creation. Huntsman sounded like he might work with democrats.
Iambigcougar 1 month ago
@Iambigcougar Nobody is going to mention G. W. Bush. It points up what a disaster the republican party has become. We can only hope that the party gets its act together by 2016 or perhaps it is time for the people who care about the deficit to abandon the republican party and start an new one. There is enough time between now and 2016 to have a new party up and running. Perhaps there should be a math test required for those who want to join.
1+1 = ______ ?
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger I agree. Romney is going to get creamed in the general election. However no one can agree on everything when starting a new party. There would be arguement over what should be included and excluded in the policies.
Iambigcougar 1 month ago
@Iambigcougar Yes, if a new party was to be started, there would be an argument over the policies. That would be a good thing. Perhaps some of the nonsense claims would get aired out and corrected. We would stop hearing so many silly ideas staying around just because they got accepted in the past. Maybe we could get the "Bush tax cuts" changed to the "Bush tax delays" because that is really what they are. Cutting taxes and increasing spending only raises them in the future.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger Yes. Taxes need to be raised to cut our deficit. The top rate was over 90% when I was a teanager. Probably too high, but the country paid its debt and we got along great. It can be argued how much and who pays what, but we needs to pay our debt. There also needs to be cuts. No one can agree on what to cut. We need to keep taxes up until we make cuts (I have my own ikeas on what shoud be cut)and until our deficit is reduced. Washington is broken. I could join a new party
Iambigcougar 4 weeks ago
@Iambigcougar In the Eisenhower admin, the top rate was about 90%. ie: the last dollar a very rich person earned was taxed at a high rate. This made businessmen want to spread the earnings out and thus made them want the company to survive. The economy grew much faster in that era. In part this was because people nearer the bottom of the economy spend a larger fraction of what they earn locally. They make the market that needs to be serviced.
knowledgemonger 4 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Yes. I lived before the Eisenhower period. The rate was lowered to 90% during that period. No matter who is elected president they will not be able to work with congress. It reminds me of Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Iambigcougar 4 weeks ago
@Iambigcougar The fiddle wasn't even invented in Nero's era. In many ways this crowd is worse than the Nero of common understanding and much worse than the real Nero. In the era of Rome, people didn't have the technology to understand what was going on. Today the facts are all at their finger tips. They have to actively work at being ignorant of the real effect of letting "investment banks" get into the regular savings market. It was understood at the time they did it.
knowledgemonger 4 weeks ago
Jon Huntsman is like the Republican Bill Richardson; he blows away the competition with executive and foreign policy experience, but can unfortunately never seem to get momentum or stand out.
Anotora 1 month ago
@Anotora I just heard that Huntsman has pulled out of the race. This is really sad. He was a grownup. Now the billions in special interest money will choose among the children who they can best control.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
It's actually refreshing to see Gingrich and Huntsman showing genuine respect towards one another. I don't think Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain, or Romney could hold their own without resorting to slander.
FreedInsanity 1 month ago
Huntsman is way smarter than Newt. How did Newt get this reputation for being smart in the first place? Huntsman would have a chance against Obama. Newt would embarrass the party.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowledgemonger Both Jon Huntsman And Barack Obama Agree ......
/watch?v=CmadLQJrpTs
ichigo73186 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger To say if Newt someway manages to win the Republican nomination, because it looks at this point maybe it will change, but Romney will be the GOP nominee, he would probably embarass himself by losing to Obama's 1 billion dollar re-election campaign, because that's how much the Democrats are going to put in to get him re-elected. If the GOP wants to beat Obama, they need the candidate who can go up against Obama's billion dollar re-election campaign and who can defeat him.
Crankee78 1 month ago
@Crankee78 The republicans will have billions and the democrats will have billions. Te airwaves will be full of ads. The biggest problem is one that comes from the "citizens united" case. Just like a super pac can form just to support Romney, take millions from who knows who and then go away, there will be super pacs in the general election. They will be spending money from multinational corporations and foreign governments but nobody will be able to find out who funded whom.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just watched a recent youtube video, JON HUNTSMAN WOULD HAVE SIGNED NDAA as president. check it out
jss7878 1 month ago
Huntsman kicked Gingrich's ass. That is all.
yrelkin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yrelkin Both Jon Huntsman And Barack Obama Agree ......
/watch?v=CmadLQJrpTs
ichigo73186 1 month ago
Huntsman kicked ass tonight...
cocontmi 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@cocontmi Both Jon Huntsman And Barack Obama Agree ......
/watch?v=CmadLQJrpTs
ichigo73186 1 month ago
Newt has no 1 liners, just 2 hour speeches
Adeebness 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul's twitter account is twitter . com/RepRonPaul
The twit that sent the twit is twitter . com/ronpaul
Ron Paul 2012 or BU$T !!
1776Rosco 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Jon2012HQ
I think I see the Future President and Vice-President at the Table. lol.
Atlasshrugging18 1 month ago
While watching this I have all the more reason to vote for Ron Paul. Huntsman is way to polished he will not help Paul as VP.
pumpsumiron 1 month ago
Newt is a loose cannon, a real F##kin' idiot, sorry but those are the cold HARD Facts...
indianjjy 1 month ago
You're in last place fool! Ron Paul is leading in Iowa right now. Just shows how desperate you are. Do him a favor and drop out right now.
leephysics 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
Vote for liberty this year. Vote for real change.
Thumb up and spread the message!
RapsAlive 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1979 Ron Paul voted yes for the Martin Luther King Holiday... Who voted NO? 1. Newt Gingrich 2. Dick Cheney 3. Phil Graham 4. Trent Lott. This was 11 years before the news letter scandal. Does that sound like Ron Paul is a racist to you? Please allow your brain and facts to guide your decision making, not some corporate news station. You're smarter than that.
TheImmortalDiabolic 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Jon2012HQ
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ask not what your COUNTRY can do for you. Ask what YOU can do for your country." -President John F. Kennedy, R.I.P
It's not only about Republican/Democrat anymore. It's about stopping the Washington corruption and taking back our country.
In 2012, We the People TAKE BACK the Constitution!
End the Patriot Act, End the Fed, End NDAA: HR 1540/S.1867.
Save the economy. Support our troops.
Ron Paul REVOLUTION
donnjx2 2 months ago
I used to think Jon Huntsman was a decent guy. Unfortunately, he's just another textbook politician willing to disregard the truth for political gain. Jon Huntsman's morally reprehensible attack ad against Ron Paul propagates a falsehood that is easily disproved. I guess that's why Huntsman disabled comments on that video. It shows Jon Huntsman cares more for his career than the truth. Therefore, Jon Huntsman is not worthy of your trust. For a good laugh, search "Huntsman sugar daddy Colbert"
TheWalkerWire 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
MedicalMarijuanaMini 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Jon2012HQ
Its amazing how far Newt is willing to go to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. His logic is he will attack Iran because they threatened to wipe Israel off the map with a few nukes. But Iran doesn't have a history of attacking other countries (unless in defense of course but never any pre emptive strikes). And if Newt does go ahead with the bombing of Iran, the consequences of that will bring Russia and China into open warfare with the United States where the threat of MAD is quadrupled
Democracy420 2 months ago
In 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry, quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
Ahmadinejad then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet.
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs There is a big difference in saying he wants Israel wiped off the map and actually trying to accomplish that. Now Ahmadinejad is not THAT stupid and he knows his entire country will be glassed if he does carry out a bombing on Israel or any other Western country. Second off, if you look at the history of Iran over the past 100 years you will see they never attacked any country ever and they have only defended themselves when needed. So to think they're just going to is preposterous.
Democracy420 1 month ago
@Democracy420 Alas, you've discounted Iran's operatives, working in Iraq. They sent operatives, penetrating IEDs and other bomb-making materials. These directly resulted in U.S. casualties. Your words scream PACIFISM. We saw how that worked out for us...
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs Oh yes since we haven't been using our own operatives to overthrow the Iranian government 3 times starting in 1953 so you just expect them to love us and be our trustee puppet right? So don't get mad at them for playing the same game we have been for decades and don't call me a pacifist because I think war is necessary in DEFENSE ONLY. Yet this clearly wasn't the case for Iraq if you knew anything at all. I'm against war if we are the provocateurs.
Democracy420 1 month ago
@Democracy420 Unfortunately, we can't always make the correct decisions. It's true we have interfered with other nations affairs. With this particular issue, the question is whether we are willing to risk Iran having a weapon of mass destruction. We made a mistake with Iraq. The potential upside is that we may have a staunch ally once their oil revenues get straightened out. Will Iraq be our "trustee puppet"? Hardly. Still it was a major intelligence failure...
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs We have to look at Iran very seriously. Do you think if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would automatically use it on Israel when they know very well they will get glassed immediately? I think Ahmadinejad has a little more sense than that. Secondly if we did a preemptive strike on Iran that would immediately bring Russia and China do their defense which increases the possibility of nuclear weapons going off 100. So is it worth starting WW3 over the POSSIBILITY that they might get 1?
Democracy420 1 month ago
@Democracy420 Given their comments regarding Israel, it may be. Whoever wins the next election (or perhaps Obama in the coming weeks) will have some very difficult choices to make. My personal opinion is that Obama or Huntsman would opt for a preemptive military strike.
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs No way. If you look at the history of Iran over the past 100 years you will see that they have never really invaded or attacked another country. They have been in wars but it has been only in defense. Lets not forget in the 80's when the U.S. armed Iraqis with weapons (some chemical) to wage war against the Iranians. I know many Americans forget about that, but I can assure you the Iranians haven't. Also, don't forget Pakistan has over 100 nukes and they are way more irrational byfar
Democracy420 1 month ago
@Democracy420 The last hundred years have seen much turmoil in Iran. Of course, we supported the Shah until his overthrow. Iran was our "ally" back then. As the political climate has changed, we have had to adjust our policies...just as we will with Pakistan. I still believe the world will be much better off without Iranian nuclear weapons. You are correct that Pakistan having them is quite scary.
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs There are either two options. We either A) attack Iran and start a thermonuclear war with China and Russia because they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon (which is insane and not worth it) or B) Let Iran have a nuclear weapon and not spend the next 7+ years fighting another war. I really don't understand how any sane person would choose option A...I can assure you the troops do not want option A also.
Democracy420 1 month ago
@Democracy420 Don't forget, we've already got economic sanctions in place. That's one of the reasons Tehran is postering so loudly...we hope they're working. As far as I know, no one has mentioned attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. We shouldn't have to. Military action is the path of last resort. It must be implemented with appropriate force and accuracy to ensure mission success. Being retired USAF, I would not desire a military option - but know we can if we must.
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@DesignCBTs I didn't say attack Iran with nuclear weapons...I simply stated that if we attack Iran's nuclear facilities there will be retaliation from Russia and China which could very well lead to nuclear war over time. China has already stated publicly it will come to Iran's defense if it is attacked. And sanctions (being an act of war) only provoke a nation into an offensive strategy as it did with Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbor
Democracy420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul.
Google "Political positions of Ron Paul" And look at the Wiki links or ThePoliticalGuide
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years.
He is a man who stands against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
Vote for liberty this year. Vote for real change.
Vote up and spread the message!
RapsAlive 2 months ago
It's pretty ridiculous that the most qualified presidential candidate we've had in a long time is currently polling around 2% nationally.
Fidosim 2 months ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fidosim Both Jon Huntsman And Barack Obama Agree ......
/watch?v=CmadLQJrpTs
ichigo73186 1 month ago
Only one Republican Candidate did not sign the Grover Norquist tax pledge. It was NOT Ron Paul. It was NOT Romney. Sure as HECK WAS NOT Gingrich.
Only one did not sign. Who was it? Jon Huntsman.
AlecBoy006V2 2 months ago 2
@AlecBoy006V2 It proves that Huntsman is wiser than his more "popular" opponents. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with lobbyist extremists. It's almost to the point where I'm considering switching to being an Independent.
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
hahahahahaha say i just hearsd someone say "who will win, newt or romney?" say newt or romney out loud youll see what it sounds like!!
BATHEPAIN 2 months ago
Comment removed
Fidosim 2 months ago
i don't understand why this is called a debate..
arosier2 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jon Huntsman: China's favorite chihuahua.
blogbat 2 months ago
@blogbat A very unwise comment. Perhaps you should travel abroad and see more of the world in which you live...
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
"Duuhh, you're not supposed to do that..." I don't like that guy immediately.
normalpsychology 2 months ago
Huntsman is a strong supporter of Israel and has made several visits to Israel watch?v=lOZag4Pg4Xs
Communist2012 2 months ago
Why can't we have Huntsman and Paul leading in the polls instead of Gingrich and Romney?
DP3mo24hofosho 2 months ago 36
@DP3mo24hofosho look at the republican party straw polls!!! Ron paul has won most of them, the media is in the special interest so they manipulate the polls
Ddstairclimber 2 months ago
@Ddstairclimber - Straw polls are not good indicators of anything. Take two of the biggest in the US, the Ames and Texas Straw Polls. Both are privately run and are not beholden to public oversight or verifiability. Some of these straw polls merely speak to how many people the candidate can pay to vote.
neoritter 2 months ago
Paul and Huntsman are completely different...
aletsthegreat 2 months ago 3
I do not understand why it is that the US is so obsessed with protecting Isreal. Why only them? I don't get it.
splicedenergy 2 months ago
@splicedenergy because they are an important allay in the most hostile place in the world. It is necessary to have friends in the middle east.
DP3mo24hofosho 2 months ago
@DP3mo24hofosho It's not the most hostile place.
splicedenergy 2 months ago
@splicedenergy oil + religious tensions= hostile
DP3mo24hofosho 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
GovernMentalFreedom 2 months ago
Vote ***A B O***. In 2012 vote ***RED***
AlliedForcesWW3 2 months ago
Just had a thought with this video - why would Gingrich seek to set up this debate?
Only one answer - because if he wins, he'd want a Governor/ fixer to be a running mate, and who has a better record than Huntsman?
Maybe they've already teamed up...
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 Oooh, that's probably the only scenario that I would vote for Gingrich. I would prefer the other way around, with Newt being VP...
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
@tdp1909 Unlikely Huntsman endorsed Gingrich
stevelatinner 3 weeks ago
@stevelatinner I mean Romney!
stevelatinner 3 weeks ago
@stevelatinner Bugger - so it's either team Mormon or Newt and Sarah Palin AKA Gingrich and his b*tch...
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
@tdp1909 Maybe the party will get its act together by 2016.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Hope so.
Could be worse though - I'm from the UK and we have a small right wing party (UKIP - similar to Ralph Nader's Green's, but on the right), who divide the right wing vote and frequently prevent us Conservatives from winning elections - Grrr!!
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
@tdp1909 Do you think that if Cameron had won outright things would be different in the UK today?
stevelatinner 3 weeks ago
@stevelatinner Hard to tell with Cameron, but it would be easier to get things done (e.g. the removal of the 50p tax rate)...
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
@tdp1909 If the conservatives and UKIP are going after the same people, the conservatives deserve to lose. Sorry but going after the "goose stepping" minority is a really bad idea. With how badly Labor messed up, the Conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves for having to work with the Lib-Dems.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Every1 knows that UKIP took many of Thatcher's finest Tory activists and that they came 4th in the popular vote (at 919,471 votes- which averages out at 1400 votes for every constituency in the country - enough to deny Cameron a number of key marginals, possibly even the 20 he needed)
As for 'Goose-stepping', UKIP are perfectly respectable and are libertarian rather than fascist. Comparing them to the Nazis infringes Godwin's law, meaning u lose ur argument :-p
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
@tdp1909 UKIP only offered ideas. The activists went there because those ideas matched with their thoughts. It is not like they came in with lassos and carried them away. The Conservatives couldn't attract enough of the votes to get a clear majority because their ideas were not good enough. "The fault is not in our stars" Next time they may come to the electorate with better ideas. Unfortunately for them Labor will too. The work is cut out for you.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Define irony - a Labour (not spelt 'Labor' btw) supporter boasting of 'better ideas'! Like creating the biggest budget deficit in the G20? And nationalising RBS & HBOS with the promise that "the state will make a profit from them eventually"?
As for UKIP, maybe you're right- by the same logic you're using you can dispense with Ed Miliband's idea of a 'progressive majority' of Lib Dems and Labour as clearly their collective ideas aren't 'good enough' to make it happen...
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
@tdp1909 Nationalizing the Royal Bank Of Scotland was the right thing to do. They were faced with three bad options. They could let it just fail and take the economy down the drain. Do like the US did with the TARP or take the thing over and fire the guys who were running it. The US took the TARP route. Look at what happened with that. In 1929 the US took the "let them fail" route. That didn't come out very good. The real problem happened long before the take over.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Arguable- the way the banking system originated in the 18th century was trial and error- i.e. letting banks experiment/fail. As it is RBS is now a vast Zombie company.
Oh, and there's also HBOS, which would have been less of an issue had Labour not encouraged Lloyds to take them over and create an even bigger f*ck up.
And you say about the Great Depression, but have you ever seen the rebound the US made after? The worse the recession, the bigger the recovery...
tdp1909 2 weeks ago
@tdp1909 The making of even bigger banks is what the US did in spades. It was encouraged. It is one of the very dumb things done.
The US's growth coming out of the 1929 crash is a very interesting thing and very instructive. 1929 was the crash. 1930, 1931, 1932 things got worse. In 1933, the government dumped huge fist fulls of cash into the system and there was a little growth. 1933-1936, growth was reasonable but not extremely fast. The trend ran to about 1980.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@tdp1909 Gingrich is the best man for the job!
stevelatinner 3 weeks ago
@stevelatinner Tough call, but have to agree with you
tdp1909 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Huntsman or Ron Paul 2012
MOXWELLDIAMOND 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
NickmickRs 2 months ago
I like Huntsman, hope he is vice president if he doesn't win the nomination
Taconic66 2 months ago 4
I soooo hope Huntsman gets in - he's the only one who isn't nuts or downright boring...
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 Ron Paul.
Sylinic 2 months ago
@Sylinic As a former Ron Paul supporter, I agree. However he is perceived as nuts and most people would just say 'he'd legalise heroin'...
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 LOL WHAT!? You stopped supporting him because other people call him "nuts"? That's sad. What's "nutts" is that the only sane person running for president is perceived as "nuts". Because of other imbeciles who don't understand how these wars work and fall victim to the propaganda machine that is the main stream media, you don't support him anyone. Tell me, if heroine is legal, would you do it? Oh you wouldn't? So you don't need the government to hold your hand? Oh, learn freedom
Sylinic 2 months ago
@Sylinic I agree, but most people do not have squeegeed third eyes, and would rather dismiss him as 'nuts' than think about what he says. As Bertrand Russell put it "Most people would rather than think, and the majority do". Sadly that same majority would never vote Ron Paul (even though they should)
I also think Huntsman has more of a chance as he is more moderate, knows his beans (esp with Taxation + debt) and will know how to stand up to China...
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 I'm...just shocked. How can, because others cast him off as nuts, someone stops supporting him. That line of reasoning, just utterly baffles me. Like, you even acknowledge he's the best, but won't fight for him and inform people. Call me crazy, but i'd rather fight for what's right, than roll over. Ron Paul is first in Iowa btw, even with the MSM censoring him and glorifying newty boy. Huntsman has absolutely no chance, come on man, help us inform people of the truth.
Sylinic 2 months ago
@Sylinic I have to confess that, though I like Ron Paul, I really don't think he'd make a good President. He'd be perfect if they put him in charge of the US Treasury (or one of the departments he doesn't want to abolish lol), but as President for 1 he's too old and for 2 he'd need a very strong fixer as number two to deliver his agenda.
Huntsman fits better as President - maybe even with Ron Paul as a running mate! I also think his ratings will pick up in the next few days as the New kid...
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 Huntsman won't win, he has what, 1%? His daddy funds his campaign?(I don't care, but the media will kill him). The man is in better shape than most of the other candidates, the age argument is a fallacy. Just, whatever man, keep doing what ever it is you do, his actual supporters will do everything they can to get him elected. I don't need to come off like such a dick, but jesus.
Sylinic 2 months ago
@Sylinic Mark my words - Paul won't win - the machine will stop him. Huntsman is the Dark horse...
I confess- I'm actually a Brit + we have people like Ron Paul here- Dan Hannan MEP, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell etc. Look up any of these 3 + they mostly speak a great deal of sense (expt 'Rivers of Blood') but they never achieved high office. Why? Because they are prophets, not leaders.
And the age thing is important - Paul looks worn out (unlike Reagan), which is not what u want in a President.
tdp1909 2 months ago
@tdp1909 Worn out old men aren't cyclists. Yes you're right, the elite will do everything they can to stop him from winning, that's why it requires people like me with spines to spread the word. I'd rather fight for what's right than roll over like a coward.
Sylinic 2 months ago
@Sylinic I ain't no coward, I just want to back someone who has a chance of winning, and I think Huntsman is better and is the thing Democrats fear the most: a moderate Conservative.
Anyways, I'm not going to convince you, but maybe a Paul/Huntsman ticket (either way round) is a good compromise, eh?
tdp1909 2 months ago 3
@tdp1909 He does have a chance though, but I mean. I'd rather see a Paul / Paul ticket. :D
Sylinic 2 months ago
@tdp1909 All due respect, Paul/Huntsman would never work... the two are too polarized... would alienate rather than bring together voters IMO
BiIlion 2 months ago in playlist 2012 GOP Debate
@tdp1909
Smart money is on what you just said!!
BigCabin5 2 months ago
@Sylinic Why not donate to Huntsman's campaign? I did...
DesignCBTs 1 month ago
You're a mean one, Newt Gingrich.
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
You're as charming as an eel.
Newt Gingrich.
You're a bad banana
With a greasy black peel.
Senehtsotara 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Search ''Gingrich Toffler''.
Hes not just for big-gov, hes a dangerous NUT!!!
WVMADMAN1 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
NUMBER ONE REASON WHY USA IS IN ECONOMICAL CRISIS, IS COS REPUBLICAN REAGAN OPENED EYES TO SOVIET UNION, NOW RUSSIA IS BECOMING CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY AND USA IS BECOMING POOR COUNTRY, THANKS TO REPUBLICAN REAGAN FOR MAKING SOVIET UNION DISAPPEAR. SO WHEN I HEAR GINGRICH TALKING ABOUT REAGAN I WANNA TAKE MY BLOODY TAMPON AND PLUG IT IN HIS MOUTH, I SHOULD WAIT WHEN I AM ON A HEAVY FLOW! RUSSIA IS BECOMING SMART COS NEIGHBOUR CHINA SELLS CHEAP COMPUTERS TO RUSSIA.
democratsaresmart 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try it FREE for 90 days to start your own Internet Home Business!
┈┈┈ amazingautosystem.weebly.com ┈┈┈┈
MultiAhka 2 months ago
Sadly, Jon Huntsman is way too sane to win the republican nomination.
halfahuman 2 months ago 31
@halfahuman
I hope you're not correct, but I fear that you might be! Sane, smart, articulate and non-foaming at the mouth partisan.
BigCabin5 2 months ago
Can you imagine one of these with two hostile candidates? I like the mutual respect approach, but a Romney/Kerry one of these would be hilarious.
Titantron9000 2 months ago
The reason we justify waste in defense is because of corruption, it is not because of big government or anything else, and that is why until we get rid of the corrupting influence of money we will not see "lean six-sigma" or anything else to whip the system into fiscal discipline. Look who started this whole contractor thing in the military (Gingrinch) that has been a complete boondoggle sucking money out of the US military and putting it Blackwater, no in Yemen. Idiots! Liars! Both!
justgivemethetruth 2 months ago
China is an econ & mlt. threat, also "social" threat. Moving aggressively into US politics and powerbrokering, just like they have all over the rest of the world,they are much more ethnocentric & racist now than the US & the West & are closed. China is trying to inherit the world-they work together to do that, even Chinese in the West. We have given everything to China along with lots of money - it may just be too late, they have done to use what we have to the world.
justgivemethetruth 2 months ago
I believe in confronting Iran, but no one knows what to do and everyone is leaving it up to the US and Israel. I think that is exactly what we are doing and waiting for. China is playing a 19th/20th century imperial game, so it is to their advantage to let everyone else fight and weaken themselves. The problem is no matter what happens with Iran there is a distributed threat of Islamic radicalism - centering around Saudi Arabia that has been the greatest threat. and they love this scenario.
justgivemethetruth 2 months ago
Gingrich is all about words, even more so than Obama, he just says whatever he has schemed will attract people's interest. He is clever, but you cannot trust or believe a word he says. If one of these Republican candidates has the potential to be a very dangerous bad actor it would be Gingrinch.
justgivemethetruth 2 months ago
2 biggest lie bags in the whole debate.
ammoniha 2 months ago
I like how Gingrich says he will cast no stones at his fellow Republican Nominees.
He acts like he is taking the High Road when in all actuality he knows that if he throws 1 stone he will get 6 back.
I got bored ,so with no chance of hearing an Honest and Informative debate ,because Ron Paul was not there ,I stopped watching.If there was anything note worthy from this "Debate" would someone please write me and tell me the time stamp (or make a vid with Highlights).
Ron Paul 2012
YouAreOneOfUs 2 months ago
@YouAreOneOfUs It boggles the mind that, even if you disagree with the positions of these candidates, you don't find this debate informative or interesting. That's simply not possible if you are intelligent enough to listen to and understand the issues being discussed.
Cyzthur 2 months ago
Gingrich: "there is no effective deterrent" to stop suicide bombing. Are you kidding me?! How about reading Pape's "Dying to Win" or "Cutting the Fuse". The majority international relations specialists agree; to stop suicide bombing, stop occupying. If China sent troops to the U.S. and occupied our streets and accidentally killed our civilians I bet people would suicide bomb them too. Even if you don't agree with this theory, we should at least try it because what we're doing now isn't working.
hoyasaxaman 2 months ago
Ron Paul!
hoyasaxaman 2 months ago
I think these are how our debates will end up in the future!
Bostinlagga 2 months ago
Gingrich is a fear monger. Even if the Iranians did possess nuclear weapons, it will only be for defensive needs. Just Google "USA flag Iran" to see why. US bases surround Iran. The US invaded two nations that border Iran. The US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and replaced it with the despotic Shah.
Ahmadinejad did not say he will wipe Israel of the map. That was a mistranslation which was then tied to Iran's pursuit of nuclear power to drum up hysteria.
abdulmismail 2 months ago
Huntsman seems to me all talk, no substance. he uses a lot of airtime with no specific aim. Newt is much more focused, and comprehensible about Islam, because islam works according to rules incomprehensible to Huntsman
YB
BigB29357 2 months ago
I agree with the description that Huntsman clearly stated a modern vision. Gingrich seems to fill the air with ideas that don't lead to description. He has enough ideas to fill all the time, but his ideas don't tie together. They don't have cumulative importance. He does this by saying history. He isn't really pushing any effort which leads to problems with leadership ability. Because of that I don't thing anybody would be able to control outcome and he'd be a puppet.
rexbreed 2 months ago
Comment removed
rexbreed 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rexbreed Due to my last comment I'd hope it could explain some of the comments that go to Gingrich. First he is a fear monger. Not that he does it intentionally! But if you throw out a certain set of generalizations without your solution . . . Fear. I think that's a big problem. Even with his open opinion about Palestinians technically not existing he doesn't have a clear goal and that's an issue :-)
rexbreed 2 months ago
Best fix, GET OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE!
Mediamessengers 2 months ago 2
@Mediamessengers Obama 2012.
KungfuCow5 2 months ago
newts favorite president is fdr!
PatricksTime 2 months ago
Jon Huntsman seems to be a much more wiser politician than Newt. His views on foreign policies is much more progressive than the old not working view of Newt to show the world U.S. is number one..which is a huge mistake.
DejanYugoslavian 2 months ago
Comment removed
Murray13j 2 months ago
Very good overview by two of the most important Global Progressives who support the NEW WORLD Order.
The only view missing from the argument is Ron Paul's... but of course, the Global Progressive movement does not allow a complete and free flow of information, does it?
btrask3 2 months ago
Ron Paul's sense of liberty and Jon Huntsman's foreign policy would be awesome for a president and vice-president combination.
Lishy1 2 months ago
Comment removed
abdulmismail 2 months ago
Comment removed
abdulmismail 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's so nice to actually go to a youtube candidate debate video that hasn't been spammed by Ron Paultards.
nmhamilton7 2 months ago 4
@nmhamilton7
nevermind, I didnt see tacomaster when I made that comment
nmhamilton7 2 months ago
@nmhamilton7 PAULTARDS ARE WAY BETTER THEN HUNTARDS OR GINGTARDS FOR THAT MATTER!
ammoniha 2 months ago
Jon Huntsman , smart guy!
BaronLarang08 2 months ago
Gringrich is just another CFR puppet-- a mouthpiece for the international bankers who have engineered a financial collapse and have reduced Americans to debt slaves. Gingrich is just another neo fascist like Bush.
damienrockaterror 2 months ago
@damienrockaterror Then Obama is a neo socialist like every other ultra-liberal in this country. First, it's spelled Gingrich. Not Gringrich. If you didn't know, Republicans are not the only people to have contributed to the debt crisis. President Obama has added $4 trillion to the previous $10 trillion we had in debt. Don't be so quick to blame Republicans because there is PLENTY of shit we could say about Democrats.
Murray13j 2 months ago 6
@Murray13j
Well said Murray!
nmhamilton7 2 months ago
@nmhamilton7 Thank you(: I try to put down Democrats as much as I can.
Murray13j 2 months ago
@Murray13j I don't think he's a democrat...by looking at his videos he seems to be a Ron Paul libertarian and they hate everybody
csjbo1990 2 months ago
@Murray13j Are you living in a bubble? It is known fact that Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the same special interests. The US is essentially a one party fascist dictatorship run by a banking oligarchy. Dollars mean nothing it is just paper made by the ruling elite who run the privately owned federal reserve. When your dollar system collapses I will be in gold and silver. Who cares about bankpuppet Obama he is the same as CFR puppet Newtzi. Watch the movie OBAMA DECEPTION
damienrockaterror 2 months ago
@Murray13j Youtube isn't an effective forum to hold debates...
busterbrownation 2 months ago
I love Huntsman.
1. Because of his views
2. Because he loves Curb your Enthusiasm
OhmegadJT 2 months ago
Huntsman is one of the few GOP candidates that could seriously be president. But unfortunately for the Republicans they prefer some person that is more mean spirited and even foaming at the mouth. If this happens they will lose the election. The Independents or the middle crowd will have to go towards Obama.
garufia 2 months ago
Vote ron paul.
Tacomaster21 2 months ago
As an European I'm amazed by the knowledge of Huntsman, especially with regard to China. However, I do not understand why he only has about 2% of support in the polls. Although I do not approve of his policies, I must also say that Gingrich did well in this debate.
springjools 2 months ago 2
Powerful closing remarks by Huntsman
MrForestor 2 months ago
Huntsman is 100 times better than flip-flop Newt Gingrich
MrForestor 2 months ago