Wow! Ron Paul wins GOP Debate

reply to post by ats1629

---

These polls are not scientifically accurate because you cannot draw any conclusions about the greater universe of Americans from the sample population. I have rehashed this territory before. The only thing you can conclude is that Paul supporters are more likely to text message their votes.

I didn't watch the rebroadcast but did FN completely cut the electability question? I've only seen it on YouTube. If they did I'm damn glad I don't have cable and haven't given them a penny in subscription dues. If they're going to carry and rebroadcast the debates they should be required to rebroadcast them in full. The debates are not an entertainment product. Once they record it they can't pick and choose what portions they want the American people to hear.

We must agree that Ron Paul won the debate.

In the spirit of objectivity, however, it must also be admitted that his supporters are the most boisterous & motivated so they will always win by applause.

We are encouraged to note that he also won the text-in poll, as usual.

Can anyone tell me one debate that he hasn't won ?

The American people want their country back.

Hope for America

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Bullmoose Bailey]

Pardner, I just calls em' as I sees em'

Being actually at the debate, perhaps I got a somewhat different view than those that watched it...

For one, Paul was perhaps the least composed of the group and appeared to feel out of place. I not only don't think he won the debate, I believe he soundly lost it perhaps only McCain had a poorer showing...
(Just my opinion of course and that of the Republican Committee I belong to)

Now as far as his voting record.

That is what initially turned me off about Paul. His voting record is all over the place and hardly consistent with the direction I feel would benefit this country....

See, Paul can say anything he wants to. They all do, but as each candidate declares, I make it a habit to examine their voting records if for no other reason than to laugh at the times they lie.. (See Hillary for some REALLY good laughs)

Now as for the problems I found out myself, after wading through all the hype of course...

Problem #1

Vote Smart

Now anything can be explained away, if your gullible and fall for anything they say.. Words are cheap, look at what they do to become informed...

Problem #2

From the same URL as above, Paul wants to...


Some of those I think it probably necessary to slow funding, but to greatly decrease the Federal Aid to some of those programs is just irresponsible..
(note: That was from the PAT he filled out in 1996. There is no way to determine if he has changed his mind as he has not responded to the most recent one)

Some more problems...

You will see the date and his vote...


The list goes on and on and I feel no need to continue quoting it here, you get the idea..

Now combine all of that with his Anti-War sentiments and statements "almost" accusing the US of being responsible for the Radical Islamic madmen and frankly, I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Paul...

Now mind you, this is a political issue and therefor my opinion, but with his poor showing so far, I would guess many see it my way as well..

Semper

That's unfortunate if true. Really sad for the Republican Party and anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative.

He votes against things that aren't any of the Federal Government's business. What's wrong with that? We need to cut all this garbage federal funding for stupid pet programs. These are things that are the state's responsibilities. Eliminate all this trash and we can finally get a handle on our national debt, currently at $9,200,000,000,000.

Every other candidate promises to make that number grow. Some a lot faster that others. We need to stop meddling in everyone else's business, come back to our side of the moats, kill any ter'ists that try to swim across, and fix the mess the last six presidents have caused.

Monetary reform and the restoration/preservation of civil liberties are battling for my #1 priority. Paul is the only one committed to both. I wouldn't care if he studdered the entire way through the debate and opened each statement with a fart. He's got my vote.

And you should be commended for your passion, commitment and most of all, your vote...

Nothing wrong with feeling passionate about a candidate, I feel passionate for my beliefs as well. It is only our perceptions that are different...

You have your vote, I have mine and it perfectly exemplifies the wonderful system we live under...

(Well until the loser cries foul, which they seem to always do anymore)
((Luckily the public has heard it enough to know it for what it is, bologna and sour grapes))

Semper

Semp and apc you get stars from me on both those posts, and I really have nothing more to add. At least semp is checking and making his decisions based on facts. That's all anyone can ask for.

TA,

We can disagree and still be friends....

At least we are on the same side of the political spectrum...



Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

---

I know I only cry foul if there's evidence of it. I'm only 25 and haven't paid much attention to politics until now. I've rolled my eyes at those saying the last two elections were stolen. Sure, people went to jail for vote fraud in 2004, but I don't think it made a difference.

Recently I've taken a keen interest in the rise of the Roman Republic, which our republic is modeled after. To this day there are many similarities, both cultural and political. We even share the same weaknesses, and in the case of the Romans these led to empire. I think we are close to crossing that line, if we haven't already.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, save a few of the LP that most probably haven't even heard of, who has expressed the intent to veer us off this course and restore the republic to its intended purpose: to ensure freedom and liberty for her people.

Do I think there are those already in power who do not want this? That would kill, again, to preserve their positions? Absolutely. This is ATS after all. But does that mean the system is wrought with fraud? I do not know. With the Clintons in play, it's a strong possibility. I think widespread social manipulation is a more reliable and failsafe method than changing votes. But when that manipulation fails, who knows what's possible anymore?

If/when Paul loses, you won't see me throwing eggs at the victor's limo. That's for sure.
It will only solidify my resolve.

This man is speaking about returning us to a constitutional way of life. No more executive orders. Every single thing he wants to do, he wants to do it through congress and the senate like it is supposed to be done. So why is he so crazy? If his message is not acceptable and is not plausible then it will be decided so by the senate and congress, as it is supposed to be done. So even if he is wrong he is still right because he wants to do things the right way. Hate him or love him but either way he still stands above the other vultures trying to run.

I guess the Police State is good for us...

Please dont let me have to prove my point.. I can show u the post in ATSNN..

Just a quick soliloquy if you all will allow me.

The return to a Constitutional America, Way of Life or Government is supposedly what RP is campaigning on. OK, Let's examine that for a minute, shall we?

Breaking it down into it's relevant parts, the part that stands most prominent of course is the Constitution. Now the way the Government is setup, the Constitution is interpreted by Supreme Court ruling. As most will recall from the past, how it is interpreted depends on the seating of the court. Conservative or Liberal. If you will study our political history, you will undoubtedly discover that it actually is the "back and forth" swings in the Court that allow the Constitution to remain healthy and active. Too long in any one direction and we would find many things in the Constitution becoming irrelevant. That is one point of genius behind the Founding Fathers, that they saw this and made allowances for it.

Now, looking at Paul, his stance is returning to a Government based solely on the Constitution. Who's Constitution? The one he has interpreted? How can a Government be expected to run in a healthy manner under the leadership of a single man that supposes he can interpret the Constitution for an entire nation and enforce laws, enact legislation and make Presidential rulings all based on his interpretation alone?

Some of you may not like, approve or even hate some of the rulings of the Supreme Court, I know that I do, but guess what? Too bad. Just because YOU or I do not agree, does not make them wrong. In fact it is the Constitution itself that makes them correct and us wrong. They have been given the power of interpretation, not the demography.

Every time some one individual wants to be the final word in the governing of a country, what do we wind up with? A dictator.

Now I am not saying that is RP's goal, I am saying that what he proposes, he can not even begin to accomplish. The President is only one part of a three part Government and simple does not have that kind of power.

Keeping the Federal Government small, in my opinion, is a GREAT thing. I tend to agree with those that want "Big Brother" or the Feds out of our lives. However, one must be rational about such things. And reasonable. There are numerous "Laws of the Land" that need to be enforced by a Federal Government and not State by State. The Abolishment of Slavery jumps to mind, as does several of the pieces of legislation RP actively voted against.

Look at it this way, too much of anything is never a good thing. Too far to the right, disaster. To far to the left, Socialism.

What RP is campaigning on can never reach fruition in todays world, especially as "small" as the world is now and getting smaller by the day. Instant communication, travel and availability of transportation has reduced travel time to such a small percentage, that Federal Laws must be in place to protect us from those that would do us harm. Be they domestic criminals or foreign.

So not only do I not follow or believe Paul, I doubt if he really believes all he is hyping. If he does, the man is not as intelligent as he would have us believe.

Semper

Every action taken by a president through Executive Order can be undone by their successors. Agencies established such as the DHS and NCS that subvert the Constitution and undermine individual liberty can be abolished by the President.

But what may be the most important thing, Paul will not be the majority party's bitch. And vice versa. Most of the Democrats are scum. Most of the Republicans aren't far off. Under Clinton it was wink wink nudge nudge between the Capitol and the White House. Under Bush it's been more of the same. Too many in Congress hold a greater loyalty to their party and to the President than they do to the People, whom they are elected to serve.

From where I stand, Ron Paul is the only sane choice. The rest promise more war, more suffering, more tyranny and more betrayal. Ron Paul... doesn't. Whether or not he can do what needs to be done remains to be seen, but I say we give him a chance to try.