Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NH Presidential Debate to include 7 Candidates

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
NH will be hosting a Republican presidential primary debate in June, and they have invited 9 candidates. Seven accepted, and 2 declined. They also set criteria for invitees, so if your favorite choice wasn't invited, you'll be able to determine why.

Imo, any candidate that declined an invitation without a solid reason, is not a serious candidate.

Primary


MANCHESTER, N.H. -- After months of criss-crossing the country and trying to woo potential supporters in early voting states, seven Republicans hoping to capture their party's presidential nomination will meet next month for the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012 election.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum will participate in the June 13 debate on the campus of St. Anselm College.
Invitations were extended to the seven Republicans who will appear on stage in New Hampshire as well as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and businessman Donald Trump.
:
In recent weeks, Daniels, Huckabee and Trump all publicly stated they would not seek the Republican presidential nomination. Giuliani declined the debate invitation, as did Huntsman.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Get em Paul !

is there any reason as to why i shouldnt like him ?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by WordPlayJAy
 




is there any reason as to why i shouldnt like him ?


Good question, and I hope you get some reasoned responses instead of crap like "he talks funny" or "he has a weird haircut" or "he is a ________ religion".

These threads have a tendency to attract stupid responses like that.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Yes and I hope for once members ignore the trolls..
Especially one very consistent member that haunts any Ron Paul thread with unsubstantiated BS..

Ron Paul has a 30 year history of never wavering from the fact that he 100% supports the constitution, even if it occasionally disagrees with some of his ideas he is still patriotic enough to realize that America needs a set of founding rules..
I'd certainly vote for him if I was in the US and if he ever decided to move to Australia I'd vote for him here also..
Honest politicians are hard to find..



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WordPlayJAy
Get em Paul !

is there any reason as to why i shouldnt like him ?


If you like his personality and agree with his position On the Issues, I don't see any reason.

Of course if you think he'll actually DO anything in the White House, you might want to think about that. Anyone who gets into the position is only going to be able to get about10- 20% of the changes they campaign on... (that's just guess, not a scientifically calculated probability).

People are being naive to think that Paul (or anyone) would get into the White House and change the basic direction of the country. He will be no more effective than Obama. Because the president doesn't run the country. Ron Paul's radical ideas (and I have nothing against radical) will never make it past Congress, if he would be permitted to be in the race at all.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Oh Mitt. You're such a useless puke.


I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals.


www.ontheissues.org...


Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.

A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.
edit on 3-6-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Ron Paul's radical ideas (and I have nothing against radical) will never make it past Congress, if he would be permitted to be in the race at all.


And how many times have Presidents, including Obama, sidestepped congress?
Executive orders are abundant...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Don't discount the impact that a candidate or legislator/executive can have on elections and legislation. Take Obama for example. Many people fell for his oratory skills (that got him elected) and his promises (that got some bills passed that turned out to be total disasters). Iow, many people voted for the sizzle and not the steak. But in RP's case, his long record of staying true to the Constitution shows that he doesn't lie to get votes. And that impresses constituents to the point where they exercise their rights and votes to convince their reps and senators to listen to their voice or face defeat at the polls, as happened in 2010 via the TPM.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


How about a link? Thanks..



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Oh Mitt. You're such a useless puke.


Can I quote you on that?
Sounds like a good election-time signature line. (j/k)

Yes, Ron Paul can sidestep Congress, but isn't that one thing people hate about what Obama's done? Is it OK for Paul to do it?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Yes, Ron Paul can sidestep Congress, but isn't that one thing people hate about what Obama's done? Is it OK for Paul to do it?


True, morally Ron Paul would be against executive orders IMO but then how many laws passed by congress and executive orders signed by Presidents have actually been done agreeably with the majority of citizens??

If Ron Paul used executive orders as a last resort to pass laws that the majority agreed with but congress had voted against, then I think the people would cherish him...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
True, morally Ron Paul would be against executive orders


Then if he's a man of integrity, which people claim (and I believe), what's to say that he would use his position to strong arm his policies into practice by the use of EOs?

has he made ANY indication whatsoever that he's willing to do this? Has he talked about HOW he will make these sweeping changes?



... but then how many laws passed by congress and executive orders signed by Presidents have actually been done agreeably with the majority of citizens??


I have no idea and I'm not sure of the relevance.

The point is, if Ron Paul REALLY believes in and supports the Constitution and our way of government (which I believe he does) then he's going to be impotent in the White House. Because he WON'T sign EOs and he will never get Congress to support the radical changes he wishes to implement.

I hope someone asks him just how he's going to get his ideas through the MACHINE that is Washington DC. I think he'll be chewed up and spit out.



If Ron Paul used executive orders as a last resort to pass laws that the majority agreed with but congress had voted against, then I think the people would cherish him...


So, if Ron Paul went against his own stated morals and sidestepped Congress to strong arm some legislation, the people would cherish him. But when Obama does it, he's responsible for the breakdown of our country. OK. Got it.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



So, if Ron Paul went against his own stated morals and sidestepped Congress to strong arm some legislation, the people would cherish him. But when Obama does it, he's responsible for the breakdown of our country. OK. Got it.


Don't take my post out of context like that..
I support any action that reflects the views of the people..
After all, isn't that what our elected leaders are meant to be doing?

Now, as a quick example..
The vast majority of Americans wish that the US would bring the troops home but congress disagrees..
If Ron Paul signed an EO to bring the troops home then he "is" supporting the constitution IMO..
The constitution calls for the power of the people...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I actually think the time is right for Ron Paul in 2012. Especially because of the mess that the GOP and Dems have created over the last decade or so with their expensive big-government fantasies and adventures. He can pretty much count on getting the Centrists, Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Partyers, Moderate Democrats and even some Liberals. Pretty much everyone except "loyal" (blindly obedient) Republicans and Democrats.
edit on 3-6-2011 by joyride0187 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
5 Key questions for GOP candidates



The campaign of 2012 will help Americans to find out. In the debate, the moderators should push the candidates to address five basic questions that have emerged in recent weeks as Republicans have started to talk more about their own party than about Obama.

Question 1: What is your plan for the revitalizing the economy?
Question 2: How far are you willing to cut government services?
Question 3: How would you eliminate the deficit without raising taxes?
Question 4: What would you do about Afghanistan and the rest of the war on terrorism in the post-bin Laden era?
Question 5: Where do you stand on same-sex marriage and gay rights?


I really hope these questions get asked tonight. I'd love to hear the answers.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join