THE IOWA GOP DEBATE- Your reactions ATS?! *LIVE*

I don't think it is a problem with liberals sabotaging the vote by voting for Ron Paul.

I think we really just want him as an option. I would rather vote for him than Obama.
That's just a fact. In fact, I wanted to vote for him instead last time, but the republicans gave me McCain, so I had to vote for Obama.

It might seem a wide gap to jump from- but I want a president that will let the US be as socially progressive as we vote TO BE, and I am very anti-war, including the drug war.

Obama was anti-war - of course he LIED about that.

reply to post by hadriana

I don't think it is a problem with liberals sabotaging the vote by voting for Ron Paul.

I think we really just want him as an option. I would rather vote for him than Obama.
That's just a fact. In fact, I wanted to vote for him instead last time, but the republicans gave me McCain, so I had to vote for Obama.

Exactly the same situation as me. I wanted to vote for Paul, but the Republicans put up McCain/Palin, so I voted for Obama. I went for the charismatic, young, unknown, instead of the known bad. Turns out we were screwed either way.

Most likely, the Republicans will put up Perry and/or Romney this time, so we will have to choose between two (internal thought.........dam, odd dilemma entered my thought pattern here. No matter what I say, it will sound racist, and it has nothing to do with skin tone? I was going to say, "choose between two flavors of vanilla" but that won't work, so then I was going to say "two shades of the same agenda" but that is even worse......../end internal thought), well anyway, if we have to choose between Obama, and a mainstream Republican, we are doomed either way.

Here are the latest poll numbers, as to who people thought won the debate:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bfc364181a16.png[/atsimg]

State breakdown. Green = Paul wins majority of votes from state (for this poll)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b1ef47aae5d.png[/atsimg]
www.topix.com...

Wow. Ron Paul overwhelmingly wins the debate, according to the public, yet barely gets a mention in the MSM. That's pretty messed up.

There is SOMEONE SOMEWHERE that could blow the whistle on why Fox News is being like this.
It is conspiratorial, it has to be. They give every other candidate at least a bit of time. Big stars get on their shows saying they will support everyone but him to millions. There's memos or meetings or something, somewhere, where newscasters are being told how to handle the RP candidacy. "Ignore it" might be all it says, but there's some whistle somewhere that needs blowing.

Shep brought it up at the last debate that they did not let him in. I could tell that Shep knew it was wrong.

Here are the results of the Iowa Online Straw Poll.

1st - Ron Paul with 44% of the unique online votes
2nd - Herman Cain 16%
3rd - Michele Bachmann 10%
4th - Rick Perry 8%
5th - (TIE) Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney 5%
7th - Sarah Palin 4%
8th - "Someone Else" 3%
9th - Rick Santorum 2%
10th - (Tie) Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich with 1% of the unique online votes

What I find interesting is that 60% rejected politics as usual. I am leaning toward Herman Cain but am FAR from decided...I am sick to death of politicians and am ready for a real change in the way things are done in Washington.

reply to post by pandora0629

What I find interesting is that 60% rejected politics as usual. I am leaning toward Herman Cain...I am sick to death of politicians and am ready for a real change in the way things are done in Washington.

Thanks Pandora. I can definitely agree with the sentiment, and while I like Cain's presence and presentation (just to be honest, I do like the guy), I don't like his views on some of the important financial matters as they'll enable to perpetrators to continue causing the real issues - and I'm afraid we'd see less change in how things are done in Washington than desired as Cain doesn't appear to have very strong views or solid understanding on some issues directly and keeps deferring to the "advisors" he would rely on...

...and usually, those advisors are long-time Washington insiders who've been drifting in and out of administrations as the wind shift, and seem to keep recommending the same courses of action. Frustrating.

Anyhow, take care - and whoever we all end up supporting as our final option, I hope it ends well with us.

reply to post by pandora0629


I think people like Cain because he actually knows how to balance a budget and turn around bankrupt doomed to fail franchises. Some of his views are ultra conservative though and will lose him too many Independent voters.

www.foxnews.com...

Hey, an article from Fox News that doesn't ignore Ron Paul! I feel this is a pretty good assessment of the field, at least in the majority's eye. I just don't understand how sleazeball Mitt Romney is looked upon so fondly! "Corporations are people", are you kidding me?

Callers on CSPAN seem to be overwhelmingly in support of Ron Paul.

reply to post by EVILteddie


Yep fair enough assessment, except I just don't understand all the support for Romney and Bachmann?

Anyhow, they gave Paul a solid AA and "stable" outlook. I'll take that as a win!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

[color=limegreen]Paul has massive support among Republicans. This does not translate into nationwide results. While we on hte left can nod at a few of his ideas, we look at his frankly insane domestic agenda, and recoil in horror from a guy who makes Pinochet look like Keynes.

I disagree with you there. Although I don't identify myself as either, I've been called a democrat dozens of times, and took a few quizzes just for the hell of it and all of them say I'm a democrat.

With that being said, I LOVE RON PAUL! I want to get a poster of him in my room and bow to him every day. We don't see eye to eye on every issue, primarily taxing the rich, however ending the wars, legalizing all drugs, and protecting liberty/the constitution are three things that I agree 6000% with.

Now clearly I'm not indicative of all democrats, but I think all people, whether left or right, can see that Ron Paul isn't some douche who says pre-thought-out lines in order to get applause and appease his smug ego like many of the other candidates, he tells it like it is and talks like he's just having a conversation rather than remembering his talking points that he rehearsed in front of the mirror while practicing hand gestures or whatever those other candidates seem to be doing.

And I love his simplistic yet accurately realistic common sense view on issues.

Here's my answer to all of this. If Paul does not get the nomination, then there needs to be a write-in campaign. Would it not be grand for the grandfather of the Tea Party to win via a write-in? Would that not send a resounding shot across the bow's of both parties? Just because he may not get the nomination, that doesn't me we can't elect him!

Originally posted by haarvik
Here's my answer to all of this. If Paul does not get the nomination, then there needs to be a write-in campaign. Would it not be grand for the grandfather of the Tea Party to win via a write-in? Would that not send a resounding shot across the bow's of both parties? Just because he may not get the nomination, that doesn't me we can't elect him!

Sorry, Ron Paul went down the drain on the Iran question.
-------
I thought Rick Santorum was going to jump out of his skin when Ron Paul
so easily dismissed Iran.
---------
Now is a bad time for isolationism.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Sorry, Ron Paul went down the drain on the Iran question.
-------
I thought Rick Santorum was going to jump out of his skin when Ron Paul
so easily dismissed Iran.
---------
Now is a bad time for isolationism.

What? Paul said it best: We need to mind our own business.

If another country wants to have some nuclear weapons, let them have some nuclear weapons! We're not the police of the world, why is it fair that we have thousands of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy all life on earth 30 times over, while other countries can't even have one?

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AMERICA!

FINALLY! Paul get's some main stream media coverage:

Did Ron Paul win the GOP debate in Ames?

Ron Paul's supporters think he wins everything. Thursday night's Fox News debate presented eight of the Republican presidential wannabes on one stage as a political lead-up to Saturday's Ames Straw Poll. Paul is a 76-year-old Air Force veteran and retired ob-gyn who has only been elected to 11 terms in the House of Representatives as a Texas Republican who talks more like a libertarian. None of the other Republican candidates have been elected to anything 11 times, counting schoolyard pickup games.

Down at the end, they sum it up correctly:

And then, playing by the establishment's rules, Paul's people, many of them new to politics, go out with signs and their voices and their straw-poll ballots. The debate winner may be arguable. Paul's chance of being the Republican nominee might seem distant. But he's driving a big chunk of the debate. And on Saturday, look for Ron Paul's name at or very near the top of the straw-poll competitors. But, of course, he doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Sorry, Ron Paul went down the drain on the Iran question.
-------
I thought Rick Santorum was going to jump out of his skin when Ron Paul
so easily dismissed Iran.
---------
Now is a bad time for isolationism.

What? Paul said it best: We need to mind our own business.

If another country wants to have some nuclear weapons, let them have some nuclear weapons! We're not the police of the world, why is it fair that we have thousands of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy all life on earth 30 times over, while other countries can't even have one?

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AMERICA!

Everyone will change their mind when they see the very first small - test - nuclear bomb explosion
mushroom cloud appear in a remote area of Iran.
----------
Can you just imagine a salvo heading towards Israel?

reply to post by getreadyalready


I was and am in the same boat.
(I also agree 100% with your position on the China aircraft carrier thread.)

I will vote Obama in the following situations: Romney, Pawlenty, Newt, Palin, Santorum. (add Bachman to the list if I become utterly convinced that she thinks homosexuality is either, a condition that can be treated and cured, sin, or some other draconian ignorant belief.)

I can't vote for dumb or ignorant people, because they can be controlled and handled. GWB sure comes to mind there.
That group this time around is ( Palin and Bachman)
Romney: please vote for me, I so want to be the President, I will tell you anything.
Pawlenty: (my ex-governor) hate him on multiple levels.
Newt: I bought into his crap in 1994 ( I think) you had your chance and you blew it!!!!!
Santorum: his foreign policy alone takes him out for me.

Everybody else has a decent chance at getting my vote against Obama.

I will get off my ass and go door to door for him, because Paul's election is won in the primary.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Everyone will change their mind when they see the very first small - test - nuclear bomb explosion
mushroom cloud appear in a remote area of Iran.
----------
Can you just imagine a salvo heading towards Israel?

We're not the police of the world dude. It's not Americas responsibility to tell other sovreign nations what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot possess. If another nation wants to have nuclear weapons, they can have nuclear weapons.

Why do you see it as OK that America can have thousands of them, but we feel the need to tell other countries they can't have any? Are they too stupid to handle them properly without dropping them and accidentally detonating them? Is it a country of mentally unstable sociopaths who want to destroy the world?

America needs to mind their own business and let other countries do the same, we're not the mommy and daddy country of the little kids of the world, we're the new kid on the block who feels the need to try to boss everybody around.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I was and am in the same boat.
(I also agree 100% with your position on the China aircraft carrier thread.)

I will vote Obama in the following situations: Romney, Pawlenty, Newt, Palin, Santorum. (add Bachman to the list if I become utterly convinced that she thinks homosexuality is either, a condition that can be treated and cured, sin, or some other draconian ignorant belief.)

I can't vote for dumb or ignorant people, because they can be controlled and handled. GWB sure comes to mind there.
That group this time around is ( Palin and Bachman)
Romney: please vote for me, I so want to be the President, I will tell you anything.
Pawlenty: (my ex-governor) hate him on multiple levels.
Newt: I bought into his crap in 1994 ( I think) you had your chance and you blew it!!!!!
Santorum: his foreign policy alone takes him out for me.

Everybody else has a decent chance at getting my vote against Obama.

If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will get off my ass and go door to door for him.

That is just about 100% the way I see it as well!!

Although I would add: It is VERY important to get off your ass and go door to door for him in the primary. His biggest challenge is defeating the RNC and MSM puppets. If he can win a few primaries and get mainstream support from his own party, then the presidency is a shoe-in!

I think a Paul - Obama election would have Paul winning by landslide!! But first he has to defeat the under-handed tactics of his own party and the press corps. SO, we have to be the most vocal right now, not later!

reply to post by Res Ipsa


How about supporting him now? How about spreading the word? If you truly wish him to be president, then start now...don't wait for some primary. If we don't get his name and message out now, it will be too late in the primaries!