Who do you think won the Florida Debate?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I posted a "prediction" thread before the debate saying that the internet polls will say that Ron Paul won, no matter what happens in the debate.

I'm not so sure about that now.

Ron Paul made two big mis-steps.

#1 - He basically said he would allow someone with no insurance die if they got sick. He actually side-stepped the question...but by doing so he allowed Wolf to interject that idea and he couldn't counter it.

#2 - He said America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Headlines are already appearing with this quote.


I personally think Bachman "won" for making Perry look so bad...it really hurts me to say that...but I'm being honest.

I think Perry was the clear loser...he just got bashed over and over and over...and he looked shell shocked about half way through.


So I am wondering who YOU think won (and lost).

If you think Paul (because I know we have a lot of Paul supporters)...can you tell me what he did in the DEBATE that will further his campaign???
edit on 12-9-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ron Paul won because he was truthful.
A sheep would "boo" at an inconvenient truth.
A smart person would recognize that an inconvenient truth is better than a convenient lie.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


#2 - He said America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Headlines are already appearing with this quote.



It's sad how many American's don't realize we were in the middle east long before 9/11. Yes, our interventionist policy was responsible for 9/11.

I missed the debate. Just throwing that out there to support Ron Paul because he's the only republican candidate that isn't an evil insane liar.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Just to get it out of the way I think Romney lost.

And as for Ron Paul it hurts to see him get bashed for reasonable and true answers...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Bachmann did the best I think...Unfortunately
...But Cain did very well tonight. RP just doesn't play their lying game so he'll always make equal amounts of people Happy and Angry which will cost him.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ron Paul won because he was truthful.
A sheep would "boo" at an inconvenient truth.
A smart person would recognize that an inconvenient truth is better than a convenient lie.


I understand that you liked him being truthful...but how do you think it will effect his campaign???


There is no need to try to insult anyone by trying to equate "smartness" to the support of a candidate...just explain how a comment like that helps his campaign knowing that the majority of Americans will view that comment negatively.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Well to me all the other candidates answered in a way they felt the people wanted to hear I thought Ron Paul answered very truthfully and it might of hurt him but that is because the medias lack of coverage of him.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I feel herman cain did the best even though I felt like he was trying to sell me a pizza 9.99.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There were no winners. They were all losers. Some just lost more than the others.

edit on 12-9-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I like Ron Paul, he makes a lot of sense, however I do not believe him to be electable. The guy that made the most points with me tonight was Huntsman, he actually made some sense when he spoke. This is from someone that is ferociously independent.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddyweiser
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Well to me all the other candidates answered in a way they felt the people wanted to hear I thought Ron Paul answered very truthfully and it might of hurt him but that is because the medias lack of coverage of him.


Well said.. what little attention he does get is usually taken outta context by the media as a whole. Which Ultimately gives people a bad disposition towards him before they ever hear a live word spoken from his mouth..But that's politics, either live by the sword or die by it RP.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Ron Paul won on substance. Herman Cain/John Huntsman won on style. If i hear Bachmann say "Obamacare" one more time i think i'll throw up in my mouth. I'm from minnesota and good god I hope people don't get the idea that she's the norm around here. #, she makes Bush look like a philosophy professer in comparison.
edit on 12-9-2011 by accentedsoul because: more info



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Michele won..hands down.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
One debate does not a Pres. make... No one candidate won hands down.
We've a long road ahead.
edit on 12-9-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ron Paul won because he was truthful.
A sheep would "boo" at an inconvenient truth.
A smart person would recognize that an inconvenient truth is better than a convenient lie.


I understand that you liked him being truthful...but how do you think it will effect his campaign???


There is no need to try to insult anyone by trying to equate "smartness" to the support of a candidate...just explain how a comment like that helps his campaign knowing that the majority of Americans will view that comment negatively.


I never intended to insult anyone. If anyone is insulted by what I said, it's because they are the ones who would prefer to be told a convenient lie instead of the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it is.


I think it will affect his campaign positively because people will realize that he's being truthful, and that's what more and more people are wanting these days. People will recognize that it takes guts to tell the truth, and eventually, will start to realize the benefits of what he said, even if they didn't "like" the truths he spoke of at first. Those who "boo'd" him for speaking the truth will go home, and in the next few days and maybe weeks, will talk about it with others-- Others who may go "wow... he really said that?" and be moved by his courage to speak the truth. Those people will then tell others that he spoke the inconvenient truth in the faces of many who would prefer to be blinded to it. Those people who are told will go "wow.. what a courageous and honest man". The truth is infectious, even if you hear about it through the mouth of someone who doesn't like that truth.

The more people talk about what he said, the more debate that will arise from it, and the more chances people will have to have explained to them that what RP said was not a bad thing at all.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by accentedsoul
 



Ron Paul won on substance.


Could you give examples of the substance that he won on???



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I'll ask you the same.

What "substance" did he win on in tonights debate???



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ron Paul won because he was truthful.
A sheep would "boo" at an inconvenient truth.
A smart person would recognize that an inconvenient truth is better than a convenient lie.


yes thats true why no booes at Rick Perry or any others?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Clear winners tonight: Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman

Clear losers: Perry.

The rest were ok, but I was most convinced by the former 3.

I would give the debate to Ron Paul, though in regard to the 9/11 response I fear most people will use that against him. Sad it is (sometimes not), any form of crack in the political armor so to speak is viciously attacked and can be the downfall of any politician or person of considerable power. Ron Pauls only crack in the armor is speaking the TRUTH to the people.

Perry on the other hand...his crack covers a plethora of unstable emotionally legislated trash, layered in the stench of Bilderberg shill.

There you have my points.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I'll ask you the same.

What "substance" did he win on in tonights debate???


I'm not saying he won or it better'd his campaign but here is a point he made that I liked. He said we keep building these overpriced useless Embassies/Military Bases that most of America will never see or care about when we should be spending our money here.He also stated that as long as America keeps Occupying Foreign Land there would be no reason to expect peace. I believe a huge portion of America knows this and is upset they don't get a say in how we conduct Foreign Policy.

On a side note.... If the argument is fight em here or there I'd rather fight them here because Finances/Attrition Stop Armys..Example: We're broke right now from the attrition put on ourselves by fighting them in their Homeland just like Korea and Vietnam.





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join