Official Debate Thread for Dec. 15th!!!!!

page: 17
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by blasphemusbudda
 





just finished watching the debate,and i think ron paul is the only one that i would vote for and jon huntsman would make a good vp,i would not vote any of the other ones even if they put a gun to my head


Same here, except I would actually prefer Huntsman as Sec of State.




and can anyone explain 2 me why states like iowa an nh more importent than all the other states?


I believe this is because Iowa and NH are some of the first states that are holding primaries. Iowa is the first to vote, which is early January.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I think your right....

And speaking of turn out, here is something they NEVER speak about.

Ron Paul supporters ARE going to turn out and vote. Every one of them. Other candidates might have support on these "scientific polls" but come day to turn out and vote how many of them are going to be there?

I think Ron Paul is stronger in real life than he is on paper.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Did you see the after discussion?

Those Fox pundits said that Ron Paul's numbers tonight are a result of his supporters just wearing blinders. I think its because he doesn't just talk rhetoric. He has been slowly gaining support all year yet they ignore that! So everyone who has got on the Ron Paul train since the start of these debates just have BLINDERS on?!

Who's the one wearing the blinders again? The Media. Ron Paul acknowledged that in his closing statement.

Like A Boss



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


That link won't work, what's the # tag?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 





Ron Paul supporters ARE going to turn out and vote. Every one of them.


Exactly! As Ive been hearing from talking heads on the MSM....Ron Paul supporters will come out and vote no matter what...even if the roads are iced and there's a super thunder storm at the moment, we will still go out and vote.

ETA - Paul is about to talk on Hannity in just a couple minutes
edit on 15-12-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Wow they just lied through their teeth (not that that's unusual)
They said every poll has said Romney is the only one who can beat Obama.. that is patently untrue.

Several polls have show Paul can beat Obama!



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I dont tweet maybe its the tptb their getting nervous
on fox news online their says ron paul polled really good



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by hadriana
 


That link won't work, what's the # tag?



Just search Ron (space) Paul



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Do Most Pro War Advocates out there Realize what ANOTHER War involving the United States and possiblly Iran , Syria , Russia, China, and North Korea would Cost the Tax Payers here ? TRILLIONS of Dollars we Do Not Have thats what ! Where is that Money going to come From , the Tooth Fairy ? ..............Geez.......



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Didn't get a chance to read the whole thread yet. Just watched the debate myself on replay.

So RP didn't get like any questions the last 45 mins or so? Seems about par for the course.

Umm.. again.. anyone but RP will not beat Obama with all this war rhetoric. Some of these candidates are really insane I think. Someone should ask Bachmann if she would send one of her 25 children over to Iran to fight the 'good fight'.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Larry Curly Moe and Shemp on the Foxnews.com show....these are their experts? My gosh, and they even have a weekly show? Sorry ABCNews for beating up your worthless political team, these guys might qualify to empty your garbage cans nightly. It's worse than watching that sports-reporters show with all the old angry fish-wrap guys.

edit on 15-12-2011 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
reply to post by pianopraze
 





Ron Paul supporters ARE going to turn out and vote. Every one of them.


Exactly! As Ive been hearing from talking heads on the MSM....Ron Paul supporters will come out and vote no matter what...even if the roads are iced and there's a super thunder storm at the moment, we will still go out and vote.

ETA - Paul is about to talk on Hannity in just a couple minutes
edit on 15-12-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)


I switched from Democrat to Republican just so I could vote for Paul. I know LOTS of other Democrats who are doing this also. There are lots here on ATS talking about how they did the exact same thing.

Paul has support from Republicans, Independents, and Democrats... who are switching to Republican on paper just so they can vote for Paul!

Is there a link for Hannity? I cut the cable years ago. It's only brief moments like this that I even want to see anything on those brainwashing boxes...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
"Post-Debate Spin Room"

What the hell is that supposed to mean coming from FOX?

Are we supposed to believe this?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
Did you see the after discussion?

Those Fox pundits said that Ron Paul's numbers tonight are a result of his supporters just wearing blinders. I think its because he doesn't just talk rhetoric. He has been slowly gaining support all year yet they ignore that! So everyone who has got on the Ron Paul train since the start of these debates just have BLINDERS on?!

Who's the one wearing the blinders again? The Media. Ron Paul acknowledged that in his closing statement.

Like A Boss


And these same pundits would love a war with Iran and Cuba



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


"Post-Debate Spin Room"


The KEY WORD there is S-P-I-N .................

An Example of that would be , Oh say ,........


This Just in From Fox News Central ...........


President Obama today INCREASED the Peoples Chocolate Ration from 6 Grams a Week to 4 Grams A Week ........PRAISE BIGBAMA !



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Anyone else watching Hannity interview Paul? I think 2 majors questions were asked in that.

First
Hannity- Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map.

Paul - Read the translation...Iran said the Regime should be out

Second
Hannity brings up the quotes from the newsletters from a decade ago. Paul tells Hannity that he DID NOT write some of those. Paul mentioned something about a Houston newspaper covering those in 2002, and I will try to look that article up.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


More like a room full of # that doesn't represent what I, or anybody else I've ever known, ever thought about anything... ever.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
All these pro war Candidates wanting to go to war with Iran...........



Why haven't they bombed NK yet? Didnt NK leadership threaten the world,and US interests,with its nuclear arsenal? Didnt they threaten peaceful nations ? I wish Ron Paul would have brought up that fact. ANYONE that uses Nuclear armaments would get a swift retaliatory response from probably every Nation on this planet. Period.

Israel can handle its own problems. They have their own Nuclear Missiles.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Allow me to weigh in here with some possibly upsetting opinions.

Newt Gingrich: The guy is intelligent; anyone who denies that is not paying attention. He has dedicated his time to the study of history, as have I, and let me tell you one thing about this. The more you study, over time, the more likely you are to not only change positions, in break neck speed, but you are also prone to holding contradictory opinions at the same time. Ideally in a candidate you would not have this, but I suspect many of you who are intelligent, especially in history/politics, know what I am talking about.

You can be a hard-line capitalist then read some amazing works from John Ruskin and George Sorel then suddenly you begin questioning your outlook and approach. Now you should not change fundamentally in character, that would prove true inconsistency, but being open to new ideas as they appear is not the mark of a weak man; quite the opposite. That does not sit well with those who demand purity, but then again most sane things won’t. Does this excuse most of the things Newt has been involved in, consistently, such as further deconstruction of our national sovereignty? Absolutely not, nor am I justifying his cocky attitude, I am just provided the facts as I see them.

Mitt Romney: He is a business man, plain and simple. This means generally he is a technocrat. His outlook is determined by statistics ranging from polling data to financial reports. All of his policies will be determined upon the arguments provided at that time; all other things are generally disregarded. I doubt he lacks a central core which directs his fundamental viewpoints, but this will be less subtle leaving him wide open to others seeking to manipulate his authority for their benefit.

In my opinion there are three types of Presidents; politicians, technocrats, and statesman. Barack Obama is a politician, he has a central view which he exhorts but is too involved in the political process. Gerald Ford was a technocrat; his Presidency lacks any remembrance today because he tried to play it well according to statistics (except pardoning Nixon). And Franklin Roosevelt was a statesman, like him or not, he was bold, courageous, and was willing to stand on his convictions even if everyone else abandoned him. Mitt Romney’s Presidency would be dull and easily forgotten.

Michele Bachmann: She is aggressive, abrasive, and confrontational. It seems like she is attempting to strengthen these qualities on stage to overcome the fact that she is a woman. Often times this leads to a far reaching policy and approach that would have otherwise been more calmly handled by a male counterpart. Take Margaret Thatcher for example, she plaid a cold role because she was trying to play in the boys club; this made her successful but also very polarizing.

Rick Santorum: He is attempting to continue forward with a 2004 policy program in 2011-2012; his time for running would have been better suited during that time than now. The specifically evangelical and war hawk position has lost steam (although is still quite influential). People are looking for a person who emphasizes economic issues rather than social issues. I do not believe they should be avoided entirely but Rick’s entire campaign is based on the culture wars, this will earn him support from the most staunchly evangelical but will lose him enthusiasm among the base.

Rick Perry: I like his strategy teams comparison between Rick and Tim Tebow, it was a very good move designed to pull in more evangelical voters that are quit influential in Iowa. His character comes off as quite folksy along with his unapologetic Southern draw which draws the laughter of Northerners. But this will help improve his standing in the South. He grows on you like the lovable doofus who was probably clumsy as a teenager and got himself into unnecessary trouble, although unintentionally. His personality leaves him open to easy manipulation by more intelligent insiders; this is not what we need in a President.

Jon Huntsman: A very calm, level-headed, and rational person who speaks in a gentle and poetic fashion aimed at persuasion not confrontation. His track record is proven to be more fiscally conservative than anyone else on the stage, save Ron Paul, but he does not believe this requires him act fundamentalist in any way. Unlike others who tend to behave like rabid dogs, Huntsman prefers the reasonable approach which distances him from the Right that wants someone to go head to head with Obama more in rhetoric than actual ideas. Newt fills this gap with his confrontational, yet still intellectual, style. Huntsman will win the hearts of moderates but distance himself from the populists.

Ron Paul: Rigid in his ideology and generally composed in his approach, Paul brings to the table a combination of Constitutional literacy, historical accuracy, and wraps them up in a Libertarian dogma. It will rally the troops into direct loyalty but also alienate the pragmatic types. His flaw is that he comes of sounding like a broken record that no one will fix, this is not to say that he is wrong mind you, but to those who are not loyal fans this can become irritating. Much as people hate to admit they want a little inconsistency in their candidate, consistency comes off to the average Joe as tedious.

The major obstacle in his way to the nomination is his foreign policy. While this comes all part of the Libertarian package it often upsets the more Hamiltonian leanings of the GOP base. Whether they admit it or not, they favor a larger state apparatus to enforce their fears of boogeymen that surround them. Paul tries to explain this with calm persuasion but is met with a herd of people clamoring to feel secure because of hyped up hobgoblins.

All in all, I would have to say none of these candidates really fit what I want. I admire Newt for his historical knowledge and Paul for his devotion to a cause he, and millions of others, hold so dear. But unfortunately for the Paulites here when Americans say they love justice, freedom, and liberty, they are lying through their teeth. You are liberty soldiers in an army of others who are not devoted but in denial.

As the primaries and caucuses come closer the only thing I can say is; may the best man win. And will leave you with a few quotes from H.L. Mencken:

“Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.”

“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand.”

edit on 12/15/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 
Ron Paul 2012? Why are so many people all of a sudden supporting another candidate? Don't take this the wrong way, obviously of all the republicans, he's definitely the most Liberal, and is probably the best choice. But the fact is, he is another puppet. We can't keep rooting for a single human to attain a position of that stature. When will people realize we don't need a guy in a suit to look up to? This whole debate thing pisses me off. Ron Paul doesn't even believe the earth is more than 6000 years old and yet you want him to become your president? That's just so unbelievably ridiculous. Watching Republicans debate is like watching children throw tantrums. Remember all that amazing "Change" Obama promised? Or did you already forget how that turned out? People need to quit voting completely.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join