ABC New Hampshire Debate Tonight

page: 20
27
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I think it is a horrible strategy for Paul to try to make this a two man race between himself and Romney. If Paul wants to makes it a two man race...it won't be until after Florida...or more likely longer than that. In reality...I don't think it will ever be a two man race...there is going to be Romney, the "not-Romney", and Paul.

Everyone has to remember that for every person that drops out, the delegates that they have collected up to that point are going to eventually go to Romney. They will probably all end up endorsing Romney and asking their supporters to back Romney. Paul has no friends on that stage, no allies at all...Romney is the only one that currently isn't tearing him down and laughing at him.

This is why it will be almost impossible for Ron Paul to win...no one will back him up or throw their support his way when he drops out.

Ron Paul's best shot is to make it a 3 or 4 person race at the top so that his 20% of support is actually competitive.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


These are great observations. It calls to mind the joke about being chased by a bear. I don't have to run faster than the bear. I just have to the run faster than YOU. Romney is assured around 25 to 30% in every state. Romney's constituency will NEVER support Paul. Targeting the fringes is a good strategy for him. Paul is probably stealing away 1 to 3% points every primary with this tactic. There is enough of a hard-right fringe in the GOP that the convention would be interesting. Paul knows he can't run away with it. But slowly siphoning off a few percentage points at a time will give him momentum and leverage at the end of the process.

BTW, Paul is getting more press than previously. Not a ton, but more.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by badgonzo
 


BTW, on a side note: I was in D.C. recently and saw Rep. Paul in the Capitol Corridor beneath the Rayburn Building. A small gaggle began to approach him with smiles seeking a handshake and wishing him well. That is until a familiar voice was heard approaching from the Capitol. It was Bob Barker, the former host of the Price Is Right. I have no idea why he was there but the gaggle dropped Paul like a bad habit and circled Barker. I think Paul was also enthused by seeing Barker.

That cracked me up. Also, I had no idea Paul was that short. He came up to my shoulder.

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Oh, god...Ron Paul is the topic of today's thread? -ball up and throw in garbage-

Essentially, any debate between politicians comes down to two things: who can promise the most things without sounding absurd, and who can dish out the most dirt on the other. It's a game where one fights dirty (while appearing absolutely civil, as per American standards) and tries to make himself/herself/itself look like the one who is quite obviously the most capable/qualified to deliver what we want/need (which is completely subjective, I might add).

Therefore, I have an exceedingly limited respect for any debate between politicians. The reason is simple: you HAVE to fight dirty, or you go home dirty. Ron Paul is no different. My cousin-in-law drools over the man constantly; I have to keep reminding him that any politician, no matter how clean his/her/it's underwear may appear to be, is inevitably dirty or self-serving. So many politicians have followed that trait that it has become required in order to survive the race to the elected chair.

So if you want to have an upstanding efficient leader without the militarism or communist tendencies, look to those who have no political finesse or qualms about touchy behind-the-scenes processes that our leaders seem to be so in love with. Those are the ones most likely to say, "Eff the humdrum red-tape and over-complicated procedures, let's get some s**t done."


That's all I have to say. Check, please.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You'd have to be mentally challenged to seriously consider any of the current GOP candidates. Not saying Obama's great, because he most certainly isn't, but those GOP clowns really do make him look like a saint. Quite said really, you can't win and essentially have to pick between clowns and bought sock puppets.

And no, RP Isn't a good alternative for obvious reasons...


Enlighten us on the reasons that RP is not a good alternative to Obama.


His "solution" to stopping corruption in politics (aka lobbyists simply paying off politicians) is to make those politicians sign a "voluntary pledge not to accept such wanna-be donations".

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? IS HE SENILE????

His solution for the banking sector is similarly stupid, with him asking for LESS regulation of the financial industry. Guess he never understood that deregulation caused this mess in the first place.

He HAS some good ideas, but some of his other "ideas" are so silly, he's unelectable imo.

edit on 8-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I don't know if I agree with you there, Outkast, though I understand your point. It is my opinion
that there is a large majority of voters whom we refer to as sheeple. Especially as to how, why,
and when the folks get their news. By that I mean, folks whose daily dose of news media is
garnered somewhere in between dinner and a relaxed position on the couch. A kind of "in passing"
glance at the TV.

For people like this Ron Paul is still seen as a crazy. His supporters are Paul-tards, because
that is the top media sound-byte.

It is these people who blinders need to come off. So, if you remove the distraction of several
candidate's platforms and their sound-bytes what you have left is two men standing under
greater scrutiny and with more attention paid to detail.

Romney simply cannot prevail against Paul in this scenario, there are too many skeletons,
too much baggage--the man possesses an easily impeachable character, his donations
from Wall Street fly in the face of the OWS and Tea-Party movement, and his capricious
"for-then-against" stance on emotionally important political issues is ridiculous.

I think the distinction can easily be made that one candidate is for-the-people, and
on candidate is up for political sale.



edit on 8-1-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Face it Americans, we are now where H. L. Mencken predicted we would be back in 1920.

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. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H. L. Mencken

edit on 1/7/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



Just saw this.

A man after my own heart.

I just added you as a friend.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tesclo
 


Romney can't get through the South. He is a member of a wildly perceived "Stepford Ken doll" cult. On top of that both the right and the left in the common ranks hate the moneyed establishment, and blame that particular portion of the establishment for the 08 meltdown. Romney epitomizes the moneyed establishment crowed making him a poster child for the meltdown. Mr. insider Wall Street.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 





So if you want to have an upstanding efficient leader without the militarism or communist tendencies, look to those who have no political finesse or qualms about touchy behind-the-scenes processes that our leaders seem to be so in love with. Those are the ones most likely to say, "Eff the humdrum red-tape and over-complicated procedures, let's get some s**t done."


Hardy, har, har.....surely you jest. Those types do not exist. Besides, if they did, they would be labeled as "too inexperienced in the political arena to be effective." I have to ask what planet you are from to even write the above paragraph.

I would rather have a man in office who has years of experience in the political field who knows exactly what's going on behind the scenes--someone who has spent his career fighting those very people behind the scenes and who refuses to go along with the status quo. There's only one man who fits that bill....and you know damn well who he is.




That's all I have to say. Check, please.


YOU GOT IT! Shall I show you to the door?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I watched a bit of the Republican debate today -- not sure if it was life or pre-taped. Don't care.

It's 100% useless. It's merely people competing for the best sound-bite tit-for-tat, and nobody is held to the constraint of making sense, being anything more than vague, and of course, being honest.

Newt was saying that such and such from Obama would hurt American competitiveness and destroy jobs. It didn't matter what such and such was -- it could be X in the speech, and later some aide pencilled in whatever was in the news that day as an Obama initiative.

Did any of them talk about the NDAA -- or something LEGITIMATE that Obama supported, failed to squash, or did wrong? Oh Hell no.

it's still a clown pageant and it will be Mitt Romney vs. Obama and Obama will get 4 more years. The entire 11 months between now and that foregone conclusion is a waste of time, as these desperate actors prance about trying to show their corporate sponsors who can best whip the sheep into a frenzy or scare the cows into the stall.

I imagine Shakespeare had already been to these Republican Debates when he wrote;
"
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
"

>> Vote. Don't vote. Pee into a fan. The result will be the same. Our political and judicial system is broken on purpose and whomever gets the most dollars and harnesses the most Diebold machines is going to win.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AnswerSeeker2012
 


Me in Massachusetts too- yes, Taxachusetts (name begun before Romney's time but still applicable).

But Mass republicans will, I think, vote Romney over Santorum, despite the screwing we took. Mass republicans are often fiscal conservative/social liberal- Santorum's religious zealot weirdness doesn't fly here. What I am hoping is that Ron Paul shows enough in the news coverage and local talk radio that Mass republicans will pay attention and notice that it isn't just a choice between "the devil you know" and the devil in the preacher suit.

Anyway, in response to the original post- I don't watch tv myself, so I'll be doing what I usually do- following the posts here and news items elsewhere on the 'net to get the gist of it. So I'll be relying on all you at ATS to keep me informed



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
They still cut Paul off short but allow Romney to run over the allocated time before commercials. It also seemed like they ask a lot of RP questions during commercial breaks. Regardless everyone pick the one that best represents what you agree with dont go off debates and television check out their websites, youtube, forums to get a more broad range of topics and facts as all will have some sort of bias using Power of Suggestions to get people to think the candidate they want will not win so you might as well vote for the one they tell you will have a chance.
edit on 8-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
As predicted, "they" are now trying to push Huntsman, Romney's cousin btw, as the new flavor of the week. Do not be fooled. He's pro-Nafta, he thought the bailout wasn't big enough, Rothschild held a fund-raiser for him in July, 2011 at her New York home, he is for amnesty for illegal immigrants, he was a member of CFR for several years, etc.
www.dailypaul.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You'd have to be mentally challenged to seriously consider any of the current GOP candidates. Not saying Obama's great, because he most certainly isn't, but those GOP clowns really do make him look like a saint. Quite said really, you can't win and essentially have to pick between clowns and bought sock puppets.

And no, RP Isn't a good alternative for obvious reasons...


Enlighten us on the reasons that RP is not a good alternative to Obama.


His "solution" to stopping corruption in politics (aka lobbyists simply paying off politicians) is to make those politicians sign a "voluntary pledge not to accept such wanna-be donations".

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? IS HE SENILE????

His solution for the banking sector is similarly stupid, with him asking for LESS regulation of the financial industry. Guess he never understood that deregulation caused this mess in the first place.

He HAS some good ideas, but some of his other "ideas" are so silly, he's unelectable imo.

edit on 8-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



I watched half way into that video and I had to stop. Horrible.. horrible acting.
edit on 9-1-2012 by Soulece because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Soulece
 


Re "horrible acting": Did you watch a Brad Pitt movie on youtube?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
After watching the debate I have to admit that none of the canidates did prove to be actually able to be the next president.

Jon Huntsman actually is the only one who does say things that do make sense, but with the current Republican base his chances are zero.

All others seem to be participating in a giant clown circus (fueled by the various media outlets), thus making them unworthy of even being considered as a viable president imo.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tbeck87
After watching the debate I have to admit that none of the canidates did prove to be actually able to be the next president.

Jon Huntsman actually is the only one who does say things that do make sense, but with the current Republican base his chances are zero.

All others seem to be participating in a giant clown circus (fueled by the various media outlets), thus making them unworthy of even being considered as a viable president imo.




Except that Huntsman blatantly admitted that he would have signed NDAA 2012 ... so yeah, so much for THAT guy



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Your're right the current system is working FANTASTICALLY. Why change anything?

I'll get my bags packed for Camp F.E.M.A.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by RSF77
 


If speaking Chinese is your only attack against Huntsman than I suggest you join the real world. Knowing Chinese is almost a boost on any resume and he does it without a script!!!!

Also I suggest you look at the other candidates Huntsman is the best out of all of them and he and Ron Paul have a good relationship.
edit on 7-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


Sorry don't understand, I seem to be part of the real world and there's a lot worse things about Huntsman than the fact he speaks Chinese during debates. I've stated a few times already that knowing Chinese isn't a bad thing, I was just wondering why he would want to use it during an American debate, the only reason I can see is that he wants to try and belittle Romney. That's all I was saying so get your panties out of a bunch.

I never said anything about Ron Paul either so why are you proclaiming to me that they have a good relationship?





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join