OMG Ron Paul is Crushing Them in New Hampshire

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Kafternin
 


The last time I checked Im 18 and allll my friends, family members and anybody else I've had enough time to talk to is going Ron Paul. It's just a matter of showing people the only sensible candidate.


Ron Paul has a very strong following in the under 40 crowd. Makes sense. He is talking straight sense that gets through to youth who are not already tarnished with the pains of the 70s and 80s.

The problem is that the world is changing under our feet, but, in my opinion, only Paul has the platform to meet it from the GOP side.

I should probably check out the Libertarian candidate, whatever his name is, but I can't see him winning. We have to fix things in DC before we can actually expect a third party to be viable.




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


Time will tell if you're right or not, but Ron Paul is the only one of them, that can beat Obama. Ron Paul did a great job of pointing out why all of them are just light weight versions of Obama. Why would anyone want the light weight version when they can have the real thing?

Ron Paul was the only one pointing out, that spending is the problem, and they're all big spenders.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
IMO the majority of Ron Paul supporters are not republicans, so it only makes since if he doesn't get the R nomination he should go indie.

People always say something can't be done until someone that wasn't paying attention does it.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrnotobc
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


Time will tell if you're right or not, but Ron Paul is the only one of them, that can beat Obama. Ron Paul did a great job of pointing out why all of them are just light weight versions of Obama. Why would anyone want the light weight version when they can have the real thing?

Ron Paul was the only one pointing out, that spending is the problem, and they're all big spenders.


Problem is that I think Santorum is trying to make the case that Paul is playing to the wrong audience. This could either hurt Santorum or destroy the entire GOP.

Santorum is trying to point out that he is a Republican conservative, not a libertarian. This is either going to hurt Santorum for making people realize the truth about republican conservatives, or destroy the entire GOP by revealing that the entire party is out of tough with the general population.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by mrnotobc
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


Time will tell if you're right or not, but Ron Paul is the only one of them, that can beat Obama. Ron Paul did a great job of pointing out why all of them are just light weight versions of Obama. Why would anyone want the light weight version when they can have the real thing?

Ron Paul was the only one pointing out, that spending is the problem, and they're all big spenders.


Problem is that I think Santorum is trying to make the case that Paul is playing to the wrong audience. This could either hurt Santorum or destroy the entire GOP.

Santorum is trying to point out that he is a Republican conservative, not a libertarian. This is either going to hurt Santorum for making people realize the truth about republican conservatives, or destroy the entire GOP by revealing that the entire party is out of tough with the general population.


I'll tell you the truth, I've always voted R, but I hate the republicans so much now that if Ron Paul isn't the nominee I'll vote for Obama, not because I like him, but because I think he'll burn this cesspool down faster. I'm tired of the slow death.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrnotobc
I'll tell you the truth, I've always voted R, but I hate the republicans so much now that if Ron Paul isn't the nominee I'll vote for Obama, not because I like him, but because I think he'll burn this cesspool down faster. I'm tired of the slow death.


I hear you. I do not vote. The reasons merit a thread of their own. I will not vote this time around even if it is Paul vs. Obama. If you are truly interested and/or puzzled as to why, U2U me so we don't go further off topic.

Suffice it to say I will only start voting again after the system is repaired.
edit on 1-7-2012 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Ron Paul did NOTHING profound in this debate.

He looked sheepish and played the 'good guy' and didn't adapt to the conversation.

Mitt Romney looked like a "Leader", and I'm not even a fan of Romney.

Ron looked like a philosopher hiding in the corner with a contrarian retort once in a while.

Ron said nothing definitive. Nothing specific. He looked flustered and gave all his time away to the other speakers.

He didn't have concise answers and read from his usual Ron Paul talking points while the others actually gave a substantial debate....even if their policies are WACKO.

Ron Paul didn't 'crush' anything but some votes that might have gone his way in NH.






Considering Mr. Paul has Suffered through Many of these so called " Debates" , what did you Exspect from him tonight ? By now , most People know Exactly what his Message is and what the other Candidates are . How Many Times does this Great Man have to Repeat himself to the Majority of the " Dumbed Down " Masses out there who actually watch these Side Shows ? No , a Man who just Knows he has the Winning Hand in a Poker Game does not Need to Draw any Cards , he can Stand Pat with what he has and Bet the House . Winner Take All , Stay Tuned.........


Ron Paul 2012 ! BELIEVE !



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mrnotobc
 

Huge Ron Paul supporter here!

I disagree with your thread title. He did have a few good moments, but other than that, I thought it was one of Dr Paul's weaker performances. He didn't have facts about Santorum's record and when the Newt/chicken hawk was brought up, Dr Paul couldn't make his point clearly.

I watched the debate with 2 Dem's tonite and asked them for their asessments. They thought these candidates would be ripped apart by Obama, especially Romney on healthcare.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by mrnotobc
 

Huge Ron Paul supporter here!

I disagree with your thread title. He did have a few good moments, but other than that, I thought it was one of Dr Paul's weaker performances. He didn't have facts about Santorum's record and when the Newt/chicken hawk was brought up, Dr Paul couldn't make his point clearly.

I watched the debate with 2 Dem's tonite and asked them for their asessments. They thought these candidates would be ripped apart by Obama, especially Romney on healthcare.


I actually sent a message to the Paul campaign a while ago telling them that his Foriegn Policy makes sense to me, but was really a serious sticking point with a lot of people and he needed to refine the message to make it work for the general populace. I think it is finally beginning to get through because Huntsman and Romney and taking baby steps in that direction (been noticing the others moving Paul's direction on issues). However, I think Paul's campaign AND the Super Pac jumped the shark when they started attacking others. Paul does NOT need to go into details on the others with attack ads. He needs to stay generic and point out the obvious.. big spending, invasion of privacy, wark harwks/fear mongerers, and flip flopping (untrustworthy).

Then he needs to drive his message home. We can do better as a collection of free induviduals than we ever could as a collection of slaves to big government.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by mrnotobc
 


I watched the debate with 2 Dem's tonite and asked them for their asessments. They thought these candidates would be ripped apart by Obama, especially Romney on healthcare.


I saw the same thing. The dems are pulling for Romney, because they think he can't beat Obama. I think they're right. But OTOH I don't think it would make much difference.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrnotobc

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Ron Paul can't win as an independent. It is impossible.
The electoral college picks the president. They don't pick Independents.
He has to run as a Republican or a Democrat.
Obviously, he is neither. He is American.


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. They wouldn't be so worried about it if they thought it wasn't possible.


He's kind of wrong... kind of not.. an independent CAN in fact win in this system, but it's a lot more difficult to do so .. the problem is, if anyone could pull it off .. Ron could .. and I think that DOES make them nervous.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by mrnotobc

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Ron Paul can't win as an independent. It is impossible.
The electoral college picks the president. They don't pick Independents.
He has to run as a Republican or a Democrat.
Obviously, he is neither. He is American.


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. They wouldn't be so worried about it if they thought it wasn't possible.


He's kind of wrong... kind of not.. an independent CAN in fact win in this system, but it's a lot more difficult to do so .. the problem is, if anyone could pull it off .. Ron could .. and I think that DOES make them nervous.


I think Ron Paul *could*, but I don't think he really wants to because of what is involved in doing it. Rand stands a better chance of doing it, and I hope he does.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by mrnotobc
 

Huge Ron Paul supporter here!

I disagree with your thread title. He did have a few good moments, but other than that, I thought it was one of Dr Paul's weaker performances. He didn't have facts about Santorum's record and when the Newt/chicken hawk was brought up, Dr Paul couldn't make his point clearly.

I watched the debate with 2 Dem's tonite and asked them for their asessments. They thought these candidates would be ripped apart by Obama, especially Romney on healthcare.


Um, no offense but... Where you watching the same debate?

"didn't have facts about Santorum's record"

He listed them twice during the exchange. Only thing Santorum came back with that Dr. Paul had earmarks and other "stuff." Stuff? Why no examples?

In fact Santorum ran back everything that Ron Paul said but used more agreeable rhetorical language. He repeated what Paul said, but exchange Lobbyist with "Chairman of a board." He's mister "Cause." Right...

"When the Newt/chicken hawk was brought up, Dr Paul couldn't make his point clearly."

Why would the crowd then give Paul an applause at the end of the Chicken Hawk exchange? Recheck the highlights.

"I watched the debate with 2 Dem's tonite and asked them for their asessments. They thought these candidates would be ripped apart by Obama, especially Romney on healthcare."

Romney on Healthcare? How so? Ever been to Mass? It's the blueprint for Obamacare... Also.. I forget how many states are fighting Obamacare in the courts, but it's substantial.

More importantly, How is Obama going to defend signing NDAA in? Oh that's right... The only Candidate on the GOP that would probably bring that to the table is Paul. I'm also willing to bet Paul would bring up the whole assassinating American Citizens thing as well....



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 


You are correct, I think. Paul vs. Obama would be a slaughter. But if Paul cannot polish his language on foreign policy and entitlements, the slaughter will be on both sides. Obama has failed. That much is apparent. I actually like the "guy" Obama, but I really don't like the POTUS Obama. He seems like he would be a good chat during a smoke break (ha), but he has really not done so well as president. Paul would be better, of course, but now that I am really looking into it, can Paul be an executive and handle the intrusion into his privacy? Romney exudes CEO, which is what people look for in a president. His policies suck, but he has the presence. Is it possible to take the "country doctor" to president?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by squidboy

Um, no offense but... Where you watching the same debate?

"didn't have facts about Santorum's record"

He listed them twice during the exchange. Only thing Santorum came back with that Dr. Paul had earmarks and other "stuff." Stuff? Why no examples?



I think the only place where Ron Paul choked in regards to Santorum was when he was questioned about his attack ad that talked about Santorum being one of the top corrupt senators .. He quoted that from the CREW report but he didn't seem to know much more about it so he wasn't able to really follow up that particular attack very strongly ..

HOWEVER ..

He quickly switched to Santorum's record and recovered the ball quickly ..

Another place I think he failed to give a good response to was the allegations of racism from his newsletter .. I'm aware he's explained it in the news quite a few times but the debate would have been a great place to clarify it in detail and he opted not to.. A lot of potential voters don't follow the news every day and rely on these debates to get a good sense .. for those people, his reply no doubt sounded weak.

Overall like I said earlier though - I think Ron did a really great job, and I don't see how Romney could be declared a winner truthfully .. I think Ron was the dominant figure, especially considering his relatively limited speaking time.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


I think he said all he needed to say "This has already been answered many times".

He could have added, though, "If I am the racist one, how is it that so many other candidates have been giving speeches about what blacks should be doing?"



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I think RP missed a huge opportunity on the earmark arguement. I think it was Santorum driving home the issue that entitlement programs are bankrupting this country , Social Security is not an entitlement in my opinion and Government spending is the reason we are in this condition. As for welfare moms I agree that collecting off the system as a way of life shouldn't be happening but there are plenty of unwed teens out there collecting off one child until they finish school. I've heard you get 90 bucks a month for one child and it makes better sense to give these girl basicly diaper money and have them finish school.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


I thought Paul did well against Newt.. and I have to disagree with the Romney/Obama healthcare thing since Obama based his healthcare plan off of Romney's.

I actually think his performance tonight will help him a bit in NH. As much as I hate to say it I think Santorum looked better than Romney, even though I like neither of them.
edit on 8-1-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
i'm watching the debate right now, besides ron paul, everyone sounds like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

ron paul definitely didn't get enough airtime but he just needs to interrupt these nonsense spewing idiots. it's time to get more aggressive during these debates. if the media won't give him time, he needs to make time.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Stryc9nine because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join