PDA

View Full Version : Debate on Fox last night



SarasotaRepub
12-16-2011, 08:51 AM
So what did everyone think??? We had a Christmas Party to go to but we still caught the whole thing.

I thought President to Be Newt kicked some ass. :D

Starbuck
12-16-2011, 09:46 AM
Newt did well. He delivered with passion and detail. That guy can speak!

Bachmann and Paul had a spirited exchange. Both made it clear where they stood concerning national defense; both expressed their ideas clearly; and neither gave an inch.

Romney seems to smirk, somehow, when he is being criticized. I don't think his debating skills are all that great.

Perry looked like his head was removed from his body. Like he was behind the curtain and had stuck his head through a hole. Stiff. Practiced.

Huntsman has a lot to offer, but I thought he lacked the passion of Bachmann or Gingrich. President Starbuck would make sure he was offered a top spot.

Santorum just has little to set him apart, it seems. He'll have to drop out.

I would laugh my ass off if Cain, on Jan 1, announced he was resuming his candidacy. Then, leaving the press no time to campaign against him, swept the Iowa vote.:D

Arroyo_Doble
12-16-2011, 09:50 AM
Ron Paul did well by making rational, pragmatic points on foreign policy that broke with established Republican dogma while simultaneously defending true constitutional principles with regards to the separation of powers.

Which means he doesn't have a prayer.

Tipsycatlover
12-16-2011, 09:51 AM
Ron Paul's meltdown (and refusal to answer questions) showed just what kind of lunatic he really is.

Tipsycatlover
12-16-2011, 09:52 AM
Ron Paul did well by making rational, pragmatic points on foreign policy that broke with established Republican dogma while simultaneously defending true constitutional principles with regards to the separation of powers.

Which means he doesn't have a prayer.

He was the only one supporting Iran's having a nuclear bomb.

noonwitch
12-16-2011, 10:44 AM
He was the only one supporting Iran's having a nuclear bomb.

That's a libertarian type of view of the situation. I don't agree with him, but there are plenty who don't think that the US should be the world's police force.

Arroyo_Doble
12-16-2011, 10:55 AM
That's a libertarian type of view of the situation. I don't agree with him, but there are plenty who don't think that the US should be the world's police force.

Ron Paul's problem is he actually believes all that Constitution rhetoric. Republicans do not like being reminded that they are full of shit.

djones520
12-16-2011, 11:08 AM
I didn't see the debate, but FOX had a pic on their website of Newt speaking. Standing next to him was Paul, and I swear he looked like he was passed out on his feet.

Tipsycatlover
12-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Paul believes HIS view of the Constitution but he doesn't have a clue as to what the Constitution means or what it is supposed to do. He uses the word a lot.

Articulate_Ape
12-16-2011, 01:47 PM
Paul believes HIS view of the Constitution but he doesn't have a clue as to what the Constitution means or what it is supposed to do. He uses the word a lot.

Um, what? :confused:

rjas77
12-16-2011, 05:37 PM
Ron Paul did well by making rational, pragmatic points on foreign policy that broke with established Republican dogma while simultaneously defending true constitutional principles with regards to the separation of powers.

Which means he doesn't have a prayer.

except when he confirmed he runs Left of Obama and even the UN on foreign policy.

85% of his beliefs I can support, the other 15% scares the crap out of me.

JB
12-16-2011, 06:01 PM
Paul will take Iowa and Huntsman will take New Hampshire.

This way everyone will have their chance at the top and this will just go on ad nauseam.

mike128
12-17-2011, 12:21 AM
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, then we may as well just kiss this election goodbye!

Molon Labe
12-17-2011, 01:00 AM
Paul will take Iowa and Huntsman will take New Hampshire.

This way everyone will have their chance at the top and this will just go on ad nauseam.

That's an interesting take. I personally didn't think Huntsman had much of a chance but he's surging.


I like him for some reason. Don't know enough about him, but he's more rational than 90 percent of everyone else on stage even though his answers seemed canned sometimes.

Starbuck
12-17-2011, 02:29 AM
Yeah. For me, Huntsman lacked passion, and was unable to show real commitment to his position - like Gingrich did when he attacked Obama for being irrational, and Bachmann did when she went after Ron Paul. But the guy sure delivered in his state.

Molon Labe
12-17-2011, 10:18 AM
Paul believes HIS view of the Constitution but he doesn't have a clue as to what the Constitution means or what it is supposed to do. He uses the word a lot.

Um...it's supposed to limit federal power. Paul's been about that his entire life. What do you think it's about?

It doesn't matter. Debates aren't about truth and facts. Those are irrelevant in debates. They are only about your style and what humdinger of a sound bite you can come up with.

Starbuck
12-17-2011, 11:00 AM
.........It doesn't matter. Debates aren't about truth and facts. Those are irrelevant in debates. They are only about your style and what humdinger of a sound bite you can come up with.

Kind of depends on who's listening, don't you think? Some people are easily impressed just with style, but then who needs a CEO who cannot motivate a crowd?
Others claim to be so intellectually superior that they can see through all the hype and recognize that Ron Paul - a lousy speaker - has all the truth on his side.

And who is impressed with Rick Perry's flubs? Will he do that in front of diplomats and embarrass the country? Probably.

Sound bites: Remember Benson's famous, "You are no John Kennedy"? It was probably the most famous zinger of all time, but Quail became VP, not Benson.

All in all, I think debates do matter.

AmPat
12-17-2011, 12:49 PM
Ron Paul's problem is he actually believes all that Constitution rhetoric. Republicans do not like being reminded that they are full of shit.

These Republicans don't like unrealistic and nutty policy that will not work in the REAL world. Republicans have to be pragmatic since they're the only hope for this country. The DIMoRATS (and whatever the heck you call yourself), offer nothing that helps and in fact offer only cheap shots from the bench or "solutions" that exacerbate the problems.
Get in the game or get off the net.

Molon Labe
12-17-2011, 06:11 PM
Newt did well. He delivered with passion and detail. That guy can speak!

Based on some of the PPP polling I'm following, Newt actually has really hurt himself. Seems to be down to possibly 3rd in Iowa and NH. Won't be able to tell for sure for a week or two...but the term on twitter is "fading fast".

Seems Huntsman is up in both states. Everyone seems to be making some surges.

SaintLouieWoman
12-17-2011, 06:19 PM
Based on some of the PPP polling I'm following, Newt actually has really hurt himself. Seems to be down to possibly 3rd in Iowa and NH. Won't be able to tell for sure for a week or two...but the term on twitter is "fading fast".

Seems Huntsman is up in both states. Everyone seems to be making some surges.
Newt will be hurt in Iowa as he doesn't have lots of staff and volunteers dragging in the people to vote. It should be a good place for someone like Paul with all his Ronbots.

Molon Labe
12-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Newt will be hurt in Iowa as he doesn't have lots of staff and volunteers dragging in the people to vote. It should be a good place for someone like Paul with all his Ronbots.

You know the funny thing is how Newt was a frontrunner in September when he was only pulling in 8% nationally
and now Paul is pulling 21% in Iowa and pulling 18% in NH and people say he can't win. I'm not sure if 21% of Iowa Republican's can be considered Ronbots.

Chuck58
12-17-2011, 06:42 PM
Paul actually started the debates rationally. He answered the first few questions and actually wasn't frothing at the mouth.

When it came to foreign policy matters is where he descended into madness and lost me completely. You can't be an isolationist in the world today. It didn't work millenia ago.

Even the Romans knew it. They carried out regular patrols 90 miles beyond the boundaries of their empire - a reasonable distance in those days - because it was better to fight the enemy there than in the empire.

txradioguy
12-18-2011, 05:17 AM
Paul actually started the debates rationally. He answered the first few questions and actually wasn't frothing at the mouth.

When it came to foreign policy matters is where he descended into madness and lost me completely. You can't be an isolationist in the world today. It didn't work millenia ago.

Even the Romans knew it. They carried out regular patrols 90 miles beyond the boundaries of their empire - a reasonable distance in those days - because it was better to fight the enemy there than in the empire.

QFT

Molon Labe
12-18-2011, 08:36 PM
Paul actually started the debates rationally. He answered the first few questions and actually wasn't frothing at the mouth.

When it came to foreign policy matters is where he descended into madness and lost me completely. You can't be an isolationist in the world today. It didn't work millenia ago.

Even the Romans knew it. They carried out regular patrols 90 miles beyond the boundaries of their empire - a reasonable distance in those days - because it was better to fight the enemy there than in the empire.


I understood it differently. When you go to his website and read what he says he'll do it sounds more like this.


- the constitution does not give the president the power to go to war, congress only has that power and he would return it to those cowards who decide to neglect it.

- if congress declares war he will go to war with the full committed force of the US military

- he will win the war within the clear mission objectives of a congressional declaration then come home.

- no more nation building on the backs of US taxpayers.

- that is a constitutional foreign policy.


Not sure where people get this to mean isolationism. That doesn't sound crazy at all to me.


What does sound crazy is giving billions in foreign aid to our enemies and trying to fix the crazy Islamists backwards ass culture through failed nationbuilding.

Chuck58
12-18-2011, 08:56 PM
The majority of the public sees Paul on TV. It doesn't matter how rational his stances are if he expresses them like a lunatic.

IF, and it's highly unlikely, Ron Paul ends up the Republican candidate, the Republican Party will be slaughtered next year. One debate is all it will take to drive all but the Paul worshipers away. Ron Paul makes Rick Perry sound like a master debater.

Molon Labe
12-18-2011, 10:13 PM
The majority of the public sees Paul on TV. It doesn't matter how rational his stances are if he expresses them like a lunatic.

IF, and it's highly unlikely, Ron Paul ends up the Republican candidate, the Republican Party will be slaughtered next year. One debate is all it will take to drive all but the Paul worshipers away. Ron Paul makes Rick Perry sound like a master debater.

you need to look at the polls in Iowa and NH then. Cause after each debate guys like Romney and Gingrich's number's fall and Paul, Bachman and Huntsman's rise.

Seems the voters think differently than you do about him.

The problem with believeing the GOP is slaughtered if he wins the nomination is bunk since he brings in more independents than any other GOP candidate.

Obama is ripe for the pickings and you don't win national elections without independents.

Chuck58
12-18-2011, 10:16 PM
you need to look at the polls in Iowa and NH then. Cause after each debate guys like Romney and Gingrich's number's fall and Paul, Bachman and Huntsman's rise.

Seems the voters think differently than you do about him.

The problem with believeing the GOP is slaughtered if he wins the nomination is bunk since he brings in more independents than any other GOP candidate.

Obama is ripe for the pickings and you don't win national elections without independents.

I'll certainly agree with that. I hope they disinfect and fumigate the WH when he's gone.

Wei Wu Wei
12-18-2011, 10:18 PM
The majority of the public sees Paul on TV. It doesn't matter how rational his stances are if he expresses them like a lunatic.

IF, and it's highly unlikely, Ron Paul ends up the Republican candidate, the Republican Party will be slaughtered next year. One debate is all it will take to drive all but the Paul worshipers away. Ron Paul makes Rick Perry sound like a master debater.

I think Paul is just being honest about his ideas. I disagree with many of his positions, but I think his positions are very rational and well-thought out. Also, he's extremely well grounded in his principles. He actually believes in the rhetoric that most establishment Republicans only talk about.

He could, however, be more mindful of how he comes across, and put more thought into how he crafts his message when he's on a big stage. He must know how the media portrays him. He's got good things to contribute to the Republican party, so he should be very conscious of doing it in a way that won't put off people who only hear soundbites. He's not the best soundbite candidate.

I admire his integrity and logical soundness, he takes conservative principles to heart and follows them to their logical conclusions. Most of the Republican party is entirely sold out, working for special interests, and will change their positions on a dime for political gain (same as the Democrats), but Paul is different.

I don't think he sounds all that crazy, but it doesn't help that the mainstream media has been against Paul for years now, never giving him any attention other than calling him a nut.

Molon Labe
12-18-2011, 10:20 PM
I'll certainly agree with that. I hope they disinfect and fumigate the WH when he's gone.

They say the polls are usually a week or two behind the debates. I'll be interested to see how the frontrunners fared and who's attacks and rebuttals sat well with Iowans this week. PPP releases a poll tonight around midnight and some others come out as the week progresses. I'm waiting for the Des Moines register Bloomberg poll end of the month. It's the most accurate one and was only off about 1 to 2 percentage points in 08.

Wei Wu Wei
12-18-2011, 10:22 PM
I should note that I would never vote for Ron Paul. He's got this Ayn Rand inspired utopian vision of capitalism that I'm 100% opposed to. I am absolutely against the entire so-called "philosophy" of Randian Objectivism, and all the garbage (in my opinion) in her terrible (imo) books, all of which inspires Ron Paul's libertarian ideology.

However, he is true to his principles, and actually embodies what is good and worthwhile in conservatism.

txradioguy
12-19-2011, 05:34 AM
you need to look at the polls in Iowa and NH then. Cause after each debate guys like Romney and Gingrich's number's fall and Paul, Bachman and Huntsman's rise.

Seems the voters think differently than you do about him.

The problem with believeing the GOP is slaughtered if he wins the nomination is bunk since he brings in more independents than any other GOP candidate.

Obama is ripe for the pickings and you don't win national elections without independents.



http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/149/75461897.jpg

Molon Labe
12-19-2011, 12:52 PM
Charlie Brown?


I dunno....something's different.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/iowa/

Tweet from Ann Coulter today.
"It would serve the rest of the world right to have Ron Paul as president for awhile. See how they like paying for their own defense."

JoeKwonDo
12-19-2011, 11:32 PM
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, then we may as well just kiss this election goodbye!

Nah - more often than not the nutty Iowa system provides crazy results. The real reason is so no one forgets there is a place called Iowa.

Some interesting stats:


Candidates in blue=dem, green-Rep, pink-RFLMAO eventually won their party's nomination. Candidates in italics subsequently won the general election.

Democrats
January 3, 2008 Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)[15]
January 19, 2004 John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 Bill Clinton (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
February 8, 1988 Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
February 20, 1984 Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
January 21, 1980 Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
January 24, 1972 "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[16]

Republicans
2008 Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2004 George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000 George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996 Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992 George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988 Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)
1984 Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980 George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976 Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

djones520
12-20-2011, 01:37 AM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151616/Gingrich-Lead-Romney-Among-Republicans-Collapses.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qovwd0lp5ueg0j0x0dopta.gif

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 05:28 AM
I dunno....something's different.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/iowa/

Tweet from Ann Coulter today.

And? Ronulans like yourself always point to polls and what happens every time when reality of the actual voters sets in?

As for Coulter...not sure what's wrong with her this year...she's backing Romney.

Certainly NOT the Conservative choice...but then neither is Ron Paul.

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 12:28 PM
And? Ronulans like yourself always point to polls and what happens every time when reality of the actual voters sets in?

As for Coulter...not sure what's wrong with her this year...she's backing Romney.

Certainly NOT the Conservative choice...but then neither is Ron Paul.

Let's see....I'd voter for Huntsman too. Maybe Bachman...but not many else...... But me thinking Paul's one of the only ones in this field who undestands the problems makes me a Ronulan. :rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks he's not conservative has never read anything Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft has written. I understand the short memory of many, but your just being either disengenuous or don't get the principles. And then theres the chance you just don't believe in anything they wrote. .

Yeah...I get it. He's going to spam the polls come election day. Probably some guy in a basement voting in multiple gallup phone polls. He's also been spamming in the 15 million in funding.

Do you have any real substantive arguments on this or do you just like ad hominems?

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 12:34 PM
Let's see....I'd voter for Huntsman too. Maybe Bachman...but not many else...... But me thinking Paul's one of the only ones in this field who undestands the problems makes me a Ronulan. :roll eyes:

The fact that you believe that Ron Paul actually "understands the problems" makes you a Ronulan.


Anyone who thinks he's not conservative has never read anything Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft has written. I understand the short memory of many, but your just being either disengenuous or don't get the principles. And then theres the chance you just don't believe in anything they wrote. .

Read Goldwater. He'd have called Ron Paul an idiot. You'd have never heard barry Goldwater spouting the lunatic things that Dr. Nutz does.


Yeah...I get it. He's going to spam the polls come election day. Probably some guy in a basement voting in multiple gallup phone polls. He's also been spamming in the 15 million in funding.


Yeah that 15 mil will be nice padding for his retirement account. :roll eyes:



Do you have any real substantive arguments on this or do you just like ad hominems?

How many times...how many elections do you have to have the specific substantive arguments presented to you on why Ron Paul is a raving loon and would be just as bad...if not worse for this country than even Obama is?

I've got the arguments and reasons handy...the question is do YOU want to face them?

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 02:15 PM
The fact that you believe that Ron Paul actually "understands the problems" makes you a Ronulan.

There are alot of people...even here that think that's the case.


Read Goldwater. He'd have called Ron Paul an idiot. You'd have never heard barry Goldwater spouting the lunatic things that Dr. Nutz does.

His son endorsed him. He believes as his father did.


Yeah that 15 mil will be nice padding for his retirement account. :roll eyes:

I think it's being spent.....and I'm pretty sure he doesn't take handouts based on his voting record.


How many times...how many elections do you have to have the specific substantive arguments presented to you on why Ron Paul is a raving loon and would be just as bad...if not worse for this country than even Obama is?

It's funnythat one of the few guys in this race that the leftwing mainstream media is scared to death of and is attacking becasue he represents a threat to their status quo is called nuts because some disagree with some of his stances..

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 02:30 PM
It's funnythat one of the few guys in this race that the leftwing mainstream media is scared to death of and is attacking becasue he represents a threat to their status quo is called nuts because some disagree with some of his stances..

You might want to listen to more am radio.

Although it is possible you consider Rush Limbaugh "leftwing."

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2011, 02:31 PM
It's funnythat one of the few guys in this race that the leftwing mainstream media is scared to death of and is attacking becasue he represents a threat to their status quo is called nuts because some disagree with some of his stances..

They accept it because Fox News is on board with the Paul-bashing.

It's actually very simple, watch Fox News and take note of what positions they are pushing, and I can guarantee nearly 100% of the time you can come to this site and those are the exact same positions the people here will take, using the exact same talking points.

It's not very complicated.

Fox News doesn't support Ron Paul and brushes him off as nuts or irrelevant, therefore that's what people here will believe.

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 02:45 PM
You might want to listen to more am radio.

Although it is possible you consider Rush Limbaugh "leftwing."

ESTABLISHMENT....is a broad word. Rush tows the party line these days when he's pushing Noot and Mittens.

When the GOP began supporting Keynsian economics to the hilt, they accepted the premise of Liberal economics.

People can spin it all day long that they are conservative....but the true test of a conservative is LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.

If you can't meet that then you aren't a conservative.