Gop Presidential Debate

[Aloysius]

I think what that shows is that Ron Paul has more supporters that are hard-core-enthusiastically pro-their-candidate than any other republican candidate. The problem is that all the other candidates also have armies of lukewarm supporters; they won't go around voting in text message polls and putting up signs, they don't care THAT much, but they'll take a little time out of their day to perform their civic duty and pick one or the other... often voting against someone else rather than for that person.

of course there's a growing swell of people around new hampshire claiming election fraud... and a couple discrepancies against him have been found and corrected. who knows... it's not beyond possibility, but I'm not sold on it actually having happened. It's just a bunch of people who can't figure out why, if the only people they see around getting enthusiastic about their candidate, the other candidates could still pull that much support. but it's probably more because of the hoards of lukewarm supporters.

[Didymus]

the problem with Ron Paul's answer to the Iranian boat incident was that it seemed he immediately jumped to the conclusion that the other candidates answers practically called for war with Iran, but they were merely discussing if the men on the ship did the right thing in standing down, as well as their reflections on Bush's statements, which were in my opinion appropriate.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Yeah, I really like Ron Paul, but in the end, I dont think he will get my vote.
[/size]

[Didymus]

I like many of his policies, but I think he'd be better off remaining as a Libertarian.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Didymus

[Aloysius]

"the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan, hero of the republican party.

Paul is a real republican, he is what the republicans used to be, and he deserves the nomination of the Grand Old Party (did you know that that's what GOP stands for? i didn't... don't believe me? look it up, I think people should actually spell the phrase out more often lol)

Paul sees the trend towards war with Iran... anyone who doesn't see that trend is blind. I posted in the Debate Table about the Iranian boat incident, which the navy is now admitting may have been a misunderstanding. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=76215"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=76215[/url]

[Didymus]

something needs to be done with Iran though. They are making trouble and I don't think withdrawing from the Middle East will solve their mischievousness.

and yeah, I think we should totally spell out GOP more often!

[Aloysius]

What needs to be done with Iran is have the US pull out of the Middle East, have diplomatic relations and discussions with them, and allow Israel full freedom to do the same. Remove the leash from Israel and allow Israel to carry on diplomacy with Iran, allow Israel to speak softly and carry a big stick. We can step back and speak softly, Israel's big stick will suffice (Israel has tons of nukes, Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapon program right now).

It is Israel whose nation is theoretically threatened by Iran, not the United States. We could have friendship with Israel (but we should not have entangling alliance with them, we should be free to evaluate every situation independent of the requirements of entangling alliances)

It's called a Foreign Policy of Freedom. If Iran does get nuclear weapons, we will certainly be able to deal with them the way we dealt with the USSR (and before you tell me Iran's much more irrational than they were, please pick yourself up a copy of "The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other")

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1444415' date='Jan 10 2008, 11:27 PM']the problem with Ron Paul's answer to the Iranian boat incident was that it seemed he immediately jumped to the conclusion that the other candidates answers practically called for war with Iran, but they were merely discussing if the men on the ship did the right thing in standing down, as well as their reflections on Bush's statements, which were in my opinion appropriate.[/quote]
He said people in Washington, not people on stage.

Don't buy into the Fox News manipulation. Also keep in mind that they control the earpiece volume. Paul indicated he couldn't hear.

Edited January 11, 2008 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1444397' date='Jan 10 2008, 10:51 PM']i think Paul dropped like a rock to anyone who listened today and were merely considering him. The only supporters he has left are the ones who have been die hard crazy for him from the start.[/quote]
I thought he had his best performance ever. I was certain before the debate that this would be the end. The way he handled the 9/11 truther question and asked to be in the debate, or rather outright inserted himself into it, took some real backbone. He certainly wasn't afforded the same respect other candidates got. The "Do you have any electibilty" question was a new low for Fox News, or any network. They could have asked "What is your electibility" or "How would you make yourself more electible," but the tone of their question took them from being debate moderators straight into wannabe kingmakers. It's no wonder he didn't want to do a post-debate interview.

Edited January 11, 2008 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[Didymus]

the post-debate interview was with hannity and colmes, which he's done before, and in which he did quite well

[Didymus]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' post='1444443' date='Jan 11 2008, 12:36 AM']He said people in Washington, not people on stage.

Don't buy into the Fox News manipulation. Also keep in mind that they control the earpiece volume. Paul indicated he couldn't hear.[/quote]

he may have been speaking about Washington, but he turned and pointed to the other candidates, as if in response to their statements.

and i know the ear thing wasn't his fault. i kinda felt bad for him because they have been unfair to him, but in the end my own opinion is based on what i see in his policies, not how he is perceived by the media.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1444462' date='Jan 11 2008, 01:14 AM']the post-debate interview was with hannity and colmes, which he's done before, and in which he did quite well[/quote]
I think he had a meeting with supporters in SC. Given how he's always been towards the end on the interviews, he went out to go earn votes the old fashioned way rather than talk to a national audience. Besides, Fat Frank brought him up again. I'm sure his 'scientific methods' were accurate. Notice they started dialing him down before he even said anything. He needs to coach them better next time.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' post='1444443' date='Jan 10 2008, 11:36 PM']He said people in Washington, not people on stage.

Don't buy into the Fox News manipulation. Also keep in mind that they control the earpiece volume. Paul indicated he couldn't hear.[/quote]

I was confused by that as well. They really jumped on him for that one, and I was starting to feel dumb because I was agreeing with everything he was saying. I didn't hear him call out anyone in particular. He was addressing the very real tendency for many people to look for a reason to go to war with Iran. All he was saying is that we need to be careful and not jump to the conclusions that we want prematurely. If we do this we would just end up with another Vietnam war scenario. Maybe it was a real threat, but no sense in acting until we're sure. The other candidates, while vocally approving the ship captains' action to stand down, did seem to call for some heavy pressure on Iran regardless.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1444463' date='Jan 11 2008, 12:19 AM']he may have been speaking about Washington, but he turned and pointed to the other candidates, as if in response to their statements.

and i know the ear thing wasn't his fault. i kinda felt bad for him because they have been unfair to him, but in the end my own opinion is based on what i see in his policies, not how he is perceived by the media.[/quote]

I must have missed his reference to the other candidates, though I'm not so sure (even though they didn't openly say so this time) that the others wouldn't approve of action against Iran. Regardless, you're right. We need to base our opinions on the policies not how the media portrays him, which was downright sinfully malicious on the part of Fox News today. Unfortunately, I think many people tend to get their opinions based on what these news sources say.

[friendofJPII]

I think Huckabee did a great job. I loved his answer to the marriage question. His answers were articulate, insightful, he was speaking from his heart and not just regurgating buzz words (cut taxes, change, etc). He seems the most human to me. Romney and McCain act like seasoned politiciansl; seem phony. Guiliani does strike me as all that smart. He just keeps repeating his one liners. Ron Paul brought an interesting perspective to the debate, but his libertarian views are not realistic--America is a superpower like it or not, we have to be involved in world affairs. Thompson would be my second choice, tho I think he was lazy to enter the race so late, and I did not like the way he attacked Huckabee, instead of touting his own record in the Senate. Maybe that is because he hasn't done much?

Edited January 11, 2008 by friendofJPII