August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

[Paulie]

I think Ron Paul is a very smart man.

I think he truly believes in his policies.

I agree with much of what he says.

But here is the honest truth about why I don't support Dr. Paul, lampoon it at your leisure.

One of the main reasons I am a Conservative is...wait for it...I am personally conservative.

Ron Paul's platform is too much change too quickly, both for me and much of the party.

Taking a 90 degree corner at 100 MPH in your lumbering Vista Cruiser is going to kill you just as quickly as driving it over a cliff.

And the U.S.S. United States has a lot more momentum that the Vista Cruiser.

Trying to make huge course corrections over a short period will IMO do just as much damage as doing nothing.

I mean, talk about creating uncertainty!

What we need, again IMO, is small course corrections over 20 or 30 years to get the ship back on track.

Ron Paul has talked about gradually changing things. He even mentioned in the debate that auditing the Fed is the first step, and he was against just saying "close its doors tomorrow." Never once did he say we must wake up tomorrow and change everything. That is impossible and impractical, which you are right to point out. But it is also not his position.

This is the biggest hurdle for Paul...people assuming things about him that are incorrect.

Now we have people who didn't like him in 2008, who like him now but are still misinformed about him.

Anyone who is interested in politics enough to come to a board like this ought to know that no president is going to be able to go into the oval office and make every change immediately.

The one thing he'd be able to do on his own wouldbe bring our troops home and defend our OWN borders instead of everyone else's. If that's too radical for you, then you have plenty of other choices.

 

[Missourian]

I personally think Perry is Romney without the baggage of the name, if you catch my drift. Some people are excited about Perry right now as an alternative to Romney, but once it hits that he was a Democrat who chaired Al Gore's presidential campaign in '88 I think people will abandon ship. Not to mention that the Tea Party didn't support him for Governor, so there's no reason they'll support him for President.

I think the fact that Perry was a once a Democrat will not hurt him with Republicans and will help him with independents and moderates.


Reagan was once a Democrat.

Hillary was once a Republican.

I voted for a blue dog southern Democrat Congressman for 15 years.

There's a colossal difference in ideology between a Texas blue dog Democrat and a liberal Massachusetts Democrat.

I believe it will help him garner independent voters as a guy who's seen the situation from both sides of the tracks.

I think this is a different year, however. I think purity is much more important with Republican voters than it's been in the past, and especially the fact that he worked for Al Gore in '88 will hurt him. What do you think about the Tea Party going against him during his re-election campaign in 2010? Do you really think they'll support him for President?

Initially some will, but most won't.

But most social, fiscal and mainstream Republicans will.

The Tea party will have their own favorite...Bachmann or Cain.

If it's Cain, hooray, Perry makes him his running mate and lets go defeat Obama.

If it's Bachmann, we'll have to see if she has being able to cast of the "crazy Tea party lady" moniker...if so, Perry makes her his running mate...but, chances are if she hasn't beat back the label, she won't be the Tea Party favorite.



If it's Bachmann, and she is still perceived as totally out of the main stream and anathema to independents, find another Tea Party favorite more conducive to moderate support, like Senator Rubio of Florida.

Bingo, the party is unified and Perry gains Tea Party support.

And the five pillars needed to defeat Obama.

• Fiscal Conservatives
• Tea Partiers
• Social Conservatives
• Moderates
• Independents

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think the fact that Perry was a once a Democrat will not hurt him with Republicans and will help him with independents and moderates.


Reagan was once a Democrat.

Hillary was once a Republican.

I voted for a blue dog southern Democrat Congressman for 15 years.

There's a colossal difference in ideology between a Texas blue dog Democrat and a liberal Massachusetts Democrat.

I believe it will help him garner independent voters as a guy who's seen the situation from both sides of the tracks.

I think this is a different year, however. I think purity is much more important with Republican voters than it's been in the past, and especially the fact that he worked for Al Gore in '88 will hurt him. What do you think about the Tea Party going against him during his re-election campaign in 2010? Do you really think they'll support him for President?

Initially some will, but most won't.

But most social, fiscal and mainstream Republicans will.

The Tea party will have their own favorite...Bachmann or Cain.

If it's Cain, hooray, Perry makes him his running mate and lets go defeat Obama.

If it's Bachmann, we'll have to see if she has being able to cast of the "crazy Tea party lady" moniker...if so, Perry makes her his running mate...but, chances are if she hasn't beat back the label, she won't be the Tea Party favorite.



If it's Bachmann, and she is still perceived as totally out of the main stream and anathema to independents, find another Tea Party favorite more conducive to moderate support, like Senator Rubio of Florida.

Bingo, the party is unified and Perry gains Tea Party support.

And the five pillars needed to defeat Obama.

• Fiscal Conservatives
• Tea Partiers
• Social Conservatives
• Moderates
• Independents

Well we'll see I guess.

 

[Stashman]

Nothing but the facts. Follow the link to see who each city chose as winner of last nights debate. Clearly this shows that yes indeed most Americans DO know who Ron Paul is.

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

 

[Modbert]

Nothing but the facts. Follow the link to see who each city chose as winner of last nights debate. Clearly this shows that yes indeed most Americans DO know who Ron Paul is.

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

Another poll that the Paulbots flooded with votes. But thanks for another laugh.

 

[Stashman]

Nothing but the facts. Follow the link to see who each city chose as winner of last nights debate. Clearly this shows that yes indeed most Americans DO know who Ron Paul is.

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

Another poll that the Paulbots flooded with votes. But thanks for another laugh.

Every voter of the poll can only vote ONCE. So what are you saying, and show the proof of what you are saying or your point is mute.

 

[Paulie]

Nothing but the facts. Follow the link to see who each city chose as winner of last nights debate. Clearly this shows that yes indeed most Americans DO know who Ron Paul is.

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

Another poll that the Paulbots flooded with votes. But thanks for another laugh.

What if it were Bachman that high? Or Romney or Newt?

Would the numbers be an indication of a true level of support?

 

[Modbert]

Every voter of the poll can only vote ONCE. So what are you saying, and show the proof of what you are saying or your point is mute.

"Who Won The Debate" Polls To Vote In | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

First one on the list.

Other pro-Paul pages and sites had the same thing.

What I find hilarious is Paulbots like yourself who flood these polls to get Ron Paul to #1 and then claim he's the best because he won yet another internet poll.

 

[Modbert]

What if it were Bachman that high? Or Romney or Newt?

Would the numbers be an indication of a true level of support?

Considering the average likely age of a Newt or Bachmann supporter, I wouldn't be surprised.

Seriously though Paulie, you know as well I do what's going on here.

 

[Paulie]

What if it were Bachman that high? Or Romney or Newt?

Would the numbers be an indication of a true level of support?

Considering the average likely age of a Newt or Bachmann supporter, I wouldn't be surprised.

Seriously though Paulie, you know as well I do what's going on here.

I do. And so do MOST Paul supporters at this point. We learned from 2008 that online news website polls don't mean anything other than his supporters, albeit maybe smaller in number than his opponents', are the most passionate. And that DOES mean something.

 

[FreeMyMind]

It truly saddens me that any American; Democrat or Republican would agree with this quote:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner


Respectfully, the United States Constitution is one of the most beautifully written documents in recorded history. It is the foundation for the creation of arguably the most successful governments on the face of the earth, and is the backbone of the United States. If we would stop trampling all over it, all of our lives would be better.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing but the facts. Follow the link to see who each city chose as winner of last nights debate. Clearly this shows that yes indeed most Americans DO know who Ron Paul is.

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

Another poll that the Paulbots flooded with votes. But thanks for another laugh.

Every voter of the poll can only vote ONCE. So what are you saying, and show the proof of what you are saying or your point is mute.

Sure, unless you reset your IP address and reset your IP address and reset your IP address

And the word is MOOT

 

[Stashman]

Every voter of the poll can only vote ONCE. So what are you saying, and show the proof of what you are saying or your point is mute.

"Who Won The Debate" Polls To Vote In | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

First one on the list.

Other pro-Paul pages and sites had the same thing.

What I find hilarious is Paulbots like yourself who flood these polls to get Ron Paul to #1 and then claim he's the best because he won yet another internet poll.

No, Ron Paul is the best choice because he is a Constitutionalists. Name me ONE thing that he supports that is not backed by the Constitution. Than explain what your problem is with the Constitution and why you would vote for ANYONE that does not support it.

 

[ShackledNation]

I think Ron Paul is a very smart man.

I think he truly believes in his policies.

I agree with much of what he says.

But here is the honest truth about why I don't support Dr. Paul, lampoon it at your leisure.

One of the main reasons I am a Conservative is...wait for it...I am personally conservative.

Ron Paul's platform is too much change too quickly, both for me and much of the party.

Taking a 90 degree corner at 100 MPH in your lumbering Vista Cruiser is going to kill you just as quickly as driving it over a cliff.

And the U.S.S. United States has a lot more momentum that the Vista Cruiser.

Trying to make huge course corrections over a short period will IMO do just as much damage as doing nothing.

I mean, talk about creating uncertainty!

What we need, again IMO, is small course corrections over 20 or 30 years to get the ship back on track.

Ron Paul has talked about gradually changing things. He even mentioned in the debate that auditing the Fed is the first step, and he was against just saying "close its doors tomorrow." Never once did he say we must wake up tomorrow and change everything. That is impossible and impractical, which you are right to point out. But it is also not his position.

I get that...but it's the totality...the overwhelming number of big changes he proposes. IMO the reality is it's too much change for most conservatives to handle all at once.

Guess what? When you have a bunch of big changes in the wrong direction, you ultimately must make big changes to get back on track. Are you suggesting we continue to support unconstitutional laws and poor policy for the sake of maintaining the corrupt and failing status quo?

Unbelievable.

 

[Modbert]

No, Ron Paul is the best choice because he is a Constitutionalists. Name me ONE thing that he supports that is not backed by the Constitution. Than explain what your problem is with the Constitution and why you would vote for ANYONE that does not support it.

I like how you completely decided to ignore what I posted and make a whole new argument. Meanwhile, you make the whole "If you don't support Paul, you don't support the constitution argument."

By the way, you know he changed his position about taxes, right? He now supports a flat income tax.

 

[ShackledNation]

No, Ron Paul is the best choice because he is a Constitutionalists. Name me ONE thing that he supports that is not backed by the Constitution. Than explain what your problem is with the Constitution and why you would vote for ANYONE that does not support it.

I like how you completely decided to ignore what I posted and make a whole new argument. Meanwhile, you make the whole "If you don't support Paul, you don't support the constitution argument."

By the way, you know he changed his position about taxes, right? He now supports a flat income tax.

Ironic that you just accused him of switching arguments and then proceeded to do the exact same thing yourself.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ron Paul's comments about Iran and "militarism" show he is a nut.

The islamofascists that currently run Iran took advantage of the anti-Shah group think in Iran in the late 70s, they weren't some noble "freedom fighters" freeing the masses from the "evil' Shah. They just replaced a dictator with a worse oneS with radical religious views, but Ron Paul seems to ignore this reality.

He acts like the CIA was acting on its own in the 1950s, there was no Soviet threat in countries worldwide to turn them into little Cubas. That Cuban experiment worked out so well, eh?

I bet the Iranians wish they had someone like Castro...not. Instead they had a decent society under the Shah until the radical muslims got control and turned them back to the stone age. Oh, but Ron Paul doesn't think the US has any business trying to prevent scum like the mullahs or Castro from taking over countries...

 

[Modbert]

Ironic that you just accused him of switching arguments and then proceeded to do the exact same thing yourself.

I'm not switching arguments. He clearly conceded his by ignoring my post and posting something else. So do you want to take up the mantle next? Go ahead, and respond to the post he blatantly ignored.

 

[Political Junky]

I loved when Cain quoted a poet, unnamed, but turns out it was from a Donna Summer song.

 

[ShackledNation]

Ron Paul's comments about Iran and "militarism" show he is a nut.

The islamofascists that currently run Iran took advantage of the anti-Shah group think in Iran in the late 70s, they weren't some noble "freedom fighters" freeing the masses from the "evil' Shah. They just replaced a dictator with a worse oneS with radical religious views, but Ron Paul seems to ignore this reality.

He acts like the CIA was acting on its own in the 1950s, there was no Soviet threat in countries worldwide to turn them into little Cubas. That Cuban experiment worked out so well, eh?

I bet the Iranians wish they had someone like Castro...not. Instead they had a decent society under the Shah until the radical muslims got control and turned them back to the stone age. Oh, but Ron Paul doesn't think the US has any business trying to prevent scum like the mullahs or Castro from taking over countries...

Our Iranian experiment didn't work out to well either, did it?

Overthrowing the democratically elected leader of a country is totally fine so long as we Americans do it, right? Ron Paul never acted like there was no Soviet threat. He is pointing out the mistakes the US has made in its foreign policy. Government makes many mistakes at home and pursues big government policy that leads to negative consequences. Anyone who believes that abroad the same government is somehow better is the real nut.