CNN Just Spoke With Some Two Supposed Undecided Voters

[Give me liberty]

One elderly guy who runs a small business said to Ali Velsh that he doesnt like Ron Paul foreign policy then says that he cant and doesnt speak for the tea party and also said he doesnt believe that Ron paul would win in 2012 :mad: Then Velsh asked him in the end whoever comes out the GOP primary did you decide now who are you going to vote for? he said that he would be voting for bachmann and that the other person with him also said bachmann:rolleyes:


I wasnt surpised by this it was on just a while ago.



So Is CNN Now Pushing voters to join bachmann now? shouldnt this be illegal for a news network to do this?

[michaelkellenger]

No, a private company should not be restricted by the government to do what it pleases, such as prompting up a particular candidate. It would be anti-liberty if the government were to limit this and contrary to the 1st Amendment.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not surprised by their reaction at all. Perry hung himself last night. Mitt is a lefty. Paul, well, he didn't represent himself well in that last question and people got the wrong idea.

I'm not sure what we expect people to do. Read his mind?

[Give me liberty]

are there any more debates been planned by the media?

[michaelkellenger]

are there any more debates been planned by the media?

Next debate is the 22nd in Orlando, Florida hosted by Fox News and Google

[HOLLYWOOD]

Currently watching C-SPAN's Washington Journal it's Bachmann, Cain, and Newt popularity contest with clips. Ron exposed Perry Texas fraud and Rick shot himself too. Only one person supporting RP on Social Security/Healthcare.

Ron ended poorly with his foreign policy/Santorum dialog rebuttal and message delivery was a killer. Everyone wants to forget criminal Dubya Bush and Ron brings him up with the 2000 campaign reference. That's sticking in viewers memory most.



Call-In Numbers:


 Democrats: (202) 737-0001
Republicans: (202) 737-0002

 Independents: (202) 628-0205

 Outside U.S.: (202) 628-0184
Email: journal@c-span.org
Twitter: http://twitter.com/cspanwj
About C-SPAN's Call-In Program: 


 Frequently Asked Questions (http://legacy.c-span.org/About/wj_faq.aspx)

[IterTemporis]

How do you get tickets to attend these debates and do they cost money?

[kojirodensetsu]

He doesn't speak for the tea party? What the heck? He created the tea party!

[Chester Copperpot]

i thought it was rons best debate performance so far... just because some people boo'ed.. well im used to that... and those people wont be voting for ron paul..

[pacelli]

I'm not surprised by their reaction at all. Perry hung himself last night. Mitt is a lefty. Paul, well, he didn't represent himself well in that last question and people got the wrong idea.

I'm not sure what we expect people to do. Read his mind?

From what I've observed, people just need to "wake up" and research Ron Paul to understand his positions, even though he won the debate.

Little slip-ups like quoting OBL the day after the 10th anniversary of 9/11, while factually accurate, are not the way to appeal emotionally to more than 10-15% of likely republican voters.

[misconstrued]

i thought it was rons best debate performance so far... just because some people boo'ed.. well im used to that... and those people wont be voting for ron paul..

I agree. He did great with all, but the foreign policy back and forth with Santorum, though after watching the video again today it was actually not that bad. Will be interesting to see how he does in the next round of polls and even more interesting to see what happens with Perry's numbers.

[Bruno]

From what I've observed, people just need to "wake up" and research Ron Paul to understand his positions, even though he won the debate.

Little slip-ups like quoting OBL the day after the 10th anniversary of 9/11, while factually accurate, are not the way to appeal emotionally to more than 10-15% of likely republican voters.

That may be true for most people, but part of me wants to disagree.

If we want people to wake up and realize that these wars were unnecessary, we need to hit them over the head with the reason we were attacked - our foreign policy.

Otherwise, we might as well settle in for another few decades of wars we can't afford in multiple countries as we breed another generation of Muslims to hate us for attacking and occupying their countries.

[KingNothing]

I agree. He did great with all, but the foreign policy back and forth with Santorum, though after watching the video again today it was actually not that bad. Will be interesting to see how he does in the next round of polls and even more interesting to see what happens with Perry's numbers.

Paul should be mostly unchanged, unless Bachmann gains a little and eats into his support.
Perry was gashed in the debate, and exposed. His fall will start now, and though it might not be reflected in the immediate polling, his weaknesses have been made apparent - thanks in no small part to Paul.

[No Free Beer]

Give me liberty, ABSOLUTELY! Right after the debate, the "insiders" were saying how Bachmann did very well. Also, she received an interview with John King right after the debate saying how she needed to rise to the occasion, and did. It is obvious. Also, the health insurance question that had to do with the 30 year old "healthy" person was a clear cornering question. Ron handled it brilliantly. IMO, that was Ron's best debate of the campaign...

[KingNothing]

That may be true for most people, but part of me wants to disagree.

If we want people to wake up and realize that these wars were unnecessary, we need to hit them over the head with the reason we were attacked - our foreign policy.

Otherwise, we might as well settle in for another few decades of wars we can't afford in multiple countries as we breed another generation of Muslims to hate us for attacking and occupying their countries.

What percentage of debate viewers do you think were unaware of Ron Paul's foreign policy views?

[Bruno]

are there any more debates been planned staged by the media?

fixed

[KingNothing]

Give me liberty, ABSOLUTELY! Right after the debate, the "insiders" were saying how Bachmann did very well. Also, she received an interview with John King right after the debate saying how she needed to rise to the occasion, and did. It is obvious. Also, the health insurance question that had to do with the 30 year old "healthy" person was a clear cornering question. Ron handled it brilliantly. IMO, that was Ron's best debate of the campaign...

He ALWAYS slams those "gotcha" questions. It really is an amazing thing.

[Bruno]

What percentage of debate viewers do you think were unaware of Ron Paul's foreign policy views?

I think that's the wrong question.

What percentage of debate viewers think Ron Paul is an isolationist vs. a non-interventionist?

What percentage of debate viewers think Ron Paul blames Americans for terrorism, as opposed to blaming America's foreign policy?

I don't know the percentages, but odds are the number for the former in each question is higher than the latter.

[erowe1]

He doesn't speak for the tea party? What the heck? He created the tea party!

No he didn't. And I don't think it helps to win over tea party voters when people say he did.

[KingNothing]

I think that's the wrong question.

What percentage of debate viewers think Ron Paul is an isolationist vs. a non-interventionist?

What percentage of debate viewers think Ron Paul blames Americans for terrorism, as opposed to blaming America's foreign policy?

I don't know the percentages, but odds are the number for the former in each question is higher than the latter.

That might be the case. The important thing, though, is that Paul continues speaking about the issues that matter. It's gotten him this far, polling 14 percent nationally, and If it can get him to 20-percent in the polls.... well... then he'd have a REAL shot at taking this thing down.

[kojirodensetsu]

No he didn't. And I don't think it helps to win over tea party voters when people say he did.
Yes he did. http://targetfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ron-paul-tea-party.jpg

I supported him in 08. I remember the tea party demonstrations. Ron Paul was the foundation, but the tea party has been corrupted by politicians claiming to be tea party to appeal to voters when in reality they're status quo.

[erowe1]

Yes he did. http://targetfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ron-paul-tea-party.jpg

I supported him in 08. I remember the tea party demonstrations. Ron Paul was the foundation, but the tea party has been corrupted by politicians claiming to be tea party to appeal to voters when in reality they're status quo.

I did too, and I remember them too. He didn't make that ad in your link. He didn't start the tea parties, not even the 2007 one. And the 2007 tea party was not connected to the 2009 ones anyway.

[Esoteric]

One elderly guy who runs a small business said to Ali Velsh that he doesnt like Ron Paul foreign policy then says that he cant and doesnt speak for the tea party and also said he doesnt believe that Ron paul would win in 2012 :mad: Then Velsh asked him in the end whoever comes out the GOP primary did you decide now who are you going to vote for? he said that he would be voting for bachmann and that the other person with him also said bachmann:rolleyes:


I wasnt surpised by this it was on just a while ago.



So Is CNN Now Pushing voters to join bachmann now? shouldnt this be illegal for a news network to do this?

Yes. It's not without reason. They want any points that Perry loses to stay FAR away from Paul.

[klamath]

RP is running an educational campaign I am afraid. Ever since he started off blanketly bashing the reagan revolution as a failure it became clear to me he wasn't in it to win. He has so many other sources to prove his points on intervention but he uses OBL. That is about like have anti american muslim campaigning in his own country quoting GW's stated reasons for invading the middle east. His audience will not acept the source and reject everything thing he says.

[erowe1]

RP is running an educational campaign I am afraid.

Of course he's running an educational campaign. That's a good thing. That's who he is. And it doesn't mean he's not trying to win. He is trying to win. But for him, to win means to win people over, not to be the best panderer.

[ItsTime]

RP is running an educational campaign I am afraid. Ever since he started off blanketly bashing the reagan revolution as a failure it became clear to me he wasn't in it to win. He has so many other sources to prove his points on intervention but he uses OBL. That is about like have anti american muslim campaigning in his own country quoting GW's stated reasons for invading the middle east. His audience will not acept the source and reject everything thing he says.

Except after he "bashed the Reagan Revolution" he shot up 6 points in the polls. Maybe he knows what he is doing and you dont know what you are talking about?

[PaulConventionWV]

I guess the upside is that when anyone of these phonies tries to sound like Ron Paul, guess where their votes go when they screw up?

[jmdrake]

One elderly guy who runs a small business said to Ali Velsh that he doesnt like Ron Paul foreign policy then says that he cant and doesnt speak for the tea party and also said he doesnt believe that Ron paul would win in 2012 :mad: Then Velsh asked him in the end whoever comes out the GOP primary did you decide now who are you going to vote for? he said that he would be voting for bachmann and that the other person with him also said bachmann:rolleyes:


I wasnt surpised by this it was on just a while ago.



So Is CNN Now Pushing voters to join bachmann now? shouldnt this be illegal for a news network to do this?

If voters are drifting away from Perry and to Bachmann, frankly that helps us in the short run. Perry's numbers are too high. Goal #1 is to shatter the myth that he and Romney are the "top tier" candidates.

Long term? As a movement we blew 4 years where we should have been stepping on toes and educating people about the truth regarding terrorism as opposed to attacking each other, cat fighting and sheepishly saying "We don't want to offend other republicans". We should have been at Tea Parties with large signs saying "Bush = Obama". We should have been driving home the point that what's happening with foreign policy goes far beyond "blowback". Even if you don't want to go the whole "inside job" route, you should at least be able to say that our government funded what would become Al Qaeda and at the very least our government had enough "operational intelligence" prior to 9/11 to stop it. Ron Paul has brought up the point on the house floor that the FBI had identified some of the hijackers in Florida prior to 9/11. But no. We insist on fighting this public opinion war with one, or in some cases two, hand(s) tied behind our collective backs.

Now we're in the middle of an election cycle and everyone is on pins and needles. We're trying to run a conventional campaign with an unconventional message. "Don't talk to independents with whom Ron's message resonates. We have to focus exclusively on likely republican voters." Well maybe...maybe not. Maybe we have to work our butts off to find all likely Ron Paul republican voters (those in the GOP who are already sick of all the wars and aren't wedded to the idea of perpetual foreign aid to Israel), and when were done start looking for disgruntled Obama voters who thought he was going to end the wars and fix the economy and instead got more wars, a worse economy, and a government takeover of healthcare. Someone who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 is a prime target for voter outreach.

We've got to start playing the hand we're actually dealt and quit whining about Ron not dealing us the cards we'd like to play.

[steph3n]

RP is running an educational campaign I am afraid. Ever since he started off blanketly bashing the reagan revolution as a failure it became clear to me he wasn't in it to win. He has so many other sources to prove his points on intervention but he uses OBL. That is about like have anti american muslim campaigning in his own country quoting GW's stated reasons for invading the middle east. His audience will not acept the source and reject everything thing he says.

It always has been because in reality he never stands a chance of getting past the GOP Primary. NEVER. anyone who thought otherwise was willfully blind.


Of course he's running an educational campaign. That's a good thing. That's who he is. And it doesn't mean he's not trying to win. He is trying to win. But for him, to win means to win people over, not to be the best panderer.
Exactly, on the debate thread certain people pounding him about pandering on domestic policy, I don't think so one bit. He has always said, and planned to take care of the international policy, first, and then focus on home and PHASE out the govt tit that so many feed upon. It cannot be done overnight, a president DOES NOT HAVE that power. A president is not a dictator. Some people here think the president can do everything on their whim, and would be sorely disappointed if even the most pure libertarian were elected, simply because they would not be able to act 'fast enough' to kill the govt.
Ron is realistic, even he doesn't pound this home enough, it is required to have such a plan to enact it, and that is one reason people won't vote for him, he's not elaborated often enough on his ideas to shrink govt realistically (other than FP, which they often disagree with in the first place, which just makes the job tougher)


Except after he "bashed the Reagan Revolution" he shot up 6 points in the polls. Maybe he knows what he is doing and you dont know what you are talking about?

You can tell RP respected the foundations and idea of Reagan, but toward the end the follow through and completion just wasn't there.

[AuH20]

One elderly guy who runs a small business said to Ali Velsh that he doesnt like Ron Paul foreign policy then says that he cant and doesnt speak for the tea party and also said he doesnt believe that Ron paul would win in 2012 :mad: Then Velsh asked him in the end whoever comes out the GOP primary did you decide now who are you going to vote for? he said that he would be voting for bachmann and that the other person with him also said bachmann:rolleyes:


I wasnt surpised by this it was on just a while ago.



So Is CNN Now Pushing voters to join bachmann now? shouldnt this be illegal for a news network to do this?

Bachmann is far more palatable when you have Ron awkwardly quoting OBL and is insinuating that the American people are evil in a roundabout way. I think this forum is encased in such a closed bubble that people don't understand how ridiculous Ron sounds when he goes down this path. Ron isn't content to just point how wasteful and unconstitutional our foreign policy is, but then he proceeds to rub innocent parties' faces into the moral aspect of it. As if Joe the butcher down the street somehow has control over the CIA and it's black ops. ROFL It's utter bullshit. The CIA does what it wants, when it wants.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

One elderly guy who runs a small business said to Ali Velsh that he doesnt like Ron Paul foreign policy...and also said he doesnt believe that Ron paul would win in 2012

That's actually believable coming from an "undecided" GOP voter. The 'disagree with his foreign policy, he can't win' beliefs are the two most common hurdles.

[erowe1]

Bachmann is far more palatable when you have Ron awkwardly quoting OBL and is insinuating that the American people are evil in a roundabout way.

Really? So having destructive policies is more palatable than quoting OBL and saying something that could only be taken as an insinuation that the American people are evil if it's taken in a roundabout way (one that's blatantly different from what RP means)?

If that kind of rhetorical fluff is what matters, then I'd say Bachmann is less palatable on account of her annoying voice.

[AuH20]

Really? So having destructive policies is more palatable than quoting OBL and saying something that could only be taken as an insinuation that the American people are evil if it's taken in a roundabout way (one that's blatantly different from what RP means)?

If that kind of rhetorical fluff is what matters, then I'd say Bachmann is less palatable on account of her annoying voice.

Perception is reality. After awhile, the fact that he continually steps into the bucket tells you about his electability. This isn't about withholding the truth, but rather accentuating one's strengths as a candidate.

[Bruno]

Bachmann is far more palatable when you have Ron awkwardly quoting OBL and is insinuating that the American people are evil in a roundabout way.

There is no way that he "insinuated the American people are evil in a roundabout way." Or in any way at all.

[AuH20]

RP is running an educational campaign I am afraid. Ever since he started off blanketly bashing the reagan revolution as a failure it became clear to me he wasn't in it to win. He has so many other sources to prove his points on intervention but he uses OBL. That is about like have anti american muslim campaigning in his own country quoting GW's stated reasons for invading the middle east. His audience will not acept the source and reject everything thing he says.

There was nothing wrong with bashing the Reagan Revolution. I think he gained support from those comments. It's all the other poorly constructed comments I'm afraid. Instead of being known as the champion of limited government and a staunch advocate for sound money, likely fans come away from the debates remember him saying something outrageous.

[erowe1]

Perception is reality. After awhile, the fact that he continually steps into the bucket tells you about his electability. This isn't about withholding the truth, but rather accentuating one's strengths as a candidate.

Setting himself apart from the other candidates is what has made him as successful as he is. And it's the only path to winning. The voters might reject him for what he stands for. But if he just tries to sell himself as an older version of Rick Perry who hasn't held as high of an office, then he might as well quit.

[AuH20]

There is no way that he "insinuated the American people are evil in a roundabout way." Or in any way at all.

C'mon. Ron was almost insinuating that Mom and Pap Sanders were riding co-pilot when we were allegedly carpet bombing Iraq. He talks like a fool sometimes.

[erowe1]

likely fans come away from the debates remember him saying something outrageous.

How else is he going to get people to believe things that sound outrageous, unless he says those things? The goal is to make them so they're not so outrageous any more.

[erowe1]

C'mon. Ron was almost insinuating that Mom and Pap Sanders were riding co-pilot when we were allegedly carpet bombing Iraq. He talks like a fool sometimes.

Nobody could possibly honestly take him that way.

[Bruno]

C'mon. Ron was almost insinuating that Mom and Pap Sanders were riding co-pilot when we were allegedly carpet bombing Iraq. He talks like a fool sometimes.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Provide the quote from him from last night that you think even comes close to that. I think you are reading into his statements what you want to.

Last night you called Ron a coward, now this??

[AuH20]

How else is he going to get people to believe things that sound outrageous, unless he says those things? The goal is to make them so they're not so outrageous any more.

You can influence voters to your ideological argument without insulting and disparaging them. Ron truly has no idea how poorly delivered some of his rhetoric is. It's not his message per se, but it's his rhetoric. He can leave Noam Chomsky at home. Pat Buchanan can deftly make the same foreign policy points as Ron and not get booed. Huge difference. America first.

[AuH20]

Now you're just being ridiculous. Provide the quote from him from last night that you think even comes close to that. I think you are reading into his statements what you want to.

Last night you called Ron a coward, now this??

When he stated something along the lines of "we" are killing millions of "innocent" people in the middle east indiscriminately, as if it's national goal filtered down to the micro level.

[erowe1]

You can influence voters to your ideological argument without insulting and disparaging them. Ron truly has no idea how poorly delivered some of his rhetoric is. It's not his message per se, but it's his rhetoric. He can leave Noam Chomsky at home. Pat Buchanan can deftly make the same foreign policy points as Ron and not get booed. Huge difference. America first.

Could you please give an exact quote of one of his insults?

[freeforall]

He ALWAYS slams those "gotcha" questions. It really is an amazing thing.

He certainly has had a lot of opportunity to perfect this skill!

[AuH20]

Could you please give an exact quote of one of his insults?

It's the typical stuff he brings up every debate in his foreign policy rants. He doesn't know when to quit. When dealing with potential hostile voters, you have to treat them like a severely dehydrated person, in that you don't fill them immediately up with liquid on the account that they could suffer severe circulatory and kidney problems. Ron doesn't understand this when he goes off on this shock crusade. Actually, I take back the shock crusade classification, because he's hesitant to call S.S. a Ponzi scheme.


P.S. I'm extremely frustrated. I can't watch anymore of these debates. 2012 will be looked back upon as an incredible opportunity wasted.

[KingNothing]

You can influence voters to your ideological argument without insulting and disparaging them. Ron truly has no idea how poorly delivered some of his rhetoric is. It's not his message per se, but it's his rhetoric. He can leave Noam Chomsky at home. Pat Buchanan can deftly make the same foreign policy points as Ron and not get booed. Huge difference. America first.

But the Christian Just War theory, the morality of our actions, the role our foreign policy has played in creating terrorists.... those are things that must be said. It's not as simple as "America First!" "Spend that Money Here!" -- those points are valid, but they don't tell the entire story.

[erowe1]

It's the typical stuff he brings up every debate in his foreign policy rants. He doesn't know when to quit. When dealing with potential hostile voters, you have to treat them like a severely dehydrated person, in that you don't fill them immediately up with liquid on the account that they could suffer severe circulatory and kidney problems. Ron doesn't understand this when he goes off on this shock crusade. Actually, I take back the shock crusade, because he's hesitant to call S.S. a Ponzi scheme.

Could you post an exact quote so we can see what the insult is?

[Bruno]

It's the typical stuff he brings up every debate in his foreign policy rants. He doesn't know when to quit. When dealing with potential hostile voters, you have to treat them like a severely dehydrated person, in that you don't fill them immediately up with liquid on the account that they could suffer severe circulatory and kidney problems. Ron doesn't understand this when he goes off on this shock crusade. Actually, I take back the shock crusade classification, because he's hesitant to call S.S. a Ponzi scheme.


P.S. I'm extremely frustrated. I can't watch anymore of these debates. 2012 will be looked back upon as an incredible opportunity wasted.

So, in other words, you are paraphrasing and don't have a quote?

[AuH20]

But the Christian Just War theory, the morality of our actions, the role our foreign policy has played in creating terrorists.... those are things that must be said. It's not as simple as "America First!" "Spend that Money Here!" -- those points are valid, but they don't tell the entire story.

But this isn't an issue you can win in the public arena, on the account that the Islamic fundamentalists aren't exactly an innocent party. Don't waste precious time and energy trying to ram a square block into a round hole. That's the elephant in the room. We have real enemies. However, these real enemies are nowhere as dangerous and destructive as our INTERNAL enemies.

[erowe1]

But this isn't an issue you can win in the public arena, on the account that the Islamic fundamentalists aren't exactly an innocent party. That's the elephant in the room. We have real enemies. However, these real enemies are nowhere as dangerous and destructive as our INTERNAL enemies.

Right. Especially since the reason we have those external enemies is on account of what those internal enemies tend to do in our names. This needs to be said. To win without saying it is to lose.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Didn't see the debate, but looks like Paul stepped in it again:

http://www.breitbart.tv/ron-paul-loudly-booed-after-blaming-us-foreign-policy-for-terrorist-attcks/

Every debate has this. Heroin, 'leave Iran alone', conspiracy theory-type statements about a fence being used to keep Americans in, etc.

A lot of people will say it's "negativity", but many people are just frustrated at how much this looks like another worthless education campaign rather than the promised campaign-to-win. America needs Ron Paul in the White House, but the campaign keeps making these avoidable mistakes.

[PastaRocket848]

the "mistake" would be to walk-back the opinion you've held openly for 20+ years. ron shouldn't sell his integrity to pander to a base that is rapidly diminishing anyway.

[AuH20]

the "mistake" would be to walk-back the opinion you've held openly for 20+ years. ron shouldn't sell his integrity to pander to a base that is rapidly diminishing anyway.

Ron never panders, especially when it comes to domestic entitlement programs.

[Deborah K]

Give me liberty, ABSOLUTELY! Right after the debate, the "insiders" were saying how Bachmann did very well. Also, she received an interview with John King right after the debate saying how she needed to rise to the occasion, and did. It is obvious. Also, the health insurance question that had to do with the 30 year old "healthy" person was a clear cornering question. Ron handled it brilliantly. IMO, that was Ron's best debate of the campaign...

It disturbed me that people in the audience actually yelled out "yes" when Blitzer asked if the young man should be left to die. wtf? I agree though, Ron answered that question very well and I'm sure he enlightened a lot of people. You watch, the other clones will start parroting him on that issue like they do everything else. Did anyone else notice how they're all starting to sound like him? And did you notice how Blitzer didn't ask him anything about the Federal Reserve? The man who started it all? These debates are a sham.

[Travlyr]

But the Christian Just War theory, the morality of our actions, the role our foreign policy has played in creating terrorists.... those are things that must be said. It's not as simple as "America First!" "Spend that Money Here!" -- those points are valid, but they don't tell the entire story.

+rep

If understanding of the Just War Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2) went viral, then people may start to question the morality of killing innocent people and destroying their infrastructure with remote control bombs in distant lands.

[klamath]

There was nothing wrong with bashing the Reagan Revolution. I think he gained support from those comments. It's all the other poorly constructed comments I'm afraid. Instead of being known as the champion of limited government and a staunch advocate for sound money, likely fans come away from the debates remember him saying something outrageous.
No there is nothing wrong with pointing out the areas where the Reagan revolution failed such as deficit spending etc, blanketly calling the reagan revolution a failure is a sure way of losing. Climbing six points does not make a winner when the leader is 25 points ahead of you. I nearly maxed out donating to RP last time but after he blanketly called the Reagan revolution a failure I have quit donating. I will vote for him but my passion is gone. Where Reagan failed was getting things accomplished and in this area RP is even a bigger failure.

[KingNothing]

Ron never panders, especially when it comes to domestic entitlement programs.


By saying that he doesn't intend to cut off the welfare checks and wealth transfers to all of those who have grown accustom to them?

That is a stretch, my friend.

[AuH20]

By saying that he doesn't intend to cut off the welfare checks and wealth transfers to all of those who have grown accustom to them?

That is a stretch, my friend.

Well, that's a lie then. The entitlement system cannot be maintained on the account that those funds have been spent years ago. In fact, by 2017, withdrawals will exceed deposits into the system. So now Ron is promising something that he knows he cannot possible deliver? Is that pandering?

[erowe1]

Well, that's a lie then. The entitlement system cannot be maintained on the account that those funds have been spent years ago. In fact, by 2017, withdrawals will exceed deposits into the system. So now Ron is promising something that he knows he cannot possible deliver? Is that pandering?
Really? By 2017 entitlements will exceed all federal revenue?
Got a link for that?

[AuH20]

Really? By 2017 entitlements will exceed all federal revenue?
Got a link for that?

Yes, the AP of all sources. I'm sure Ron has to be aware considering he has been so prophetic:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ap-admits-social-security-unsustainable-on-verge-of-insolvency-why/question-2102991/


The trustees who oversee Social Security are urging Congress to shore up the disability system by reallocating money from the retirement program, just as lawmakers did in 1994. If Congress does not act, the disability program will collect only enough payroll taxes to pay about 85 percent of benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2017.

Even if Congress does act, the combined retirement and disability trust funds are projected to run out of money in 2036, the trustees say. The new congressional report estimates the combined fund would run out of money in 2038. At that point, the combined programs would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay about three-fourths of benefits.

[erowe1]

Yes, the AP of all sources. I'm sure Ron has to be aware considering he has been so prophetic:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ap-admits-social-security-unsustainable-on-verge-of-insolvency-why/question-2102991/

That specifically says just payroll taxes. I asked about all federal revenue, since the source of the revenue is irrelevant.

[KingNothing]

Well, that's a lie then. The entitlement system cannot be maintained on the account that those funds have been spent years ago. In fact, by 2017, withdrawals will exceed deposits into the system. So now Ron is promising something that he knows he cannot possible deliver? Is that pandering?

So he proposes that we phase in the structural changes over time. That is perfectly reasonable, and it can be achieved any number of ways - changing inflation indexing, increasing retirement age, decreasing benefits, etc. No matter how you slice it, the pain is lessened if you decrease money spent abroad and dump at least part of it into the domestic programs until the issues can be resolved.

[AuH20]

That specifically says just payroll taxes. I asked about all federal revenue, since the source of the revenue is irrelevant.

Right now the SSA states that it has 2.7 trillion dollars locked away, when you and I know it's nothing but IOUs. Where is Ron going to find 2.7 trillion dollars long-term in our budget? There is no salvaging S.S. unless you change the COLA formula and/or implement rigid means testing. Either way someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

[Crickett]

C'mon. Ron was almost insinuating that Mom and Pap Sanders were riding co-pilot when we were allegedly carpet bombing Iraq. He talks like a fool sometimes.
It seems to me you are the only one here who does not agree with the maxim :Know Thy Enemy. Ron QUOTED OBL to show why they fought us. He did not blame the American PEOPLE. One can tell you are probably still drinking fluoridated water. You do not even hear what he is saying.

[erowe1]

Right now the SSA states that it has 2.7 trillion dollars locked away, when you and I know it's nothing but IOUs. Where is Ron going to find 2.7 trillion dollars long-term in our budget? There is no salvaging S.S. unless you change the COLA formula and/or implement rigid means testing. Either way someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

The IOU's are irrelevant. The taxes that pay for SS are all taxes, not some special tax designated for SS.

He won't find 2.7 Trillion. Neither can anyone else. And he won't succeed at making any serious cuts in SS except for years down the road for younger people who opt out. Neither will anyone else. So philosophizing about those hypotheticals won't do much good.

What he could successfully accomplish immediately, though, and would easily have the political capital to pull off, is making deep cuts in military spending. These cuts won't balance the budget by themselves. But they'll accomplish more than what any other candidate on that stage will ever do.

[AuH20]

It seems to me you are the only one here who does not agree with the maxim :Know Thy Enemy. Ron QUOTED OBL to show why they fought us. He did not blame the American PEOPLE. One can tell you are probably still drinking fluoridated water. You do not even hear what he is saying.

Focus on the pronoun "We" taken from his debate comment below. Note, he didn't specify the U.S. military. And then he implies mass murder with the hundreds of thousands number, as if the US armed forces were intently focusing on population dense centers? This is irresponsible and revolting to say the least. then people act shocked when he can't break out of 10%?

PAUL: I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.

[erowe1]

Focus on the pronoun "We" taken from his debate comment below. Note, he didn't specify the U.S. military. And then he implies mass murder with the hundreds of thousand number. This is irresponsible to say the least? then people act shocked when he can't break out of 10%?

PAUL: I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.

I agree that it would be better if he didn't say "we." But nobody can honestly interpret it to mean the American people.

[AuH20]

I agree that it would be better if he didn't say "we." But nobody can honestly interpret it to mean the American people.

But this could have been avoided. Santorum baited him and Ron took the hook, line and sinker. You gotta be smart up there, especially if you're Ron Paul.

[erowe1]

But this could have been avoided. Santorum baited him and Ron took the hook, line and sinker. You gotta be smart up there, especially if you're Ron Paul.

Yeah, he could have said, "the politicians," or "Clinton," or something. But he's always said it this way. And it's always been disingenuous of people to pretend he's blaming the American people. Nobody who uses that argument against him honestly thinks it's valid.

[AuH20]

Yeah, he could have said, "the politicians," or "Clinton," or something. But he's always said it this way. And it's always been disingenuous of people to pretend he's blaming the American people. Nobody who uses that argument against him honestly thinks it's valid.

But that's how it is construed unfortunately. He has the worst message discipline I've seen of any candidate. He leaves so many open ended statements, that are eventually repackaged and turned against him. But like they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[erowe1]

But that's how it is construed unfortunately.

But it's not plausible. People who support an interventionist foreign policy construe it that way, but that's because they really are implicated in the "we." People who don't support an interventionist policy don't get swayed by the interventionists saying that Ron Paul blames America, because it's a ridiculous interpretation.

Lines like those may get boos. But they don't result in fewer votes. In fact, enduring those boos is a necessary part of building this movement and moving the Overton window more toward where Ron Paul is.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

C'mon. Ron was almost insinuating that Mom and Pap Sanders were riding co-pilot when we were allegedly carpet bombing Iraq. He talks like a fool sometimes.That's it. You're on ignore now. You should be banned. :mad:

[Give me liberty]

FreedomProsperity take it easy, and AuH20 Ron paul is and was correct about the iraq issue.

[Brett85]

Focus on the pronoun "We" taken from his debate comment below. Note, he didn't specify the U.S. military. And then he implies mass murder with the hundreds of thousands number, as if the US armed forces were intently focusing on population dense centers? This is irresponsible and revolting to say the least. then people act shocked when he can't break out of 10%?

PAUL: I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure when we "killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis." Did we nuke Iraq and I just missed it?

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

FreedomProsperity take it easy, and AuH20 Ron paul is and was correct about the iraq issue.It doesn't matter if he is correct or not. He has gone past the point of constructive criticism and now sounds like a troll. I question whether he's even a supporter. He sounds like a hater to me. His insults are hurting the spirit on this forum and shouldn't be allowed.

[Brett85]

It doesn't matter if he is correct or not. He has gone past the point of constructive criticism and now sounds like a troll. I question whether he's even a supporter. He sounds like a hater to me. His insults are hurting the spirit on this forum and shouldn't be allowed.

It's funny that someone who has barely over 1,000 posts calls someone with over 5,000 posts "a troll." Someone is not "a troll" if they simply want Ron to change the way that he presents the issues.

[eleganz]

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure when we "killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis." Did we nuke Iraq and I just missed it?

We did bomb them and hundreds of thousands DID DIE.

I don't get why we're Ron Pauls most committed supporters and we don't believe the things he says...

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

It's funny that someone who has barely over 1,000 posts calls someone with over 5,000 posts "a troll." Someone is not "a troll" if they simply want Ron to change the way that he presents the issues.What does post count have to do with anything? This is day 2 of him spreading his poison across the forums. One or two posts with respectfully worded criticism is healthy, but not calling Dr. Paul a fool and the other over-the-top comments he's been making.

[Brett85]

We did bomb them and hundreds of thousands DID DIE.

I don't get why we're Ron Pauls most committed supporters and we don't believe the things he says...

I know that we've killed some, but where did the "hundreds of thousands" come from? We may have killed that many people by the sanctions that we placed on Iraq, but not on the bombings. It's important for Ron to be accurate in what he says.

[eleganz]

I know that we've killed some, but where did the "hundreds of thousands" come from? We may have killed that many people by the sanctions that we placed on Iraq, but not on the bombings. It's important for Ron to be accurate in what he says.

I can't find it right now but I did see figures yesterday and pre-9/11 bombings equaled to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian iraqi deaths.

Mind you, this is NOT from sanctions, this is from bombings, sanctions killed several hundred thousand more.

[The Midnight Ride]

I know that we've killed some, but where did the "hundreds of thousands" come from? We may have killed that many people by the sanctions that we placed on Iraq, but not on the bombings. It's important for Ron to be accurate in what he says.

I have seen it many times, I know "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson contains a large section on the killings in Iraq during the mid-90's. I will try to dig up an article when I get the time.

[Brett85]

I can't find it right now but I did see figures yesterday and pre-9/11 bombings equaled to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian iraqi deaths.

Mind you, this is NOT from sanctions, this is from bombings, sanctions killed several hundred thousand more.

You may be right, but I just can't remember that. I just remember that Clinton bombed Iraq around the time of the Monica Lewinski scandal. He did it in order to distract from the Lewinski scandal. But I thought that we were just targeting government buildings.

[CTRattlesnake]

http://lifeinthesandbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/michele-bachmann-footlong-hot-dog-funny-picture.jpg

[Aldanga]

I know that we've killed some, but where did the "hundreds of thousands" come from? We may have killed that many people by the sanctions that we placed on Iraq, but not on the bombings. It's important for Ron to be accurate in what he says.
Different estimates per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War).

[AuH20]

I know that we've killed some, but where did the "hundreds of thousands" come from? We may have killed that many people by the sanctions that we placed on Iraq, but not on the bombings. It's important for Ron to be accurate in what he says.

Ron is taking liberties with that number as well on the account that it was a multi-faction civil war taking place. You had the Iran backed Shia in the south, the Saddam loyalists in and around Baghdad, the Al Qaeda 'jihadists' flooding in from Saudi Arabia and finally the Kurdish remnant in the North. But allegedly the U.S. was indiscriminately killing anything that was moving on the ground, either friend or foe. I'm no supporter of the U.S. military but this is highly inaccurate.

[ItsTime]

You may be right, but I just can't remember that. I just remember that Clinton bombed Iraq around the time of the Monica Lewinski scandal. He did it in order to distract from the Lewinski scandal. But I thought that we were just targeting government buildings.

It is a little known fact that Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than Bush 1 did in the first gulf war.

[LibertyEsq]

i thought it was rons best debate performance so far... just because some people boo'ed.. well im used to that... and those people wont be voting for ron paul..

Sounds like a great strategy for winning votes and a primary!

/sarcasm

[KhunJean]

I think when Ron Paul says 'We' he means government. And government is the peoples representative.
I am from The Netherlands and i see it as your peoples fault that such a government exists.
Where is the outrage? Why aren't millions of people marching in Washington and demand troops get home?
I meet many Americans (tourism) and compared to other nations you are the happiest. Maybe that is the problem?
btw In the Netherlands it is the same so i am just using it to explain my opinion as someone who looks from the outside.

[KingNothing]

I think when Ron Paul says 'We' he means government. And government is the peoples representative.
I am from The Netherlands and i see it as your peoples fault that such a government exists.
Where is the outrage? Why aren't millions of people marching in Washington and demand troops get home?


Meh. Who has time to march, protest and bring about real change when we can play on iPads and watch Dancing With The Stars and American Idol?

Now, what do we think of Herman Cain saying he'd bring a sense of humor to the White House? Does that make him likeable enoughto be preside?