View Full Version : Ron Paul must speak up at the debates!
I was disgusted by the way Paul was treated tonight. The establishment scored yet again. But instead of being silent and smiling as they go to break, he must acknowledge the blatant insult against him. He needs to call them out for the game they're playing while he's up there. If he does that, he'll get thunderous applause and stands a better chance of being spoken about the following day. GET MAD GODDAMIT!!!!
bolidew
11-12-2011, 08:50 PM
That would be someone like Newt or Rick S, not Ron that we know.
asurfaholic
11-12-2011, 08:53 PM
I don't know about you, but tonight, anyone who tried to interject with the moderators got a talkin to. Even the audience got a talkin to.
When a candidate tries to talk over the moderators it looks pathetic. It looks like a bitch fest.
I propose we stop trying to spread this nonsense that we know what is best for Ron Paul, and let him make those judgment calls. Seems that there are so many people who think they could run the campaign better than Ron himself.
ScotTFO
11-12-2011, 08:53 PM
Ron Paul owes it to us as his supporters to do this much. I have busted my ass and spent a lot of money to help Ron Paul on his cause. I've been on the streets talking to people, arguing his points because I agree with him. To see him stand there and take that disapointed me to no end.
We are behind you 100% Ron Paul, a lot of us have put lots of blood, sweat, and tears into your cause, as well as lots of money during this hard economic time. You owe it to us, your loyal supporters to stand up for us and yourself when these blackouts occur. Don't let them silence you otherwise we have lost!
Travlyr
11-12-2011, 08:56 PM
Do you folks have any idea who is the enemy of liberty? If so, then share. As far as I am concerned it is the counterfeiting cabal of oligarchs and they use media to control the conversation.
What say you?
justatrey
11-12-2011, 09:00 PM
I don't know about you, but tonight, anyone who tried to interject with the moderators got a talkin to. Even the audience got a talkin to.
When a candidate tries to talk over the moderators it looks pathetic. It looks like a bitch fest.
I propose we stop trying to spread this nonsense that we know what is best for Ron Paul, and let him make those judgment calls. Seems that there are so many people who think they could run the campaign better than Ron himself.
This. Plus, it would make him look crazy.
eleganz
11-12-2011, 09:06 PM
I don't know about you, but tonight, anyone who tried to interject with the moderators got a talkin to. Even the audience got a talkin to.
When a candidate tries to talk over the moderators it looks pathetic. It looks like a bitch fest.
I propose we stop trying to spread this nonsense that we know what is best for Ron Paul, and let him make those judgment calls. Seems that there are so many people who think they could run the campaign better than Ron himself.
^^^ just listen to him folks...
Everybody on RPF is a freakin campaign critic all of a sudden. If most of us were tasked to run the campaign, we'd run it down the toilet. Just DO YOUR JOB as a grassroots supporter, get out there, table, canvass, hold signs, and phone bank.
Miss Annie
11-12-2011, 09:07 PM
Do you folks have any idea who is the enemy of liberty? If so, then share. As far as I am concerned it is the counterfeiting cabal of oligarchs and they use media to control the conversation.
What say you?
Here here!
RPSupporter305
11-12-2011, 09:08 PM
I disagree. The way he has handled himself in all of the debates up until now is fine in my opinion. He has "spoken up" before and has been effective. If he had done so today he would probably have made himself look bad by being denied by the moderators. In the last debate he got two points across in one question, but the way he asked for it seemed courteous and polite and he did not get into a "yelling war" with the moderators unlike some of the other candidates. I think some of you want to change him to appeal to the mainstream more, but you should be focusing on changing people's opinion instead.
matt0611
11-12-2011, 09:08 PM
I don't know about you, but tonight, anyone who tried to interject with the moderators got a talkin to. Even the audience got a talkin to.
When a candidate tries to talk over the moderators it looks pathetic. It looks like a bitch fest.
I propose we stop trying to spread this nonsense that we know what is best for Ron Paul, and let him make those judgment calls. Seems that there are so many people who think they could run the campaign better than Ron himself.
Thank you. Someone who gets it...
Ron can't interject himself, it comes across as bitchy. The most he can do is say something when its his turn about how unfair he is being treated. But even then, it comes across as bitchy. It seemed like the audience knew he was getting shortchanged on time here, which is good. Also seemed like he got a lot of applause.
ScotTFO
11-12-2011, 09:08 PM
You guys obviously don't understand that WE ARE HIS CAMPAIGN!
He does not get media support, he doesn't get PAC funds. He gets US! Without us doing everything we have done no one would know who he was. So to try to bash us for making suggestions about how to run his campaign is just stupid. We are his campaign! I think we have a pretty good idea on how to help him campaign and the proof is right in front of you. He is top tier, thanks to US.
FreedomProsperityPeace
11-12-2011, 09:13 PM
While it would be great to see Dr. Paul call out the moderators and show as much contempt as Newt, I think it would just backfire. He would be labelled a "whiner" by pundits, other candidates, and their supporters, and all the attention would go to this subject rather than his opinion on the issues. He gets precious little time to express his views, but I'd rather have the 3 minutes or so he got to say what he said, rather than have it become an argument over unfair treatment.
LibertyEagle
11-12-2011, 09:17 PM
He was shorted time, that is for sure, but personally, I think he did FANTASTIC in that 1.5 minutes that he had. He showed me all over again just why I am supporting him and why he must be our next President.
michaelkellenger
11-12-2011, 09:17 PM
No talking over the moderators doesn't look like a whiny b*tchy thing to do. The tea party loves when Newt has been VERY VERY rude to the moderators. Ron doesn't need to be rude, but needs to speak up. He needs to call them out and make fun of their 'liberal' bias. That would go well with Foxnation! Go the way of Newt on this one, but not as far.
Endthefednow
11-12-2011, 09:33 PM
Ron YOU Do what you think is BEST AS YOU will Have my support 10000%.
To the Establishment Good Job keep ignoring the Only ONE who will Restore America for WE THE PEOPLE
will keep on fighting. The New Revolution will go on ;)
jbuttell
11-12-2011, 09:35 PM
nm
This. Plus, it would make him look crazy.
Nothing crazy about standing up for oneself. He doesn't have to hoot and holler, but at the start of his second answer he can make a quick and stern point about the game their playing. He needs to demand respect because he won't get it otherwise.
I disagree. The way he has handled himself in all of the debates up until now is fine in my opinion. He has "spoken up" before and has been effective. If he had done so today he would probably have made himself look bad by being denied by the moderators. In the last debate he got two points across in one question, but the way he asked for it seemed courteous and polite and he did not get into a "yelling war" with the moderators unlike some of the other candidates. I think some of you want to change him to appeal to the mainstream more, but you should be focusing on changing people's opinion instead.
Why do you think Newt has risen in the polls? People like the way he breaks the moderators balls and challenge them when they behave stupidly. Paul can only help himself by speaking up.
Thank you. Someone who gets it...
Ron can't interject himself, it comes across as bitchy. The most he can do is say something when its his turn about how unfair he is being treated. But even then, it comes across as bitchy. It seemed like the audience knew he was getting shortchanged on time here, which is good. Also seemed like he got a lot of applause.
The audience also didn't call for fair treatment. They could have chanted his name, but they didn't. Paul is ignored because on stage they don't see him as a force to be reckoned with. They see him as a pushover. The media won't change from now until the primaries, but he can.
While it would be great to see Dr. Paul call out the moderators and show as much contempt as Newt, I think it would just backfire. He would be labelled a "whiner" by pundits, other candidates, and their supporters, and all the attention would go to this subject rather than his opinion on the issues. He gets precious little time to express his views, but I'd rather have the 3 minutes or so he got to say what he said, rather than have it become an argument over unfair treatment.
A quick hit is all I'm suggesting, not interruptions or whining. Nothing up there is changing. When nothing changes, a new strategy must be introduced.
shadowhooch
11-12-2011, 10:08 PM
Nothing crazy about standing up for oneself. He doesn't have to hoot and holler, but at the start of his second answer he can make a quick and stern point about the game their playing. He needs to demand respect because he won't get it otherwise.
At most debates I would agree with you. But these CBS moderators were extremely strict and frankly, they were dicks. There were several attempts by candidates to put their 2 cents in and they were shut down hard. This time, it was completely the fault of the moderators as to why Ron Paul didn't get more questions and time.
Ron Paul and his campaign need to make some headlines about his views and how they differ from the rest of the candidates....fast! I don't know how. But they do. It's gotta happen before the holidays too so talk and debate about Ron Paul spreads as people visit their families.
No talking over the moderators doesn't look like a whiny b*tchy thing to do. The tea party loves when Newt has been VERY VERY rude to the moderators. Ron doesn't need to be rude, but needs to speak up. He needs to call them out and make fun of their 'liberal' bias. That would go well with Foxnation! Go the way of Newt on this one, but not as far.
Exactly. If he's not gonna win over the GOP with his foreign policy, he could at least compensate with calling out the bias. Newt has been surging in the polls. I wonder why.
phill4paul
11-12-2011, 10:10 PM
In my perfect world he would, after standing for an hour with little more than 90 secs of speaking, make a very brief statement and if a moderator interjects tell them 'Hush now. I've listened to you control this debate all evening. I came hear so that the American people could actually hear a voice that is different to all the others on this stage. One that does not believe we should live in fear. One that believes we don't send our sons and daughters to die in foreign lands over causes that have little to do with anything other than corporate profit. I yield the rest of my time." And walk the fuck off the stage.
Of course that is just my perfect world.
I do guarantee that in my perfect world he would receive front page news the next day. Some things have to be so blatant and REVOLUTIONARY that they can't deny it happened.
At most debates I would agree with you. But these CBS moderators were extremely strict and frankly, they were dicks. There were several attempts by candidates to put their 2 cents in and they were shut down hard. This time, it was completely the fault of the moderators as to why Ron Paul didn't get more questions and time.
Ron Paul and his campaign need to make some headlines about his views and how they differ from the rest of the candidates....fast! I don't know how. But they do. It's gotta happen before the holidays too so talk and debate about Ron Paul spreads as people visit their families.
Another huge problem I noticed tonight was in the way the other candidates ran with Paul's ideas. They made themselves look better while Paul stays in the dust. I would have loved for Paul to have called them all out on that.
In my perfect world he would, after standing for an hour with little more than 90 secs of speaking, make a very brief statement and if a moderator interjects tell them 'Hush now. I've listened to you control this debate all evening. I came hear so that the American people could actually hear a voice that is different to all the others on this stage. One that does not believe we should live in fear. One that believes we don't send our sons and daughters to die in foreign lands over causes that have little to do with anything other than corporate profit. I yield the rest of my time." And walk the fuck off the stage.
Of course that is just my perfect world.
I do guarantee that in my perfect world he would receive front page news the next day. Some things have to be so blatant and REVOLUTIONARY that they can't deny it happened.
Strength is always recognized.
That would be someone like Newt or Rick S, not Ron that we know.
But it put Newt in the top tier.
Revolution9
11-12-2011, 11:56 PM
Ron YOU Do what you think is BEST AS YOU will Have my support 10000%.
To the Establishment Good Job keep ignoring the Only ONE who will Restore America for WE THE PEOPLE
will keep on fighting. The New Revolution will go on ;)
Give that ScottFO guy a lesson or two.
Rev9
Revolution9
11-12-2011, 11:58 PM
Strength is always recognized.
...and used in imbalance even a small opponent can topple the biggest and strongest if they make the error of imbalance in execution.
Rev9
Revolution9
11-12-2011, 11:59 PM
But it put Newt in the top tier.
Butt it. Put Newt in the top tear.
HTH
Rev9
Revolution9
11-13-2011, 12:01 AM
Exactly. If he's not gonna win over the GOP with his foreign policy, he could at least compensate with calling out the bias. Newt has been surging in the polls. I wonder why.
Because he is a neocon put in to skew the race. So they are skewing the public numbers, which I would not even grace with the moniker of "data". Newt will crash. He is a bitchy whining prevaricator.
Rev9
EBounding
11-13-2011, 12:31 AM
Paul interrupting or walking out of a debate might make us feel better, but to everyone else (the people whose votes we need) he will look petty and pathetic. He did very well with the pathetic amount of time he was given.
hb6102
11-13-2011, 12:41 AM
Well next time instead of walking off, he should pull out his iPad and play Angry Birds really close to the mic.
SpicyTurkey
11-13-2011, 12:44 AM
Well next time instead of walking off, he should pull out his iPad and play Angry Birds really close to the mic.
hahahaha
Paul interrupting or walking out of a debate might make us feel better, but to everyone else (the people whose votes we need) he will look petty and pathetic. He did very well with the pathetic amount of time he was given.
Who said anything about interrupting?
Well next time instead of walking off, he should pull out his iPad and play Angry Birds really close to the mic.
LOL
MelissaWV
11-13-2011, 09:21 AM
Who said anything about interrupting?
The OP and just about everyone who is critical of Ron's handling of himself at debates?
"Speak up" means interrupting.
* * *
Ron hit it out of the park every time he was given a question. He did SO well that candidates felt a need to mention his name and gang up on him, including Bachmann throwing him under the bus (to which Ron's response was epic). The only thing I can really still find fault with is his suit, and that's not going to stop me from following him and promoting him to others. Hell, it's gained him at least two supporters who've had the same thing happen to them.
True story: Mitt's suit did not look tailored tonight. It was baggy into the sleeves, the shoulders were not precise, and the material looked very "Men's Wearhouse." In his attempt to look like an everyman, Mitt is immitating Ron.
The OP and just about everyone who is critical of Ron's handling of himself at debates?
"Speak up" means interrupting.
Not according to how I think he should do it. Once given the floor, he should get the point across quickly and sternly, then continue to answer the question. No interruption necessary.
wstrucke
11-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Well next time instead of walking off, he should pull out his iPad and play Angry Birds really close to the mic.
This. Everyone knows the sounds for that game because of their kids.
MelissaWV
11-13-2011, 09:31 AM
Not according to how I think he should do it. Once given the floor, he should get the point across quickly and sternly, then continue to answer the question. No interruption necessary.
Ron answered the questions he was given thoroughly. Rambling on would have been ridiculous.
I have had several people talk to me today about the debates, and one of the points made over and over was "I've never heard so many people say so little and bullshit for so long ... about yes or no questions." Ron was the only one who seemed able to start his answers with "yes" or "no" the majority of the time. That's what happens when you know where you stand.
Romney, however, needs an hour to explain to you whether or not he'd bring the troops home or leave them overseas... because, of course, he'd do both. And neither.
Ron answered the questions he was given thoroughly. Rambling on would have been ridiculous.
I have had several people talk to me today about the debates, and one of the points made over and over was "I've never heard so many people say so little and bullshit for so long ... about yes or no questions." Ron was the only one who seemed able to start his answers with "yes" or "no" the majority of the time. That's what happens when you know where you stand.
Romney, however, needs an hour to explain to you whether or not he'd bring the troops home or leave them overseas... because, of course, he'd do both. And neither.
Like I said before, Newt started criticizing the moderators for their bias and now he's in the top tier. Hey, it works.
asurfaholic
11-13-2011, 09:37 AM
Not according to how I think he should do it. Once given the floor, he should get the point across quickly and sternly, then continue to answer the question. No interruption necessary.
So, copy Newt? I dont think so
klamath
11-13-2011, 09:38 AM
For those that say it would hurt him to get angry and fight the bias.
A leader will show anger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE
So, copy Newt? I dont think so
If one strategy doesn't work, change it. All these candidates change strategy from time to time. Look how they steal Paul's ideas and take credit for them. They saw that Paul's ideas were catching on and they changed their strategy to gain points. Obviously their disingenuous, but the point is, change of strategy works. I believe Paul could change his strategy just enough without ruining his integrity.
For those that say it would hurt him to get angry and fight the bias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE
If Paul had a moment like that, he'd soar. This is what the voters want.
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 09:53 AM
I was disgusted by the way Paul was treated tonight. The establishment scored yet again. But instead of being silent and smiling as they go to break, he must acknowledge the blatant insult against him. He needs to call them out for the game they're playing while he's up there. If he does that, he'll get thunderous applause and stands a better chance of being spoken about the following day. GET MAD GODDAMIT!!!!
I don't think he should get mad, but I think he should crack a joke about it. Remember when Gary Johnson spoke up at an early debate about how he was being ignored? Or how Huntsman said last night it was getting a little lonely in Siberia? I think Ron would be better served making a joke about it, instead of getting angry.
klamath
11-13-2011, 10:47 AM
I don't think he should get mad, but I think he should crack a joke about it. Remember when Gary Johnson spoke up at an early debate about how he was being ignored? Or how Huntsman said last night it was getting a little lonely in Siberia? I think Ron would be better served making a joke about it, instead of getting angry. These are the bottom rung candidates and it didn't help them one little bit.
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 10:49 AM
These are the bottom rung candidates and it didn't help them one little bit.
That's because they're not a blip on the radar. They don't have the presence or potential to have more presence. Paul has both.
The only reason Paul is being ignored is because he's accepting it. Call the media out on stage and bring attention to it on national television.
anewvoice
11-13-2011, 10:50 AM
I would have loved to see Ron Paul walk in front of the podium on Newt's bastardization of rule of law, lay down the truth and then return to his podium. Nobody would know how to react. :)
moderate libertarian
11-13-2011, 11:10 AM
I was disgusted by the way Paul was treated tonight. The establishment scored yet again. But instead of being silent and smiling as they go to break, he must acknowledge the blatant insult against him. He needs to call them out for the game they're playing while he's up there. If he does that, he'll get thunderous applause and stands a better chance of being spoken about the following day. GET MAD GODDAMIT!!!!
RP has too much class to make fuss about media circus. If I were one of the candidates, I would issue a press statement asking CBS to explain:
- Are they in business of shaping public opinion or fairly reporting and let people decide?
- Did Iran threat to Israel led them to lead the debate with Iran threat questions? Are they afraid of public hearing US does not need to wage wars for other countries and economic bankruptcy from costs of wars is bigger threat to US now? Is media biased against Ron Paul because he educates people about blowbacks and his plan would cut off foreign aid to all welfare states?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?329553-CBS-debate-tonight-first-on-free-TV-first-on-foreign-policy&p=3738121&viewfull=1#post3738121
Simple
11-13-2011, 12:16 PM
There is still body language. It was great how Ron Paul responded to John McCain as seen in LibertyEagle's avatar. I'd like to see Ron more animated in the debates when he's not speaking. Some head shaking and face palms might go a long way.
Besides that, Ron Paul can feed the machine of the media circus by naming names when he gets the opportunity to speak.
virgil47
11-13-2011, 12:45 PM
Ron answered the questions he was given thoroughly. Rambling on would have been ridiculous.
I have had several people talk to me today about the debates, and one of the points made over and over was "I've never heard so many people say so little and bullshit for so long ... about yes or no questions." Ron was the only one who seemed able to start his answers with "yes" or "no" the majority of the time. That's what happens when you know where you stand.
Romney, however, needs an hour to explain to you whether or not he'd bring the troops home or leave them overseas... because, of course, he'd do both. And neither.
Don't be obtuse! Calling the moderators on their obvious lack of respect during his answer to a question asked of him is certainly not rambling. It is simply putting forth his right to participate in the debate on an even basis.
virgil47
11-13-2011, 12:48 PM
So, copy Newt? I dont think so
Copy? Newt, Huntsman and Santorum had the balls to call out the moderators. Ron Paul remaining silent makes him look as though he either doesn't care or is weak. Which one do you think the majority of viewers believed by the end of the debate?
virgil47
11-13-2011, 12:50 PM
These are the bottom rung candidates and it didn't help them one little bit.
Well it must have helped as both Huntsman and Newt got asked a lot more questions than Ron did. It keeps them elevated in the polls while dropping Ron Paul.
Travlyr
11-13-2011, 01:11 PM
Well it must have helped as both Huntsman and Newt got asked a lot more questions than Ron did. It keeps them elevated in the polls while dropping Ron Paul.
Virgil, how many times each day do you hear the media say we need to audit the central bank? I never hear anyone in mainstream media say it. Do you even agree that the bank, which creates the currency that we all are forced to use by law, should be at least looked at? How about your own personal bank? Should they be subject to audit? All banks should be subject to audit, imo. Letting Ron Paul talk in debates is far to risky for the people in charge. He is telling the truth. It is the job of the debate moderators to silence Ron the best they can.
Ron understands that along with liberty comes responsibility. Ron is respectful because respect is part of responsibility. Ron is on a mission to change the world. He knows what he is doing.
MelissaWV
11-13-2011, 01:14 PM
Well it must have helped as both Huntsman and Newt got asked a lot more questions than Ron did. It keeps them elevated in the polls while dropping Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson has been king of "I'm not getting enough time" whining. How many questions did Gary Johnson get in this debate?
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 01:25 PM
Gary Johnson has been king of "I'm not getting enough time" whining. How many questions did Gary Johnson get in this debate?
You're implying that his "whining" is the reason he's been left out of the debates, when it's his barely registering a blip on the radar that has kept him out.
MelissaWV
11-13-2011, 01:28 PM
You're implying that his "whining" is the reason he's been left out of the debates, when it's his barely registering a blip on the radar that has kept him out.
It might help if you read posts before commenting without context.
These are the bottom rung candidates and it didn't help them one little bit.
Well it must have helped as both Huntsman and Newt got asked a lot more questions than Ron did. It keeps them elevated in the polls while dropping Ron Paul.
It was implied that bottom rung candidates who whined, got more questions. It keeps them elevated in the polls. What manner of elevation in the polls, and how many questions, did bottom rung candidate Gary Johnson receive as a result?
Travlyr
11-13-2011, 01:30 PM
You're implying that his "whining" is the reason he's been left out of the debates, when it's his barely registering a blip on the radar that has kept him out.
While I would not vote for Gary Johnson, he is a much better GOP candidate than Herman Cain. He was a successful two term Republican Governor. Why is his campaign barely registering a blip on the radar? His message.
nbhadja
11-13-2011, 01:31 PM
Agreed. This is one of the major flaws of Ron Paul.
He should have interrupted the debate and said "Hello???I have only gotten 90 seconds while everyone else has gotten 8+ minutes."
However there are a lot of people here who will blindly think any thing Ron Paul does is the right decision, so they will say "no, talking up is bad" even when it's good.
Calling out CBS on their bias is a good thing, not a bad thing.
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 01:37 PM
While I would not vote for Gary Johnson, he is a much better GOP candidate than Herman Cain. He was a successful two term Republican Governor. Why is his campaign barely registering a blip on the radar? His message.
I agree, but that's not my point. People are saying that Paul shouldn't go the route Huntsman or Johnson took in speaking up because of his poll numbers, or in Johnson's case, debate neglect in all but a couple. I find that connection to be false, because Huntsman's low poll numbers are because he's uninspiring and Johnson's because of his message and there's a more popular libertarian-leaning candidate in the race. It has nothing to do with the fact that they openly called out bias on stage.
virgil47
11-13-2011, 01:40 PM
Virgil, how many times each day do you hear the media say we need to audit the central bank? I never hear anyone in mainstream media say it. Do you even agree that the bank, which creates the currency that we all are forced to use by law, should be at least looked at? How about your own personal bank? Should they be subject to audit? All banks should be subject to audit, imo. Letting Ron Paul talk in debates is far to risky for the people in charge. He is telling the truth. It is the job of the debate moderators to silence Ron the best they can.
Ron understands that along with liberty comes responsibility. Ron is respectful because respect is part of responsibility. Ron is on a mission to change the world. He knows what he is doing.
Well I guess he knew what he was doing in 2008 as well! Right? Being respectful does not mean being passive!!! If you don't respect yourself enough to speak up for yourself how can you possibly expect total strangers to respect you?
Captain Shays
11-13-2011, 01:42 PM
Do you folks have any idea who is the enemy of liberty? If so, then share. As far as I am concerned it is the counterfeiting cabal of oligarchs and they use media to control the conversation.
What say you?
Why does it take me three pages to say what you just did in one sentence? Bravo man! Spot frigging ON!
Captain Shays
11-13-2011, 01:56 PM
If Paul had a moment like that, he'd soar. This is what the voters want.
Exactly what I was thinking. I believe it's what we all want. Maybe not from some of these responses but I trust Ron Paul with my life and my children's life. I KNOW he's a classy guy but I have also seen him get REAL firey and bold. He does have it in him for sure. If he ever did step up and assert himself I am certain that he would do it with intelligence, class, conviction and truth. After all he's Ron Paul.
Captain Shays
11-13-2011, 02:02 PM
That's because they're not a blip on the radar. They don't have the presence or potential to have more presence. Paul has both.
The only reason Paul is being ignored is because he's accepting it. Call the media out on stage and bring attention to it on national television.
The reason Ron Paul is being ignored ESPECIALLY in a foreign policy debate is because he''s right. he's different and he is a threat to the bankers and the military industrial complex.
John D Rockefeller once said "We (the bankers) make more money in one day of war than we do in one year of peace". Our country's total GDP is around $14 TRILLION per year. The military industrial complex accounts for approximately 1/3 of that so there are a relative few people who have an enormous financial vested interest in keeping this country in a constant state of conflict or near conflict. He also threatenes the central bankers who own our government. Nuff said about that in a Ron Paul forum. If you guys don't know the implications about that by now you're still sucking your thumbs
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 02:06 PM
The reason Ron Paul is being ignored ESPECIALLY in a foreign policy debate is because he''s right. he's different and he is a threat to the bankers and the military industrial complex.
John D Rockefeller once said "We (the bankers) make more money in one day of war than we do in one year of peace". Our country's total GDP is around $14 TRILLION per year. The military industrial complex accounts for approximately 1/3 of that so there are a relative few people who have an enormous financial vested interest in keeping this country in a constant state of conflict or near conflict. He also threatenes the central bankers who own our government. Nuff said about that in a Ron Paul forum. If you guys don't know the implications about that by now you're still sucking your thumbs
I agree, but the more he brings that to light on NATIONAL TELEVISION, the more people will notice. The more they will be faced with it. Just as we are respectfully pushing back on Bill O'Reilly, CNBC, and now CBS, Paul has to acknowledge it on stage.
Captain Shays
11-13-2011, 02:12 PM
I agree, but the more he brings that to light on NATIONAL TELEVISION, the more people will notice. The more they will be faced with it. Just as we are respectfully pushing back on Bill O'Reilly, CNBC, and now CBS, Paul has to acknowledge it on stage.
I agree and I wish he would do it. We have nothing to lose if he does.
MelissaWV
11-13-2011, 02:16 PM
I agree, but that's not my point. People are saying that Paul shouldn't go the route Huntsman or Johnson took in speaking up because of his poll numbers, or in Johnson's case, debate neglect in all but a couple. I find that connection to be false, because Huntsman's low poll numbers are because he's uninspiring and Johnson's because of his message and there's a more popular libertarian-leaning candidate in the race. It has nothing to do with the fact that they openly called out bias on stage.
Once again, you've managed to get it backwards.
One poster is saying Ron should speak up, because it will do wonders for his poll numbers and get him more questions in the following debates.
My response to that was to ask what wonders it had done for Gary Johnson.
From there, to what you are posting, is night and day.
I don't think he should get mad, but I think he should crack a joke about it. Remember when Gary Johnson spoke up at an early debate about how he was being ignored? Or how Huntsman said last night it was getting a little lonely in Siberia? I think Ron would be better served making a joke about it, instead of getting angry.
How well have the jokes worked for the other guys?
EBounding
11-13-2011, 05:28 PM
No, Ron shouldn't walk off or complain during the debate about his time. He should just knock the few questions he gets out of the park.
Bachmann did this, and the RPF chat went crazy with "STFU!". The same would be said about Paul too. It might make us feel better, but it's not going to convince anyone to vote for him.
Copy? Newt, Huntsman and Santorum had the balls to call out the moderators. Ron Paul remaining silent makes him look as though he either doesn't care or is weak. Which one do you think the majority of viewers believed by the end of the debate?
That's the problem. As brilliant as he is, he doesn't project strength.
Revolution9
11-13-2011, 05:56 PM
Why do you think Newt has risen in the polls? People like the way he breaks the moderators balls and challenge them when they behave stupidly. Paul can only help himself by speaking up.
Because he is a zionist. Not because he is a ball buster. He really didn't bust any balls. He whined and bitched and then didn't answer what he was asked.
Rev9
Revolution9
11-13-2011, 05:58 PM
That's the problem. As brilliant as he is, he doesn't project strength.
Not to a warmonger such as yourself. To one who knows martial arts he is like the willow in a windstorm. Utterly unassailable by the winds while the mighty oak is felled.
Rev9
Revolution9
11-13-2011, 06:00 PM
Why does it take me three pages to say what you just did in one sentence? Bravo man! Spot frigging ON!
Because you got suckered into taking the debate down the OP troll gambits dead end alley. Travlyr saw what it was trying to do and subtly countered. Glad you recovered your equilibrium;)
Rev9
JohnGalt1225
11-13-2011, 07:15 PM
Because he is a zionist. Not because he is a ball buster. He really didn't bust any balls. He whined and bitched and then didn't answer what he was asked.
Rev9
Bingo. Here's the OFFICIAL Newt Gingrich Guide to Answering Debate Questions in 4 Easy Steps:
1. Spend the first 20 seconds whining attacking the question or the moderator, or both.
2. Spend the next 15-20 seconds complaining that the complexity of the issue warrants a time frame longer than 60 measly, after all an intellect so superior as yours needs much more time, which leads to
3. 5-10 seconds bragging about how you'll challenge Barack Obama to 7 Lincoln-Douglas Style debates.
4. 5-10 seconds to throw out meaningless soundbites vaguely related to the topic of the question.
Remember all of this should be done in as condescending and arrogant a tone as humanly possible. You're the "Smartest Man in the Room" and everyone should know it.
A bonus step for the first question of the debate is "5 seconds to explain how 'any candidate up here would be much better than Obama.'"
nbhadja
11-13-2011, 08:02 PM
Once again, you've managed to get it backwards.
One poster is saying Ron should speak up, because it will do wonders for his poll numbers and get him more questions in the following debates.
My response to that was to ask what wonders it had done for Gary Johnson.
From there, to what you are posting, is night and day.
Gary Johnson is irrelevant in that because he has no following. Ron Paul did the dirty work in 2007 and now has a sizable 10 percent base. Gray is written off easily by the media because he has no support and has no legit campaign. Gary could walk on water and it wouldn't matter. Also Gary is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage so nothing he does would matter in a Republican primary.
Ron Paul has a legit campaign, legit support. If he spoke up it would help. Speaking up would not help Gary, but nothing would help him.
Speaking up would help tremendously. And it's not just Paul that needs to speak up, but anyone out there who can bring attention to the media spin. Most people don't understand the severity of the media creating front runners and telling the public who to vote for.
Revolution9
11-13-2011, 09:20 PM
Speaking up would help tremendously. And it's not just Paul that needs to speak up, but anyone out there who can bring attention to the media spin. Most people don't understand the severity of the media creating front runners and telling the public who to vote for.
And when they do the media will cover it immediately!
Rev9
Captain Shays
11-14-2011, 01:00 PM
Because you got suckered into taking the debate down the OP troll gambits dead end alley. Travlyr saw what it was trying to do and subtly countered. Glad you recovered your equilibrium;)
Rev9
I just think Travlr has a way with words
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.