PDA

View Full Version : RP IS paying attention to grassroots feedback



klamath
11-13-2011, 12:56 PM
His answer on Iran was excellent, He dropped all the "they can't even affod gasoline" line and got straight to the point. Iran isn't a threat but if they were he would go to congress for a declaration of war. Right ON!
Guitarzan
11-13-2011, 01:00 PM
Yes, I thought that answer was excellent too.
LibertyEagle
11-13-2011, 01:02 PM
Don't forget the fight it and WIN IT, part. :D
IterTemporis
11-13-2011, 01:06 PM
Don't forget the fight it and WIN IT, part. :D

and the get it over with part. Which happens to be my favorite (:.
bluesc
11-13-2011, 01:08 PM
It was a good answer, and The Daily Caller picked up on it..


While Paul refused to rule out the possibility of war with Iran, he insisted a war would not be worthwhile and that the president should go to Congress before launching any military action.

You can tell Ron was prepared well, and if given more time, he would have had more great moments. Onward to the next foreign policy debate.
Original_Intent
11-13-2011, 01:09 PM
Don't forget the fight it and WIN IT, part. :D

We sure wouldn't have these ten year fiascos that have been going on since WW2. And of course U.S. victory was never the goal or the purpose for the chickenhawks, it was and is perpetual war. As soon as Iraq started to wind down, the next target was being talked about and promoted. I swear there are some in the party (like McCain for instance) who think we MUST be involved in three wars or there is something wrong.
klamath
11-13-2011, 01:10 PM
That actually was a killer answer because he actually was on the side of the American people. Even with the bias I think RP did well with his answers. He flat out stood out with those answers. The American people Do NOT want to get dragged into another war.
Carehn
11-13-2011, 01:10 PM
and the get it over with part. Which happens to be my favorite (:.

That was also my favorite part.
sailingaway
11-13-2011, 01:12 PM
We sure wouldn't have these ten year fiascos that have been going on since WW2. And of course U.S. victory was never the goal or the purpose for the chickenhawks, it was and is perpetual war. As soon as Iraq started to wind down, the next target was being talked about and promoted. I swear there are some in the party (like McCain for instance) who think we MUST be involved in three wars or there is something wrong.

Yeah, the neocon desire is the constant 'presence' part MB was pushing for, regardless of conflicts. Nationbuilding.

(clarification, I don't exactly classify MB as a neocon. I think she is useful to them, however.)
Feeding the Abscess
11-13-2011, 01:21 PM
My favorite part of the answer was the analogy of Iran war propaganda aligning with the Iraq war propaganda.
centure7
11-13-2011, 01:35 PM
He did really did do an amazing job in the 89 seconds he was given. Very solid answers!
ChrisDixon
11-13-2011, 01:41 PM
and the get it over with part. Which happens to be my favorite (:.

That was my favorite part, too. Nothing carried more of a punch in that answer than that.

He didn't rule out a strike, but said it he did, he'd go through Congress than get it down and over with. Pure gold.
LEK
11-13-2011, 02:48 PM
My favorite part of the answer was the analogy of Iran war propaganda aligning with the Iraq war propaganda.

He brought that out at the rally too.
69360
11-13-2011, 03:57 PM
Yep, the campaign people are reading what we write and take it into consideration.
Eric21ND
11-13-2011, 04:15 PM
Ron Paul can slap down Bachmann or any other candidate in favor of torture by bringing up Ronald Reagan railing against torture and saying he stands with Reagan.
ZanZibar
11-13-2011, 04:23 PM
Yep, the campaign people are reading what we write and take it into consideration.I hear that a good deal of the staff of the campaign actually used to either write or lurk on RPF and DP.
wgadget
11-13-2011, 04:27 PM
I hear that a good deal of the staff of the campaign actually used to either write or lurk on RPF and DP.

Dr. Ron Paul only surrounds himself with the best quality people. :)
TexasJake
11-13-2011, 04:32 PM
Ron rocked that answer. He said more in his 89 seconds than all those other buffoons combined.

No one but Paul!
roversaurus
11-13-2011, 04:44 PM
How much time did the other candidates get? Did anyone get less?
ItsTime
11-13-2011, 04:51 PM
He needs to hit hard on Obama. Pick a fight there. Esp on Obamacare. The old people eat it up.
ShaneEnochs
11-13-2011, 05:28 PM
How much time did the other candidates get? Did anyone get less?

No, no one got less. I'm not sure about the exact times the other candidates got, though.
dante
11-13-2011, 05:30 PM
CBS News Doesn’t Support the Troops (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/13/cbs-news-doesnt-support-the-troops/)

That is, if gauging the amount of time CBS News allotted each candidate during the televised portion of last night’s Republican presidential debate compared to how much money our military donates to each candidate. This is not a scientific analysis—but it doesn’t exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ron Paul got shafted on time last night (h/t RonPaulForums.com):

CBS foreign policy debate and troop donation statistics:

Paul – 1 question, 1 follow up, $113,739 from troops

Perry – 5 questions, 2 follow ups, $7,325 from troops

Gingrich – 5 questions, 1 follow up, $1,725 from troops

Cain – 5 questions, 1 follow up, $9,518 from troops

Romney – 4 questions, 1 follow up, $11,555 from troops

Santorum – 3 questions, 2 follow ups, $750 from troops

Bachmann – 3 questions, $7,182 from troops

Huntsman – 2 questions, 1 follow up, $0 from troops