PDA

View Full Version : I really thought he nailed it last night.




Sematary
01-24-2012, 09:07 AM
Overall, I only gave him a B for performance but he was still better than the other three and every one of his answers hit home.
If he could some how become a little bit more assertive I think that would push him over the top in many of these debates. Really loved his answers tho - really good how he made GINGRICH sound isolationist (which is true) and he was the ONLY candidate who got applause so it was pretty impressive. I think he won hands down.

Gary4Liberty
01-24-2012, 09:10 AM
yes after sleeping on it and watching the highlight reel, he actually did a lot better than the others. He made a lot of great points and the other candidates are kissing his ass now which is fun to watch. Hes in a great position now because he is a genius. The others are all tearing each other apart and kissing Rons ass at the same time. Awesome. Ron looks like hes in charge up there. Like the others are kids playing and Ron is the adult. Nice.

MsDoodahs
01-24-2012, 09:12 AM
Dare I say it??

Like a ... boss.

Lucille
01-24-2012, 09:14 AM
I think he did great, and he's gotten better with every debate. LOVE how he told Americans what isolationism really is, and called the others out on theirs.


nytjim Jim Roberts
#RonPaul: We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. Why not the Cubans? "We're living in the dark ages."

Do those evil clowns really want to go to war with Cuba? WTF!? I think this guy's right (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/23/newt-vs-mitt-the-ugly-season/):


Strangely, the policy which was most repudiated by the general electorate, was Bush’s War Hawk ideology (most glaringly the ’06 House & Senate elections, but Bush barely squeaked by in ’04 mostly because of Iraq, and ’08 was as much about war as the economy).

Yet, this is the policy seemingly untouchable — certainly, that has been the political 2X4 taken to Ron Paul. It’s the establishment policy which has gripped the grass-roots.

The most politically disastrous policy is the one Bush policy that still grips the party by the throat.

Perhaps, that is why the establishment and it’s media enforcers are so determined to keep it that way.

It might be all it has left.

What a shame.

His explaining what conservatism is was the best part.

Cleaner44
01-24-2012, 09:17 AM
I think he did great too. Only a little bit of stumbleness. There was one point where he tried to jump in but failed but in general he was more forceful and delivered more good stuff.

I think there is always something he says that clicks with yet another person. Something said in a way where they finally get it. I have no doubt we picked up more people last night. Will it be enough is the only question.

I would like to see a statement tying all of the military spending to our national debt, because I think many Republiucans tell themselves that Obama drove up the debt with the Stimulus spending. While that is true, the foreign policy almost certainly is the MAJOR cause of our debt. Am I right?

febo
01-24-2012, 09:18 AM
I think RP is doing very well at debates (remember a few months ago we worried about him not being able to get the sentences out...) but I think he did drop the proverbial on Iran in this debate. He needs to remember his own script:
1. Pro life means War only as a last resort - use of "Chickenhawks" entirely OK by me!
2. War has to be paid for - chickenhawks don't understand the depth of the financial crisis.
Watching the whole debate I felt that the other candidates were able to use Ron Paul positions for themselves too easily. Romney, not Paul actually emphasized the debt crisis.

blazeKing
01-24-2012, 09:18 AM
He did a GREAT job attacking the others as isolationist...and he actually uses the term correctly instead of what the corporate whore media / neocon radio has tried to make him out to be.

LiveForHonortune
01-24-2012, 09:20 AM
He got very little amounts of time compared to the others but the good news is he got out of there with no scratches. Everybody knows they can't win without Paul it seems.

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 09:23 AM
I too liked that he jumped into the conversations more. I do wish however, for a moment like the CNN debate where he called out Romney and McCain for arguing about who said what when.

The other thing I'd like is when referencing the debt - don't say "we're broke" - mention the number: $17 trillion dollars. The media apply the "we can print money, we're never broke" logic to that to "discredit" the "we're broke" statement.

Anytime the other candidates get frothy at the mouth for another war, Dr. Paul should simply interject and ask politely: "How would you pay for this war? Would it add 1, 2, or 4 trillion more to our $17 trillion national debt?"

It's that simple. Dr. Paul did a great job bringing everything back to economics last night - the more he does this - and the more simply he makes the case (something he's getting better at all the time), the better.

aowen
01-24-2012, 09:25 AM
I think the trick is to watch the debate and get on the forum afterwards. Don't read the forum during the debate. I watched the debate and thought "damn, Ron Paul did fantastic. That was Great. Good job Ron"... Then I hopped on RPF and was like "WTF"

Bruno
01-24-2012, 09:31 AM
Senator Kay Hutchinson was on the CNN morning show and was saying the same things as Ron Paul about Cuba.

I was waiting for someone to say, "So, you agree with Ron Paul's position on Cuba from the debate last night?" Then I realized hell hadn't frozen over and no one was going to ask that question.

Hyperion
01-24-2012, 09:32 AM
Paul did great last night. The others were disastrous.

Teenager For Ron Paul
01-24-2012, 09:33 AM
I like how he explained that he's not an "isolationist"

SonofThunder
01-24-2012, 09:33 AM
The only problem is that he was far too cordial. They were spewing some major bullshit and Ron just sat there and waited his turn, letting Mitt and Newt get in all their soundbytes.

At this point we KNOW they aren't going to give Ron full time, so when you have Mittens and the Adulterer talking for 20 straight minutes, Ron needs to speak up.

Sematary
01-24-2012, 09:36 AM
The only problem is that he was far too cordial. They were spewing some major bullshit and Ron just sat there and waited his turn, letting Mitt and Newt get in all their soundbytes.

At this point we KNOW they aren't going to give Ron full time, so when you have Mittens and the Adulterer talking for 20 straight minutes, Ron needs to speak up.

baby steps

No Free Beer
01-24-2012, 09:37 AM
I truly believe that he woke some people up last night.

All you saw from the other candidates was bickering.

Although I disagree with Santorum a lot, as an objective viewer, I thought he looked good.

No Free Beer
01-24-2012, 09:47 AM
Senator Kay Hutchinson was on the CNN morning show and was saying the same things as Ron Paul about Cuba.

I was waiting for someone to say, "So, you agree with Ron Paul's position on Cuba from the debate last night?" Then I realized hell hadn't frozen over and no one was going to ask that question.

HAHA!

Justinfrom1776
01-24-2012, 09:52 AM
Senator Kay Hutchinson was on the CNN morning show and was saying the same things as Ron Paul about Cuba.

I was waiting for someone to say, "So, you agree with Ron Paul's position on Cuba from the debate last night?" Then I realized hell hadn't frozen over and no one was going to ask that question.

I saw it too and I was thinking the same thing, "Damn, Ron got ridiculed for making that same exact point last night" Hopefully the tide is turning here.. Some of my friends who aren't all that political have posted on their Facebook things like "Not enough war in the middle east? this Santorum guy wants to take on Cuba."

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 09:56 AM
I truly believe that he woke some people up last night.

All you saw from the other candidates was bickering.

Although I disagree with Santorum a lot, as an objective viewer, I thought he looked good.

His campaign advisers told him the same thing that Ron was told. Sit back and let Newt and Romney go at it. Don't jump in between and you'll come out looking better than them. The big difference is that his answers lacked any substance and were just a rewording of the other two while Ron was a man of distinction.

Honestly, after Newt raised the ante and said that in addition to going to war with Iran he'd double down and go to war with Cuba as well, I expected Santorum's head to explode. He cannot be out chicken hawked.

Someone should let Santorum know that he got hawk'd last night! His next move? He better let Newt know that he'd declare war on at least 3 of his space stations, and his lunar base.

Good plot for a reality TV show if any of these fools get elected. After were done blowing the shit up out of countries just send in the president to let them know "you just got hawk'd!" ... "lets be friends now."

KingNothing
01-24-2012, 10:00 AM
Anytime the other candidates get frothy at the mouth for another war, Dr. Paul should simply interject and ask politely: "How would you pay for this war? Would it add 1, 2, or 4 trillion more to our $17 trillion national debt?"

It's that simple.

But that is NOT what he's going to do because the implication is that senseless war is fine, as long as you can pay for it.

Some of you guys still don't get what Paul is doing here. He's setting a moral and political example to move the needle in the right direction over the long term. Many of you are asking that he do what amounts to pandering. He just isn't going to do it. He's going to say that we must follow the Constitution, that we should try to understand our "enemies" and that we should do our best to be mindful of unintended consequences of our actions. THAT is what matters when it comes to foreign policy. A secondary note is that we don't have the money to find dragons slay. That's why Ron brings it up after he states the important things, with comments like "...and besides, we don't have the money to do it."

D.A.S.
01-24-2012, 10:10 AM
I think the trick is to watch the debate and get on the forum afterwards. Don't read the forum during the debate. I watched the debate and thought "damn, Ron Paul did fantastic. That was Great. Good job Ron"... Then I hopped on RPF and was like "WTF"

EXACTLY!!! ^^^

Yea, I think folks are walking on needles here... Actually sit back and WATCH the debate -- not as a Paulbot, but as an average voter, step away a little, and it really changes perspective. He did a DAMN good job last night.

pahs1994
01-24-2012, 10:13 AM
when they ask him if he will support (blank) if he is the nominee, he needs to start turning that around and ask the moderator to ask those guys if they will support HIM as the nominee because he intends to win.

FreeTraveler
01-24-2012, 10:16 AM
That audience was stacked against him. Strongly. Only press and warmongers allowed in. Not students.

And the three times the audience applauded, it was for Dr. Paul.

Like a Boss, indeed!

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 10:20 AM
But that is NOT what he's going to do because the implication is that senseless war is fine, as long as you can pay for it.

Some of you guys still don't get what Paul is doing here. He's setting a moral and political example to move the needle in the right direction over the long term. Many of you are asking that he do what amounts to pandering. He just isn't going to do it. He's going to say that we must follow the Constitution, that we should try to understand our "enemies" and that we should do our best to be mindful of unintended consequences of our actions. THAT is what matters when it comes to foreign policy. A secondary note is that we don't have the money to find dragons slay. That's why Ron brings it up after he states the important things, with comments like "...and besides, we don't have the money to do it."

It is that simple though. You need a starting point. People have been led for years to fear Iran, Ron getting up there saying that Iran is not dangerous, although true, is not winning anyone over. If you can get people to see that wars cost money - the next logical thought would be "is it worth the cost." Which would lead them to see that if its not worth the cost than Iran isn't all that dangerous.

Baby steps. Not everyone, especially the older voters, are going to have an epiphany moment.

KingNothing
01-24-2012, 10:23 AM
It is that simple though. You need a starting point. People have been led for years to fear Iran, Ron getting up there saying that Iran is not dangerous, although true, is not winning anyone over. If you can get people to see that wars cost money - the next logical thought would be "is it worth the cost." Which would lead them to see that if its not worth the cost than Iran isn't all that dangerous.

Baby steps. Not everyone, especially the older voters, are going to have an epiphany moment.

It's not what he's going to do though. I imagine that he believes it's on the following generation to do those things. Ron Paul is going to be Ron Paul - the most principled guy in the room. It might make it harder for him to win support from those entrenched in their views, but it endears him to others and it sets a wonderful example for future generations. And remember, this is only one election. Ron has said that he wants to change the course of history... not just become president.

So, you can demand all you want that Paul change his focus...... but he isn't going to do it.

jmdrake
01-24-2012, 10:24 AM
Overall, I only gave him a B for performance but he was still better than the other three and every one of his answers hit home.
If he could some how become a little bit more assertive I think that would push him over the top in many of these debates. Really loved his answers tho - really good how he made GINGRICH sound isolationist (which is true) and he was the ONLY candidate who got applause so it was pretty impressive. I think he won hands down.

I give Paul an A-. I didn't even watch it, but I heard our local neocon-claiming-to-be-libertarian talk show host go over it and he kept saying "Do you hear anything you disagree with? Because I don't". That even included the part where Ron said we can't afford to police the world and we should bring those resources home. Of course this same person in response to an email went off on a "Ron Paul doesn't understand the danger of terrorism" rant. (Stupid considering that Ron Paul is listening to terrorism experts like Michael Scheuer who explain how our foreign policy causes the danger). But over all it was a good performance and well received. Ron just needs to start hammering home the point that "Terrorism experts like Michael Scheuer and Anthony Schafer agree with me". And he needs to make Rick Santorum eat his own words about Iran not wanting to bomb Israel but wanting a nuclear weapon so that they can be "protected".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 10:36 AM
It's not what he's going to do though. I imagine that he believes it's on the following generation to do those things. Ron Paul is going to be Ron Paul - the most principled guy in the room. It might make it harder for him to win support from those entrenched in their views, but it endears him to others and it sets a wonderful example for future generations. And remember, this is only one election. Ron has said that he wants to change the course of history... not just become president.

So, you can demand all you want that Paul change his focus...... but he isn't going to do it.

No one is suggesting he change his focus, but how he frames his arguments. He has a really strong base right now. What he needs to win over are the entrenched (read: older) voters. They are the key to winning this election. Yes he is on the path to change the coarse of history by waking up the young and getting them engaged. If we want to get Ron elected though we are going to have to realize that the older voters are still around and messages need to be framed to persuade them. Otherwise just sit back and wait 8 years for all these people to die. I, for one, fear that we don't have that long to wait. Its not like he is changing his view, but how he presents it.

KingNothing
01-24-2012, 10:41 AM
No one is suggesting he change his focus, but how he frames his arguments.

It's the same thing. You're suggesting that he shift his focus to one based on pragmatism rather than one based on principle. It isn't going to happen.


He has a really strong base right now. What he needs to win over are the entrenched (read: older) voters. They are the key to winning this election. Yes he is on the path to change the coarse of history by waking up the young and getting them engaged. If we want to get Ron elected though we are going to have to realize that the older voters are still around and messages need to be framed to persuade them. Otherwise just sit back and wait 8 years for all these people to die. I, for one, fear that we don't have that long to wait. Its not like he is changing his view, but how he presents it.

But presentation matters. Especially to Ron. He's calculating. He has honed his message this way for a reason. I understand and empathize with the desire to win over voters immediately. But if it takes a shift to pragmatism, it's not going to happen though. Ron is going to walk the path he's always walked. He's not going to shift now and focus on winning voters by appealing to immediate concerns when he's spent a lifetime trying to change the entire thought-process of the electorate.

FreeTraveler
01-24-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm really tired of hearing this all blamed on not converting older voters, when the youth are only turning out 15% to vote, and the old folks have 45% voting.

The problem isn't really converting the old folks, it's getting the youth vote out from in front of their X-boxes and down to the polls.

D.A.S.
01-24-2012, 10:46 AM
I'm really tired of hearing this all blamed on not converting older voters, when the youth are only turning out 15% to vote, and the old folks have 45% voting.

The problem isn't really converting the old folks, it's getting the youth vote out from in front of their X-boxes and down to the polls.

Hold Pizza for Paul parties on college campuses on election night!

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 10:52 AM
It's the same thing. You're suggesting that he shift his focus to one based on pragmatism rather than one based on principle. It isn't going to happen.



But presentation matters. Especially to Ron. He's calculating. He has honed his message this way for a reason. I understand and empathize with the desire to win over voters immediately. It's not going to happen though. Ron is going to walk the path he's always walked. He's not going to shift now and focus on winning voters by appealing to immediate concerns when he's spent a lifetime trying to change the entire thought-process of the electorate.

His message has always been consistent though: its always been about the money. That's why he went to Washington in the first place. I understand where you are coming from but you do not seem to understand what I am saying. There is a huge difference between changing his view and changing how he presents his view. There's two parts to an argument, a statement of fact and a persuasive medium. No one is saying "Ron needs to change his message." We are saying that in order to continue to gain support Ron needs to frame and present his arguments to win over these new demographics. This keeps with Maloney's rule: "once you reach 16% you need to change your message from one targeting the innovators and early adopters(us) to one that targets the early majority.

How you view the world will never be the same as how anyone else views the world. The key to persuasion is finding common ground. Understanding that the older voters see our militarism differently than we do is fact. It would be easier to persuade them based on finances, rather than the unjustness of wars - even if they are unjust. They come from the "my country right or wrong" generation.

KingNothing
01-24-2012, 11:04 AM
His message has always been consistent though: its always been about the money.


That's not true, though. His message has always been about following the Constitution and having a proper, Constitutional, monetary policy.



I understand where you are coming from but you do not seem to understand what I am saying. There is a huge difference between changing his view and changing how he presents his view. There's two parts to an argument, a statement of fact and a persuasive medium. No one is saying "Ron needs to change his message." We are saying that in order to continue to gain support Ron needs to frame and present his arguments to win over these new demographics. This keeps with Maloney's rule: "once you reach 16% you need to change your message from one targeting the innovators and early adopters(us) to one that targets the early majority.


I understand where you are coming from. But it isn't going to happen. His focus will forever and always be primarily on principle, not pragmatism. He will mention that wars cost money, but only after he focuses on the Constitutionality of war, the irrationality of war, and the concept of Just War.



How you view the world will never be the same as how anyone else views the world. The key to persuasion is finding common ground. Understanding that the older voters see our militarism differently than we do is fact. It would be easier to persuade them based on finances, rather than the unjustness of wars - even if they are unjust. They come from the "my country right or wrong" generation.

You aren't saying anything new. You aren't saying anything Paul, and everyone around him, doesn't understand. If he were going to go this route he would have done so already. Hell, he would have done it in 2008. It would have made it easier for him to win then, too. But he isn't focused on winning. He's focused on changing the course of history - those are his words. To do that, he's going to hammer home the principled reasoning for his opinions as his primary focus and mention the financial pragmatism behind that reasoning as an afterthought. The fact of the matter is that the change you want from him isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

You know, you're basically asking him to become Gary Johnson. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Gary Johnson. Gary, and the other guys who come after Ron, will no doubt do the things you desire. But Ron won't.

specsaregood
01-24-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm really tired of hearing this all blamed on not converting older voters, when the youth are only turning out 15% to vote, and the old folks have 45% voting.

The problem isn't really converting the old folks, it's getting the youth vote out from in front of their X-boxes and down to the polls.

I think that 15% is out of the total of the voting population.
ie: 14% of all voters were in the 18-29 range in IA.

Now, exactly what percentage of the entire population is in the small 18-29 range? Tell me, are you sure the youth aren't turning out to vote? Perhaps they are just outnumbered.

ohgodno
01-24-2012, 11:23 AM
That's not true, though. His message has always been about following the Constitution and having a proper, Constitutional, monetary policy.

I understand where you are coming from. But it isn't going to happen. His focus will forever and always be primarily on principle, not pragmatism. He will mention that wars cost money, but only after he focuses on the Constitutionality of war, the irrationality of war, and the concept of Just War.



You aren't saying anything new. You aren't saying anything Paul, and everyone around him, doesn't understand. If he were going to go this route he would have done so already. Hell, he would have done it in 2008. It would have made it easier for him to win then, too. But he isn't focused on winning. He's focused on changing the course of history - those are his words. To do that, he's going to hammer home the principled reasoning for his opinions as his primary focus and mention the financial pragmatism behind that reasoning as an afterthought. The fact of the matter is that the change you want from him isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

He was speaking to different audiences in 2008. The innovators. How he presented his message has changed from 2008 - I was there. At the beginning of this campaign he presented it to persuade the early adopters. He was able to do this because he already has support - legitimizing his views. He now has a strong base, by anyone's metric, if voters aren't swayed by his message then they aren't going to be just because more people support him.

He has already started to change his frame. He did it last night with his answer on Iran and it was well received by the audience. He presented it as a financial issue, and it worked.

Ron is Ron, I get this. He's not going to change. At the same time he's not the only one speaking to voters. We all are as well. Everyday I (and I know plenty of other supporters do as well) campaign for Ron. We all speak to voters. We all need to realize that the frame, as it stands, has reached its saturation point. The message is solid and popular, its how you turn people onto the message that matters.

In 2008 barely anyone had heard his message. So when we spoke to voters it was in a different manner-- one that introduced the ideas.
Now nearly everyone that will vote in the primary has heard his message. If they haven't turned yet it is not because of the message it is because of the presentation. We all need to understand this if this movement is going to continue to grow.

Before was about exposing truth (finding the disease) - now is about getting people to take the medicine.

KingNothing
01-24-2012, 11:28 AM
He has already started to change his frame. He did it last night with his answer on Iran and it was well received by the audience. He presented it as a financial issue, and it worked.

But that isn't really true. He mentioned the financial issue, but he also asked the question - what would we do if people blockaded us?


At the same time he's not the only one speaking to voters. We all are as well. Everyday I (and I know plenty of other supporters do as well) campaign for Ron. We all speak to voters. We all need to realize that the frame, as it stands, has reached its saturation point. The message is solid and popular, its how you turn people onto the message that matters.


Here's where you're right. Though, I've found that in conversation with my friends and family the financial argument is no more or less effective than the game theory or Constitutional arguments. They're all self-evident. When REAL people who already have an affinity for you hear you describe Paul's policies they basically just say "Ohh, duh! Naturally."

On an individual level, when we're discussing these matters with people we should decide what sort of individual we're talking to and hone the message based on that single person. Paul doesn't have luxury when he's in a debate, so he errs on the side of principle. But he's doing it for a reason, and I don't expect him to stop any time soon.

LawnWake
01-24-2012, 11:31 AM
I think he did well. The reason why he didn't really... shine is because the entire debate was rather uneventful. Given the rest of the debate, I think he did aiight.

SWATH
01-24-2012, 11:35 AM
I truly believe that he woke some people up last night.

All you saw from the other candidates was bickering.

Although I disagree with Santorum a lot, as an objective viewer, I thought he looked good.

You don't get behind Santorum, Santorum gets in your behind.:)

cstarace
01-24-2012, 11:38 AM
He totally butchered the first question. He has to be more forceful in those situations. "I'm not answering the third party questions anymore. I'm just as much, if not more, 'Republican' than any other of the candidates on this stage. Why haven't you asked Newt or Romney the same question? I'm here because I want to win the Republican nomination." and when it came to the endorsing Newt question, turn it around and ask if Newt would endorse him. Other than that, good job.

Indiana4Paul
01-24-2012, 11:58 AM
He totally butchered the first question. He has to be more forceful in those situations. "I'm not answering the third party questions anymore. I'm just as much, if not more, 'Republican' than any other of the candidates on this stage. Why haven't you asked Newt or Romney the same question? I'm here because I want to win the Republican nomination." and when it came to the endorsing Newt question, turn it around and ask if Newt would endorse him. Other than that, good job.

I hope he continues on in the same path on the debates right up until the March 5th debate which is the one the day beforee Super Tuesday and the 2nd to last one on the calendar.

I hope he waits until the end of that debate and then he addresses world using the look he had on his face during his "I Went" moment in New Hampshire as he excoriates the other members on stage for all of their big-government phony-conservativsm.