He is convincing South Carolina voters right now and he was allowed to explain himself in detail!
I think he handled it pretty good, he handled the tax issue too.
I agree. I'm hoping that's the last word on it, because he finally made the case that his policy would make us stronger.
AND he finally mentioned the donations stat.
I love that old guy.
This will convert a lot of the Fox Newsies in South Carolina who are watching.Originally Posted by MichaelD
Can anyone summarize what was the question and what his answer?
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )
They tried to hit him with a gotchya question about cutting defense and how SC has a lot of military bases that contribute to the economy.
Ron Paul responded that all he would cut would be the overseas spending on overseas bases and stuff like the Baghdad embassy and that military bases in the US would actually be expanded by bringing the troops home and spending would be drastically reduced at the same time.
He also clearly showed the difference between military and defense spending.
nvm:
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )
This was great. The best soundbyte for foreign policy is the "nation building at home" line. We need to hammer that home.
Edit: Also, I think to really make clear his position he should call militarism and its spending OFFENSE spending or OCCUPATION spending - that makes it real clear. "Militarism/military spending" could still sound positive to a neo-con.
Last edited by Freebie; 01-16-2012 at 09:09 PM.
And then they went to the Osama thing. This won't play well in South Carolina.
Um, you spoke way too soon. I'm sorry, that was the worst 5 minutes of debate Ron has EVER had. I'm sick to my stomach right now.
No he didn't, because sheep don't believe things that draw boos.
Fox News knows exactly where to go. He's gotta rehearse and answer for that, just like he's done for his foreign policy more generally. Something pity like "If I was president, he would've been dead ten years ago -- that's all I'll say."
Yea, spoke WAYYYY too soon.
Those boo'ing are run-of-the-mill South Carolinians.
It is perfectly possible to understand his position, know why it is the correct position, and admit that the packaging of the position in a particular case was mediocre.
Such was the case with the good doctor's last answer.
It's not a huge deal. He has been doing well otherwise.
I'm not sure it was the worst, but it wasn't his best, in my opinion. I think his explanation wasn't bad, but it kind of rambled and didn't hit all the right notes.
That's exactly why it was bad. 80% of debate is how you say something, how you present it, and how clear you make it. Content is a very small part of debate.
It was awful ... He really did flub that one up big time :/
Ugh - he killed it on the "military" versus "defense" question, but then got caught up in OBL answer. I've heard him explain it WAY better before, but he got strong boos this time. :-( Simple answer is: RP wanted to get OBL right away, but after 10 years why did we kill him instead of capturing him for his intel?
I'm sorry, he explains the Bin Laden raid thing horribly, always has.
It's better to say concisely:
"There are two ways in the Constitution to handle enemies: Declaration of War and Letters of Marque and Reprisal"...at this point the crowd cannot boo, unless they boo the Constitution and he can say "Why are you boo-ing our Constitution?".
He can go on to say "We used neither method to go after Bin Laden. Also it's clear that we were lied to by the Obama Administration, and there was NEVER an assasination mission deployed. If we intended to kill him we would have launched a missle, logically. The mission was misrepresented by Obama to include a shootout that largely didn't happen and to say the entry point was not where it was...not to mention that there weren't any 'helmet-cams' ".
Lastly, if he had time, he could of said "So the mission was to, if possible, capture Bin Laden, according to the anonymous members of SEAL Team Six interveiwed in a book by a former SEAL. I was for that mission. I was not for the fabricated mission the Obama Administration LIED ABOUT which was to assasinate Bin Laden. That fabricated mission would of put SEALs lives in danger unnecessarily when a drone could of handled the mission just as well. I am for killing our enemies on battlefields and capturing them for intelligence reasons where able."
Ron Paul absolutely needs to answer that question about Bin Laden in a mirror a hundred times until he gets a satisfactory result...because as much I only support Paul and will NEVER vote for another Republican, he FAILS on that question because he never mentions the Constitution, the lie Obama and the other Repubs tell that it was an assasination mission to begin with, and that international law was violated, but IS NOT the reason he's against it. He's against it because international law mirrors the Constitution in that case!
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
Yeah, his foreign policy answer was very good, but the bin Laden attack question undid all the good work.
You are exactly right - this is an Achilles heel for Dr. Paul and he needs to NAIL this. In fact I think he might want to put out an official statement on it this week before the vote on Saturday. He should say exactly what you said above, although I think he might want to harp on the fact that if we *caught* OBL instead of killing him, we could have gotten intelligence that could stop future 9/11s, plus publicly hang OBL to discourage them like they did with Saddam.
this answer seemed good ! neocons may not have understood it, but hopefully some day they will !
Ron Paul 2012: Liberty, Peace and Prosperity for America !
Ron Paul: Predictions of 24 April 2002 - see how many came true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM
Vote On Principles, Defend Our Constitution, Follow the Path shown by the Founders !
They ask it every debate too...
I agree, except Ron Paul is against the federal death penalty...so he definately wouldn't of done a public execution (which I'm totally against even if they did execute him). But it's not about me...that being said, Ron wouldn't have executed him. In a way this may of been better anyhow..."I would not make a martyr out of him, I'd of let him rot in a cell as to not fulfill his non-sense prophecy for he and his followers"...that might of been the way Ron would of handled it (I'm wording it badly, but you know what I'm saying).
EDIT: and why not put him in Riker's Island in New York while we're at it? LOL. Joking...but it'd be nice for those in jail related to the victims to get a crack at OBL. They'd love to put him an pretty pink dress and do bad things to him...lol.
Last edited by ProIndividual; 01-16-2012 at 10:09 PM.
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
Sometimes it pays to do three running plays and punt rather than lose the battle of field position. Its always ugly and pisses off the home crowd. That doesn't mean it wasn't the smart thing to do.
"They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance
The important thing is that he got to explain the difference between military spending and defense spending. Also that he'd build more bases at home which negates the less jobs in SC.
Forgot if it was this part of the debate or not but he struck a chord with overseas spending by making the Baghdad embassy/Vatican comparison.
Ron Paul needs to know when to switch from "professor mode" to "red meat mode". Unfortunately, he doesn't know how. And that's why we're in trouble.
I can't believe the moderator was stupid enough to argue with him?!?
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us