http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
Of course, the mainstream media will not be allowed to talk about this, unless to say it is some fluke. Its not, and they know it. The people continually choose Ron Paul again and again. You can still vote.
If you watched the debate, what was your personal opinion on how Ron Paul did? Did they give Ron Paul fair time?
Ron Paul is being slammed and one editoral writer is hoping he will not be invited back for saying this:
"
My first take on last night's Republican presidential debate is that Ron Paul should not be invited to future events. The man is loopy.
Paul opposes a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border for a reason that probably has never occurred to rational people:
"I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in."
Wow. Someone wants to keep us all from fleeing to Mexico. I guess we better keep that border open after all."
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/126869
http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-distorts-post-debate-poll-results-to-falsely-depict-ron-paul-as-just-barely-winning/
I didn't notice this at first...but it is wierd how MSNBC distorted the graph to make Romney appear very close to Ron Paul, even though his numbers were half of Dr. Paul. Wierd and pathetic. They really are scared of Ron Paul.
I don't know what's so radical about saying the US could eventually use a barrier to exit. This is the same mass of humans that get so hysterical during war time that they have put up with jailing dissenters, putting minorities in concentration camps, and allowing warantless arrests and wiretappings. It can happen here.
I'm wondering if anyone noticed the uneven time given to candidates. They did this in previous debates, but the crowd was much more docile and like a sit-com studio audience this time...they didn't start booing like they did before. Possibly because it was a much smaller crowd, and probably much more controlled. This allowed the network to get away with the uneven questioning without a bunch of backlash.
If you count 1 tally as a full minute question and a half tally as a 30 second rebuttal, it went like this:
Santorum 6.5 Gingrich 6.5 Bachmann 9 Romney 12.25 Perry 13.75 Paul 7.75 Cain 6 Huntsman 9
Of course after the debate the MSNBCers said "Hunstman really came out tonight much more than he has in previous debates"...but as the facts of timing show, it's because this time he was actually allowed to talk. He was given roughly 8 full length questions...while Cain and Santorum each got six. Paul got seven and Gingrich got five. Romney and Perry each got at least 10. Really disgraceful if you ask me. I actually found myself saying "let Santorum answer a question."
Powers that be want Romney for president. Democrats and their media co-conspirators would like Huntsman. This being the first "Tea Party" presidential election, there's a twist to the current Republican nomination script.
We're apt to see Palin step in. That would make 3 "Tea Party" candidates (Palin, Perry and Bachmann), 1 establishment candidate (Romney) and 1 libertarian (Ron Paul). The media will want to focus on a 2-3 candidate race, so they'll ignore the other candidates and a lot of those will drop out. They are already ignoring Ron Paul, but he'll continue. I suspect it won't be long before they push Bachmann out - for one, she's a woman and they don't want a Republican to be the first female president (see Palin). Palin will get what they usually give her, and they'll try to push her out shortly after Bachmann. It's going to be about Romney versus Perry in the eyes of the media.
Current period is all about fund raising and getting your name and positions in front of people. I think Ron Paul's name and positions are well established - although the media does its best to try to cast it in the "loopy" light. I think Perry and Palin are a stronger draw than Bachmann. Could be enough competition for "Tea Party" support that the funding gets divided too broadly, allowing both Romney and Paul to be in a pretty good position during the actual voting period, which begins in February. Palin is pretty much in; she's just not in the circus.
I expect there will be a barrage of attacks against Perry, Palin and Bachmann coming from all sorts of places. Going to see some nasty, nasty campaigning. Mud will fly. Perhaps the focus will be so much on the "Tea Party" candidates that they underestimate Ron Paul and leave him be.
March is when I expect it to really get going. Polls are one thing, votes are something quite different. February to March are where they award the delegates proportionally. At that point you'll see the field narrow, and some might opt to make alliances early. If not, then it gets interesting.
In all or nothing states, which begin in April, how many "Tea Party" candidates remain could be a factor. If there are too many, it may dilute the voting to the point that the majority votes for a "Tea Party" candidate, but all of the delegates go to a non-"Tea Party" candidate. That may favor Romney and hurt Ron Paul.
Crossover voting is also going to be a factor if Barrack Obama has no challenger. Some states allow crossover voting, and you have to figure those folks will be supporting Romney.
How soon someone tries to court Marco Rubio, and those Florida votes he could bring, is anyone's guess. I figure Rubio will wait until after the nomination to accept the offer to join the ticket of the winner. That is unless Romney has a lead and the "Tea Party" is forced to regroup under a single candidate - probably Perry. Romney probably won't pick a "Tea Party" person as his running mate.
If it were a contest between Ron Paul and Romney or Ron Paul and Perry, I think Ron Paul could win. In a race with Ron Paul, Romney and Perry, however, it may be more difficult. But who really knows at this point. Most voters really aren't into it yet regardless of what any particular poll says. A lot can happen until February. Only thing I think that would hurt Ron Paul would be a war or a sudden economic recovery.
What I see happening, because of this whole spectacle, RP's just going to end up TR'ing the Republicans this election. The establishment will vote Romney, the "fringe" wil vote Paul, and Obama will have his second term.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Uh...I seriously doubt Romney or Paul would run as a third party candidate.
Maybe not. I just think he has a lot of momentum this go around that he will be hard pressed not to try to take advantage of.
RP was less strong in this debate than in the first, IMO. The questions were, as always, lobotomized and infantile but his responses could have been stronger and were stronger in the first debate.
The entire lineup of Republicans are a bunch of stooges (minus RP, of course). The President is a stooge selected from the 2008 Democratic lineup of stooges. There is no real question of RP becoming President (sorry, folks, I take a cynical view of just how bad things really are, even by the standards of this forum). Hence, we will have a stooge in 2012. Whether it is an R or D stooge could not be of less importance.
The grip of the Western elites on the throats of the people of the developed world (Europe, Britain, US, etc.) is unshakable. The Elites have suffered a setback that I believe to be of cosmic importance - though largely overlooked - with the breakdown of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate summit. Nevetheless, I do not believe we are on the verge of a popular revolution. We are on the verge of rioting and chaos which is not the same thing. The older generation is indoctrinated beyond hope in the lies of American exceptionalism, the welfare-warfare state, government money production, government production of medicine, government courts, prosecutors, prisons and police and on and on. The younger generation is much more cynical about government but largely umoored from history. They know only one recourse to dissatisfaction with the state of affairs: hurt people and break stuff. A protracted and deadly war would neatly dispose of the most dangerous of these young malcontents here (zoom in to get a sense of the scale).
The Establishment definitely has its "all-seeing eye" on RP and the gold price (among other things) as barometers of public opinion. But we're still a long, long way away from real change.
Clayton -
Clayton:RP was less strong in this debate than in the first, IMO. The questions were, as always, lobotomized and infantile but his responses could have been stronger and were stronger in the first debate.
I agree, but as I said I think a big part of that was the smaller (probably more-controlled...i.e. more-policed, if not more-stacked) crowd, and the way he was skipped over for important issues and given less important questions...which forced him (and others like Gingrich) to have to try and jump back to issues that had already been brought up minutes before. It's hard enough when you don't know the question and you only have 60 seconds, but when the moderators are not only against you personally, but your entire Party, and you're given less than useful questions, and only half the number of questions to begin with, it's tough to make much of an impact.
I think his fist answer (as seen on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyex8HH6B4c&feature=player_embedded) was very very nice, at least to AnCap ears :)
Preshow talk with 'debate' organizers:
"We have this healthcare question, who should we put it on?"
...
"Anybody but Doctor Ron Paul!"
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip