Ron Paul's 90 second debate

[^_^ 5,021]

As Ron Paul 2012 campaign manager John Tate noted of last night’s debate:

“90 seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds. The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:

*Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;

*Rehashing their support for torture;

*Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;

*Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/13/the-90-second-debate/

Ron Paul Silenced by CBS?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

As Ron Paul 2012 campaign manager John Tate noted of last night’s debate:

“90 seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds. The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:

*Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;

*Rehashing their support for torture;

*Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;

*Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/13/the-90-second-debate/

Ron Paul Silenced by CBS?

"It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election," said Campaign Manager John Tate. "The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle."

I wonder if the candidates that are most liable to make public gaffs received the most time for entertainment purposes...I mean this is a clown show afterall.

[^_^ 5,021]

"It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election," said Campaign Manager John Tate. "The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle."

I wonder if the candidates that are most liable to make public gaffs received the most time for entertainment purposes...I mean this is a clown show afterall.

Given the reality of how candidates are nominated by the two major political parties, there is really no point in letting Dr. Paul talk at all. He's only on stage so everyone can pretend he (and people like him) have a shot. At this late stage it is time to stop pretending.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Given the reality of how candidates are nominated by the two major political parties, there is really no point in letting Dr. Paul talk at all. He's only on stage so everyone can pretend he (and people like him) have a shot. At this late stage it is time to stop pretending.

Interesting. The one problem they have is they can't come right out and say who they want and prefer to be the nominee. Just put them front and center and allow them to get the most mic and camera time. 90 seconds to them was generous to give Paul.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I admire Ron Paul but his foreign policy (and this WAS a foriegn policy debate) can be summed up in 90 seconds. That is HIS choice.

[calibob 73]

It is a shame, I'd like to hear more of his thoughts and it's sad the media only give him long enough to clear his throat. Might be time for a Utube debate?

Bob

[luckytxn 2,264]

I admire Ron Paul but his foreign policy (and this WAS a foriegn policy debate) can be summed up in 90 seconds. That is HIS choice.

What is his foreign policy?

It is a shame, I'd like to hear more of his thoughts and it's sad the media only give him long enough to clear his throat. Might be time for a Utube debate?

Bob

He practically owns youtube on the politics side now. What good would be doing a solo debate?

[scandal 951]

Given the reality of how candidates are nominated by the two major political parties, there is really no point in letting Dr. Paul talk at all. He's only on stage so everyone can pretend he (and people like him) have a shot. At this late stage it is time to stop pretending.

He's crackerjacks, I agree. But so are Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain.

The only three on the stage that aren't crackerjacks are Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman.

If the criterion for being taken seriously in this process is that you're not crackerjacks, they'd have to shuffle more than just Paul off the stage.

[^_^ 5,021]

He's crackerjacks, I agree. But so are Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain.

The only three on the stage that aren't crackerjacks are Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman.

If the criterion for being taken seriously in this process is that you're not crackerjacks, they'd have to shuffle more than just Paul off the stage.

Hunstman also can not be the nominee. Him being the nominee was never even remotely possible. It has nothing to do with him being sane.

[SMR 368]

He's crackerjacks, I agree. But so are Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain.

The only three on the stage that aren't crackerjacks are Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman.

If the criterion for being taken seriously in this process is that you're not crackerjacks, they'd have to shuffle more than just Paul off the stage.

Precisely. I understand that most of the candidates don't have a chance. But Paul has enjoyed significant support for longer than any of the other candidates save Romney. He has a consistent platform and has won several straw polls and has a strong online presence.

Now, I'm not saying that Paul really has a chance. But a lot of that is because the media has chosen to ignore him. It's a little bit of the chicken and the egg. Anybody really paying attention should notice the countless articles and stories that talk about various candidates such as those listed above and completely ignore Paul, even while he was polling better and was more consistent. Honestly, if Ron Paul really was crackerjacks, the best thing to do would be to let him talk so everyone would realize that (exactly what happened to Bachmann, Perry, Palin, Jindal, if you look farther back, and Cain, who didn't go down because of the sexual harassment so much as the inability to address the allegations succinctly and consistently).

On another note, Huckabee and Pawlenty might be regretting getting out of a field that is looking thinner than ever.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think Paul is a cracker at all. He knows precisely what he's doing. His economic policies are risky, one might might even say dangerous...but he knows their effect.

Thats a whole lot better than some of the others who frankly seem to be just throwing out random tax numbers because they are simple.

[slim 1,514]

I don't think Paul is a cracker at all. He knows precisely what he's doing. His economic policies are risky, one might might even say dangerous...but he knows their effect.

Thats a whole lot better than some of the others who frankly seem to be just throwing out random tax numbers because they are simple.

Every time I hear one of those plans I'm reminded of the scene from Something about Mary when Ben Stiller picks up the hitchhiker. "But what if someone comes out with six minute abs?"

[Ready to do it 101]

Ron Paul is going to be a factor in the GOP election. He is going to be in the top three in the first 3 primaries. Most likely top 2 in two of them... possibly winning one or two of them. After that, the folks that are thinking they like Paul, but don't want to waste their vote on someone they "are told" can't win... will think again. Ron Paul WILL be in the top 3 votegetters when it is all said and done and I anticipate the top 3 votegetters will all garner between 24-31% of the votes. It's absolutely anyone's there to take.

Romney has his supporters, Paul has his supporters (and it is a lot more than the 10% the media leads you on to beleive).... everyone else is just flipflopping around with really 50% of the republican voters unsure who they are going to vote for.

I can't even tell you who the top 3 will be as that third spot has been Bachman's, Perry's, Cain's, and now Gingrich's. Unless, there is some sort of scandal in the works against Romney... Romney, Paul, and ??? will be there in the end. Unknown who that question mark will be and unknown what the order of the 3 will be.

I don't think Paul is a cracker at all. He knows precisely what he's doing. His economic policies are risky, one might might even say dangerous...but he knows their effect.

Thats a whole lot better than some of the others who frankly seem to be just throwing out random tax numbers because they are simple.

[scandal 951]

Ron Paul is going to be a factor in the GOP election. He is going to be in the top three in the first 3 primaries. Most likely top 2 in two of them... possibly winning one or two of them. After that, the folks that are thinking they like Paul, but don't want to waste their vote on someone they "are told" can't win... will think again. Ron Paul WILL be in the top 3 votegetters when it is all said and done and I anticipate the top 3 votegetters will all garner between 24-31% of the votes. It's absolutely anyone's there to take.

Romney has his supporters, Paul has his supporters (and it is a lot more than the 10% the media leads you on to beleive).... everyone else is just flipflopping around with really 50% of the republican voters unsure who they are going to vote for.

I can't even tell you who the top 3 will be as that third spot has been Bachman's, Perry's, Cain's, and now Gingrich's. Unless, there is some sort of scandal in the works against Romney... Romney, Paul, and ??? will be there in the end. Unknown who that question mark will be and unknown what the order of the 3 will be.

Go Paul Go!

Go Crackerjacks Go!

2012, the year of the crackerjacks :dance:

[slim 1,514]

I don't understand why everyone thinks he's a crackpot. He advocates following the constitution. Is that so wrong?