CNN Nevada Debate - Ron Paul Was ON FIRE! - 10/18/11

Reply

limitgov Posted: Wed, Oct 19 2011 7:56 AM

rated by 0 users

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTBNMMyAa8

At the very very begining he sort of had a slight problem getting all his vast knowledge out, but after that, he was on FIRE!  Wow! 

Reply

Eric080 replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 9:29 AM

rated by 0 users

Agreed, he ripped them to shreds.  And he got some fair face time in the debate.  The last debate (I don't count Bloomberg since nobody saw it) hosted by Fox was ridiculously unfair.  Maybe Huntsman's absence had to do with it (and honestly I didn't even notice Huntsman was absent until the post-debate "analysis").

Reply

Clayton replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 2:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Yeah, he whipped them all.

Clayton -

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 10:51 PM

rated by 0 users

He seems to be coming out of his shell. Still not going to vote but he seems to be doing better. 

Reply

gotlucky replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 11:31 PM

rated by 0 users

@Andrew

You may not vote in the general election, but would you consider voting in the Republican primaries?  Any vote that goes towards Ron Paul can help show that there are people who support liberty.  Just curious.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 1:08 AM

rated by 0 users

Did anyone else catch the very end?

Starting at 1:35:55 Romney finishes up his answer to a question that all the candidates were supposed to answer about how they were the one who could beat Obama.  This is where it really became obvious what they (CNN) were up to.  The "rules" were if you were mentioned in a candidate's response, then you got 30 seconds to respond.  But throughout the debate questions were asked specifically about other candidates...(e.g. "Gov. Perry, you said in the past that Gov. Romney's health care plan was_____."  [his response] "Gov. Romney, he mentioned you so you get 30 seconds to respond").  And of course each back and forth, they basically talk to each other...so it just keeps going back and forth.

At 1:35:55 Romney finishes up his answer and Anderson Cooper goes "Gov. Perry was he referring to you?"  And you'll see...they literally go back and forth at least 3 more times.  Cooper just keeps with his "he mentioned you so I gotta give 30 seconds to respond".  As he always does Gingrich called him out on it at the end, saying how the technique he [Cooper] used maximizes going back and forth over and over again to maximize bickering.

After Gingrich finished his answer, they ended the show (of course leaving Ron Paul as the only one who didn't get to speak), and as they were closing out, the candidate's mics were still on, and at 1:41:29 you can hear Santorum turn to Ron Paul and say "you didn't get a chance to answer!", and Paul says "No, and I had the best answer for that one."

Full length Western Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada — October 18, 2011 (01:42:00)


highlights:
Ron Paul Highlights - CNN Las Vegas Debate 10/18/11

Perry spars with Romney at CNN Debate over illegal immigration

Romney, Santorum argue over health care

Reply

Aristophanes replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 2:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Yes, JJ, the framing of the questions was provoking the 'main' candidates to banter back and forth.   Arguably, this is why Paul didn't get his final words.  Back in the day they would push whatever "programming" was on after a debate back until the debate war OVER.  "Join in progress"

There must be some way to flood the CNN/FOX debate people and force them to pay more attention to Paul.  Could we call the moderaters out in social media?  Paul can't win enough of their online polls for them to pay attention, but we need to break the glass here...

Reply

Stephen Adkins replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 2:35 AM

rated by 0 users

Flay him with your earbuds! Flay him I say!

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 2:56 AM

rated by 0 users

Aristophanes:

There must be some way to flood the CNN/FOX debate people and force them to pay more attention to Paul.  Could we call the moderaters out in social media?  Paul can't win enough of their online polls for them to pay attention, but we need to break the glass here...

I kinda thought that's what was going on months ago here, all over the Internet since then, and yesterday, here.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 9:48 PM

rated by 0 users

"You may not vote in the general election, but would you consider voting in the Republican primaries?  Any vote that goes towards Ron Paul can help show that there are people who support liberty.  Just curious."

Nope. I gotta live by my convictions. Even a vote for Ron Paul is still engaging in the battlefield that is the ballot box. I'm not playing the game. 

Reply

Eric080 replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 10:48 AM

rated by 0 users

I agree, Andrew.  Short term, voting sounds like a great idea.  Long-term, not so much.  You lose your consistency and integrity when trying to convince other people the ills of democracy when you partake in it yourself.  Now I know you could bring up the "voting for rations in a prison camp doesn't endorse the prison camp" rebuttal, but I don't think our situation is as bad as being in a prison camp.  We can still abstain and not give the system legitimacy without losing too much.

That said, I wouldn't criticize anybody for voting for Ron Paul.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 10:59 AM

rated by 0 users

@Eric080

I was inquiring if he felt there is a difference between voting in the general election or the primaries.  It seems he doesn't like either, which is fine.  I see nothing inherently wrong about voting, for instance:

You live in a town of 26,000 people.  Only about 3,000 people vote for the town's rules (voting about  a tax overide for instance).  Being a libertarian you have two options.  1) Don't vote, it's against your principles.  2) Vote against the tax overide.

It's pretty easy for me to just drive down and cast a vote against raising taxes, and in my town, votes often come pretty close to either side.  If my family and neighbors vote against the overide, we as a group, have a real chance of making sure it doesn't pass.  Some years it works, some it doesn't.  But I see nothing immoral about trying.

Reply

z1235 replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 11:05 AM

rated by 0 users

Eric, Andrew -- Would you vote in a referendum to abolish the state? Or would that also amount to a loss of consistency/integrity and giving legitimacy to a system you oppose? 

Reply

Eric080 replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 11:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Well I think it depends if the vote amounts to a form of aggression.  If I could help to end the State, I'd do it.  I'm not forcing not-having-a-state on anybody.  If I voted for Ron Paul, you are still technically voting for a ruler even though he would obviously scale that down enormously.  We're still talking about having a system of immigration control, "state's rights" (which is the same thing as having a State just on a lesser scale), some form of taxation to run the federal government, etc.  I don't support any of those things and if I do support them it's only in relation to the current system we have.

Of course I subscribe to the idea that Paul is a Rothbardian, but technically the system would still be in place.  I would say that there's no right way to do it; some people will only be convinced until they see the process in action and others will be convinced apolitically.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 12:35 PM

rated by 0 users

I suppose you could do a non-official "citizen's vote" where you get a 3rd party (not political party, a 3rd party as in a non-affiliated person) to do a private ballot where you show your displeasure with the state...

Once you have enough libertarians, that is.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 1:45 PM

rated by 0 users

I agree, Andrew.  Short term, voting sounds like a great idea.  Long-term, not so much.  You lose your consistency and integrity when trying to convince other people the ills of democracy when you partake in it yourself.  Now I know you could bring up the "voting for rations in a prison camp doesn't endorse the prison camp" rebuttal, but I don't think our situation is as bad as being in a prison camp.  We can still abstain and not give the system legitimacy without losing too much.

That said, I wouldn't criticize anybody for voting for Ron Paul.

I'm an absolutist...so you are absolutely wrong. (Just kidding) I just don't see Ron Paul winning and its not because I'm being bent over by the media. I would have him over any other any other politician on the stage but I guess I'm just too cynical when it comes to the process. I mean we have had decades, DECADES of being screwed over in the voting process and this representative democracy, I just don't see that dissappearing because Ron Paul is there. He has educated a lot of people. He has converted a lot of people. He has started the Tea Party movement. He has done a lot but he is playing in a rigged game. I just have the belief that we need to surpass the state, not reform it. 

That said, there are good reasons for voting. I am not going to criticize somone for doing it. I just find myself agreeing more with the "Don't vote" camp.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 1:47 PM

rated by 0 users

"Eric, Andrew -- Would you vote in a referendum to abolish the state? Or would that also amount to a loss of consistency/integrity and giving legitimacy to a system you oppose? "

Well I think that is a non-issue because it will never happen. The state will never  allow itself to be voted out of existence. 

Reply

z1235 replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 2:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Eric, Andrew -- so why not just do it this one time, even if the chances of it mattering are insignifficant, as a token of appreciation for Ron Paul's unexpected and encouraging wave so far? Just in the off chance that you may be wrong about your estimates/predictions. What's the most you could lose? 

Reply

Wheylous replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 3:58 PM

rated by 0 users

What's the most you could lose?

Roughly 3 hours of wages? :P

Reply

A.L.Pruitt replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 4:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Regarding the Debate

Observe the physical demenour and facial expressions of the other candidates as Paul talked. They seem to be impressed or are trying to conceal that they agree with him. Also notice how some of them rush over to shake his hand at the end.

Regarding Voting

In my opinion it seems silly not to vote if your reason is built upon integrity and not being hypocritical. Statists already think you are hypocritical because you engage in society e.g pay taxes, use public roads and transport. Unless you somehow manage to avoid the state entirely, your already compromising.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 10:34 PM

rated by 0 users

" so why not just do it this one time, even if the chances of it mattering are insignifficant, as a token of appreciation for Ron Paul's unexpected and encouraging wave so far? Just in the off chance that you may be wrong about your estimates/predictions. What's the most you could lose? "

Not going to betray my values for Ron Paul. Nothing against the guy, nothing against what he preaches. I won't engage in the ballot box war. 

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 10:36 PM

rated by 0 users

"In my opinion it seems silly not to vote if your reason is built upon integrity and not being hypocritical. Statists already think you are hypocritical because you engage in society e.g pay taxes, use public roads and transport. Unless you somehow manage to avoid the state entirely, your already compromising."

If they present that agrument then I will confront it. I will not be a soldier for the masses bent on projecting their ideals onto others. 

Reply

Clayton replied on Fri, Oct 21 2011 10:53 PM

rated by 0 users

I have no problem voting and it can actually make a difference in primaries. I encourage everyone to vote for RP and maybe encourage your friends to do so, as well. If we could even just get him nominated, it would shake the establishment to the core. Look at how many concessions in rhetoric they've already had to make?

No one talked about the Fed 4 years ago and any time Ron Paul brought it up, it was like (I think Jon Stewart said this): "there goes crazy uncle Ron again!"  Now, the MSM is making a big hoopla over the "troop withdrawal" from Iraq. Do you really think they'd be trumpeting that as a good thing if they could get away with their usual spin that "it's going to affect the economy by increasing unemployment as troop deployments end" and the rest of the usual bullshit? I don't want to get too carried away but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Ron Paul is entirely responsible for the discussion of the Federal Reserve in the Republican primaries and also for this big splash coming from the Obama administration about pulling out a few troops from Iraq. Careful inspection shows that this "pull out" is no more of a pull-out than Germany, Japan or Korea. Who's going to be working in this building, Iraqi pols and American Peace Corps volunteers???

Clayton -

Reply

z1235 replied on Sat, Oct 22 2011 9:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Clayton, +1.

A potential RP vs. Obama 2012 face-off would be epic and could change the course of history for the next hundred years. I have a pet theory of mine that a vast majority of Obama supporters (Democrats) are simply economically ignorant, latent RP supporters. RP could win the general election (by a landslide) if he only managed to educate enough people quickly enough about the most efficient (and often ONLY available) means for achiveing the ends most normal people share.