Newt Wins the Fox Debate by Standing Above The Boring Politicians August 11, 2011

Paul may have done good in Iowa but nationally he's not. Sarah Palin is polling higher than him and she's not even in the race. I know Paul supporters are looking for any good news to grasp onto like a life preserver but this election will turn out the same it has for him everytime he's ran.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

You keep saying to look at the national polling data, but according to the most recent Gallup poll, Paul is on a surge, and currently polling 2rd nationally amongst previously-announced candidates (only behind Romney), and 3rd overall (when you throw Perry in the mix). Rasmussen also has him surging in Iowa, within margin of error (6 points) of the lead.

In that poll, Romney's only at 24%, Perry at 17%, and Paul at 14% - all other candidates are polling BEHIND Paul nationally according to Gallup, and I was under the impression that Gallup is usually one of the most trusted & accepted pollsters - what national polls are you referring to?

You also have to remember that we're a LONG ways out - you'd do well to reference where the nominees were at this point back in 2007.

Be well.

I go to realclearpolitics.com.
It's down to 3.
- Mitt Romney
- Michelle Bachmann
- Sarah Palin

-----------
I don't know why but i can already see Rick Perry dropping out.
There is clearly something wrong there.
Hint: George W. Bush does NOT like Rick Perry.
Rick Perry = RINO

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Signals

 

I disagree. The debate was not pointless.
It was imperative for NEWT to BLAST that asinine 12 member Super Committee.
Raise taxes or Gut defense? Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Could we have a third choice please?
----------
BTW, Newt got the most applause last night.

Newt Gingrich is an arrogant useless system slug left over from previous criminal administrations.

If you can't see this, then you are hopelessly lost in the false paradigm that is American politics...

I think Obama is teeing up now on the 7th course. I hear he's got a good putt.

He'd be an ok president someday if he got things in order and... ooops, nevermind.

I must be getting old. For a while I thought things were good. Then I remembered he's president.

Originally posted by Signals

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Signals

 

I disagree. The debate was not pointless.
It was imperative for NEWT to BLAST that asinine 12 member Super Committee.
Raise taxes or Gut defense? Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Could we have a third choice please?
----------
BTW, Newt got the most applause last night.

Newt Gingrich is an arrogant useless system slug left over from previous criminal administrations.

If you can't see this, then you are hopelessly lost in the false paradigm that is American politics...

Yes, Newt has a lot of problems BUT that does not change the fact that Newt hit
a Grand Slam Home Run when he BLASTED the 12 member Super Committee last night.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Hint: George W. Bush does NOT like Rick Perry.

Wait a minute...so George Bush not liking Perry is a reason not to vote for Perry?

You'd think it would be the opposite....Perry sucks anyway...but IMO he will get the nomination. Fox News will never support Ron Paul....everyone here knows it.

Originally posted by kro32
Paul may have done good in Iowa but nationally he's not. Sarah Palin is polling higher than him and she's not even in the race. I know Paul supporters are looking for any good news to grasp onto like a life preserver but this election will turn out the same it has for him everytime he's ran.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Bingo! Thank you!
It is what it is.
Ron Paul is out.
Did you hear him ranting last night?
OMG! It was embarrassing.
Dismissing Iran like that?
---------
Can you say - isolationist- ?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Thanks - yet even on RCP, they've got a sideline to recent CNN poll:

National President
CNN/Opinion Research
Romney 17
Perry 15
Palin 12
Bachmann 7
Paul 12
Cain 4
Gingrich 5
Pawlenty 2
Huntsman 4
Santorum 2

So according to CNN, Paul is also polling (tied for) 3rd nationally, only behind Romney and Perry again - and beating your pick Bachmann. Fox has him one point behind Bachmann.

It's too early in the game to call anything, and again, 2007 is a perfect example of that if you refer to the historical data. You also have to remember that different polls use different methodology, have different target groups, and different agendas affecting their questions - and hence, results.

In response to Kro - and Ron Paul opposition continues to look for any data to slant opinions and do the exact opposite. Right now, the polls aren't looking half bad. And I know the volume's not great yet, but he's also still coming up on InTrade, as well.

We'll see how it plays out, but right now you're all just engaging in idle speculation not based on a comprehensive or historical view of the data.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Anybody with half a brain would be blasting Obama's council of 13.

So, we do know for a fact Newt has at least half a brain.

This is all a big show, the Bilderburg approved Rick Perry will be the next president, ordered to continue the destruction of America, if their present guy can't finish the job.

reply to post by Eurisko2012
The fixating on Iran is silly.

China's nuclear-armed, and according to our strategic analysts (along with Russia) is a much larger threat to US national security than Iran or any of the usual targets.

The reason we don't squawk about it is because China is a necessary evil for us, AND they can actually fight back. Notice we don't ever pick fair fights, even though all our pathetic arguments apply to them as well (how's human rights doing in China? How does their government respond to protest? We could do this all day).

Iran gets the bomb, oh no - we're the only country to have ever used it aggressively, and we've got a lot more than they do. And what, no one thinks they couldn't pick up any of the old Russian nukes on the black market if that's what they were after?

The whole thing is cowardice, and unwise. Paul seems to be the only one appraising this realistically as well as living in christian fearlessness.

newt then- is top dog of squat - he's moe of the 3 stooges..
actually i insult the stooges- the were organized.
here is whats going to happen - rick perry -
white christian male texan. new apostolic reformation>army of joel>these are the "prayer warriors"
palins one of them too -dominionists
sarah palin will use the american flag pole like a stripper pole.
and the police state will expand.

reply to post by Praetorius


Good point but anybody who's not Romney right now should be very worried. He's obviously got the push behind him and everybody else is a distant second unless something drastic happens.

For Ron Paul I think he should seriously consider Palin as his vp to give him a bump in voters because as it stands now I don't see anything happening to push him ahead of Romney as long as he stays with his same message.

Right now it looks as if it's Romney's unless he screws up somehow.

reply to post by Praetorius


Fixating on Iran is silly?
Israel disagrees with you.
---------
When you see the first - test - explosion mushroom cloud in Iran i think you might change
your mind.
When you see a larger nuclear bomb mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Tel Aviv
then you will definitely change your mind.
-- What?? 2 million dead in Israel? OOPS! I guess Iran isn't harmless after all.--
---------
Ron Paul was wrong? Well, maybe.

That's like handing out guns to violent felons.

"Hey man I really want a gun"

"But your a violent offender and said your gonna kill people"

"Yea but I just need it for protection, you know so no one attacks me"

"So you promise you won't use it for bad things?"

"Yea man I just need it for protection you know"

"Ok it's the fair thing to do, here ya go"

reply to post by kro32
First off, thanks kindly for the nice response, Kro. It is appreciated!

Good point but anybody who's not Romney right now should be very worried. He's obviously got the push behind him and everybody else is a distant second unless something drastic happens.

I'll give this a yes and no. Right now Romney definitely appears to be media-appointed, and can count on the support of a lot of big money.

I'm waiting to see what impact Perry will have as it looks like they'll also push him hard, and is apparently already chasing Romney well in the polls.

For Ron Paul I think he should seriously consider Palin as his vp to give him a bump in voters because as it stands now I don't see anything happening to push him ahead of Romney as long as he stays with his same message.

VERY mixed opinions there. With her high negative perception outside of some republican circles, I think this would be a bad idea for the general election, although it would definitely help with those groups. I have to admit, I DO get a kick out of thinking about the dissonance they'd have, loving Palin so much but being so set against Paul. It's not QUITE as unholy of an alliance as Reagan/Bush was, but might be close in some people's eyes, lol.

Right now it looks as if it's Romney's unless he screws up somehow.

Aside from Perry muddying the waters, you're probably right. I want to keep an eye on Paul's poll numbers to see if the surge continues, but until then I can't disagree too much. He's been the big one since the beginning.

Take care, Kro - and thanks again. I know there's some things you really don't like about Paul, but I like it when we can all disagree and actually *discuss* rationally. Be well.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

I know there are A LOT of Ron Paul supporters here on ATS but i'm sorry. It's over.

It is far from over, rather it is just the beginning. Ron Paul supporters have been organizing since the last election cycle and many have joined them, even black disillusioned Obama supporters. Iowa Ames is tomorrow, if he wins that, then everybody knows he is in the game to stay.

reply to post by Eurisko2012
I could honestly care less about what Israel thinks.

While I have a soft spot towards judaism and the jews historically, the secular nation of Israel has strayed far from its roots and inflicted these fears upon itself through zionist tendencies (which even their own orthodox rabbis rightly decry) and what is essentially apartheid and embargo against the "palestinians".

What they are dealing with is a perfect example of the blowback that Paul and the CIA like to admit to - you imprison people, tear down their homes and their trees, make it hard for them to get work, and treat them like second-class citizens, and - well, what do you think we would do if it somehow ever happened here at home? You'd suddenly see a lot of american terrorists, and a threat to your rule via armed resistance. A good allegory is the "insurgent" resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those people aren't/weren't all terrorists, but they were pissed off at us for intruding and wrecking things.

Israel is the same. And as far as Iran attacking Israel - ludicrous. First off, let's address the oh-so-often reiteration of a "creative" translation about wiping Israel off the map. If you'd care to refer to any more-retupable arabic linguists who are less politically-inclined to slant views...well, I'll just post this for review:

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."

- Wikipedia, from several sources.

Now, if you'd care to compare that to any of OUR chest pounding over the years, which has been done in simple english - and the fact that Iran is on a list of nations that US militarists have been hungering for since *probably* before the Bush 2.0 years, you can understand why Iran might want the bomb, even if we have no serious indications they do even according to our own National Intelligence Estimates.

Yes, it's silly and small of us.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I could honestly care less about what Israel thinks.

While I have a soft spot towards judaism and the jews historically, the secular nation of Israel has strayed far from its roots and inflicted these fears upon itself through zionist tendencies (which even their own orthodox rabbis rightly decry) and what is essentially apartheid and embargo against the "palestinians".

What they are dealing with is a perfect example of the blowback that Paul and the CIA like to admit to - you imprison people, tear down their homes and their trees, make it hard for them to get work, and treat them like second-class citizens, and - well, what do you think we would do if it somehow ever happened here at home? You'd suddenly see a lot of american terrorists, and a threat to your rule via armed resistance. A good allegory is the "insurgent" resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those people aren't/weren't all terrorists, but they were pissed off at us for intruding and wrecking things.

Israel is the same. And as far as Iran attacking Israel - ludicrous. First off, let's address the oh-so-often reiteration of a "creative" translation about wiping Israel off the map. If you'd care to refer to any more-retupable arabic linguists who are less politically-inclined to slant views...well, I'll just post this for review:

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."

- Wikipedia, from several sources.

Now, if you'd care to compare that to any of OUR chest pounding over the years, which has been done in simple english - and the fact that Iran is on a list of nations that US militarists have been hungering for since *probably* before the Bush 2.0 years, you can understand why Iran might want the bomb, even if we have no serious indications they do even according to our own National Intelligence Estimates.

Yes, it's silly and small of us.

edit on 8/12/2011 by Praetorius because: Typos. Blast!

We have to protect Israel.
Nobody else will.
That will not change.
-----------
Now is a really bad time to act like an isolationist.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I know there are A LOT of Ron Paul supporters here on ATS but i'm sorry. It's over.

It is far from over, rather it is just the beginning. Ron Paul supporters have been organizing since the last election cycle and many have joined them, even black disillusioned Obama supporters. Iowa Ames is tomorrow, if he wins that, then everybody knows he is in the game to stay.

Well, okay. Lets just wait for the very next GOP debate and see what happens.
I admire your passion but i'm sorry. It's over.
Donald Trump was right. Ron Paul can't win. He is too out there.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

We have to protect Israel.
Nobody else will.
That will not change.
-----------
Now is a really bad time to act like an isolationist.

I've never believed in protecting people from their own bad decisions once they went past a certain point - you keep doing that, and nobody seems to ever learn anything.

Israel made their bed, and now they can lie in it. They're a strong nation and if they'd stop kicking the hornet's nests to keep riling up the little guys (PLO, Hamas, etc.), they'd have nothing to worry about as their policy of nuclear ambiguity and their likely nuclear stockpile makes any direct conflict with them a simply stupid gesture, and harmful to the palestinians within their borders which is the main motivating factor of their fears.

If they would actually walk according to torah and the words of G-d, they would have nothing to worry about - but israel is a SECULAR nation at this point - this is NOT the Israel of the bible so many americans want to envision it as. It is a political juggernaut that runs the largest spy rings ever uncovered in the US and acts quite nasty, prompting its own problems - which WE need to stop covering over for them.

Right now, Israel is that nasty little bully on the playground that's got the big brother (that's us) letting him get away with whatever he wants, and that's why the other kids hate him so much.