California Republican Debate: Ron Paul Highlights

I haven't found a full version of the debate online yet, but here's the highlights, giving only Ron Paul's answers.



Considering Rick Perry's Ron Paul's main competitor, I think he did pretty well. He's done a really good job attacking Perry in the last few day's. I think Ron Paul did very well in the debate. I still think last debate was probably his best debate so far, but he definitely did quite well in this debate, as well. He definitely made the most progress in this debate than any other, since, as I already mentioned, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are the two main contenders, and Rick Perry's image is becoming very tarnished. Even some of the media is admitting Perry didn't do very well in this debate.

Edit: Make sure to vote in the MSNBC poll to ensure Ron Paul's victory in it: firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

Please Paul has never even been a contender. To night he came off as a confused old man.

Good riddance.

reply to post by LetsChangetheWorld


Ron Paul's Career in Politics is an " Open Book " for all to see . No Skeletons in the Closet there . Rick Perry on the other hand.............Ahem...

Originally posted by spyder550
Please Paul has never even been a contender. To night he came off as a confused old man.

Good riddance.

Funny Stuff there . Were we watching the Same Debate ? A Bit Bitter aren't we ? ..........Hmm.....

Originally posted by spyder550
Please Paul has never even been a contender. To night he came off as a confused old man.

Good riddance.

Really dude? I didn't watch this debate but every other debate I watched this old guy was the only one who made any sense.

Who are you gonna vote for?

reply to post by spyder550


sigh* your geographical location says it all.

reply to post by spyder550


Saying he's not a contender is ridiculous. In every major poll he's in the top three, he's won the CPAC Straw Poll two years in a row, he came in second in the Iowa straw poll even after Bachmann bought four thousand votes (more than 85% of the votes she got), and Ron Paul recently won the New Hampshire Straw Poll, which is even more coveted than Iowa.

Ron Paul got 600,000 votes in 2008, and he was only in the ballot in three states. They only counted write-in votes in two other states. While Ron Paul may have had somewhat more supporters in those states, a lot of people also didn't bother to vote for him since he wasn't even on the ballot in most states. He would have gotten about six million votes. Since then his support has doubled; about eighteen million. They are about fifty million Republican's. About 36%; you think that's not a contender!

What did he say that made him came off as a confused old man?

Thanks for posting. Still at work and didn't get a chance to see it yet.

Originally posted by spyder550
Please Paul has never even been a contender. To night he came off as a confused old man.

Good riddance.

I think he's still waiting for Sarah Palin's turn!

IMHO Ron Paul is the only politician in these debates with his mouth to the microphone every one is talking out their A**

reply to post by LetsChangetheWorld


Now that I have seen all his parts in a row, I am convinced Ron Paul was trying to fit too much into the debate. In a way he was forced to do this as they did not include him in on the important topics. At first I thought he was fumbling over his words, and now I think he was fumbling over his words trying to cover too many topics in under a minute of speaking. Too bad they didn't give him more time.

I am not going to continue to debate this because Paul as a candidate has no meaning in real life.

Yes I watched the debate. He looks like the crazy uncle that sits at the table and spouts, nobody listens. The bit about a gallon of gas for a silver dime, yes I understood what he meant -- but a return to the gold standard - no.

I like the part that if I get poisoned by food -- I can sue and the market will protect me. Kinda like being a guinea pig every time I eat something.

You guys are delusional - you really think he has a chance. His "philosophies" much like democratic ideas do not distill to bumper stickers -- and these are republicans you are talking about. This is his last attempt.

He is unelectable in the general election because of these, and being a bigot dosen't help. He will get no support from the party apparatus.

I think he needs to run on a third party ticket and split off votes from Romney.

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
He believes abortion should be illegal.
He doesn't support the repeal of DoMA and didn't support the repeal of DADT.
He doesn't support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
He doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS.
While he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn't support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states' rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn't be trusted to run anything.
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
He believes in laissez faire capitalism.

reply to post by spyder550


your entire post is disinformation lol.

His beliefs are what they are. His beliefs are why I would not vote for him. Aside from the fact that he is a republican.

To believe he has a chance is delusional. Are you delusional?? ''

reply to post by spyder550


How can one post contain so much falsity? Are you this disconnected, or are you intentionally lying?

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

He absolutely does believe in the separation as laid out in the Constitution. He doesn't believe there should be any established religion or special treatment, but he also doesn't believe there is any specific restriction that should prohibit prayer or display of a religious belief. As long as it is not mandated by the government then it meets the Constitutional requirement.

He believes abortion should be illegal.

This is an outright lie! He is personally against abortion, but his political stance is that the government should not have any say in the matter. He absolutely does not support making it illegal.

He doesn't support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.

More lies and double-speak. He doesn't support pouring money into failing schools, and he doesn't support the Federal DOE. He doesn't specifically support vouchers to religious schools. What he does support is rewarding the schools that are having success and giving all children an opportunity to go to a successful school.

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Just wow. Where do you get this stuff? He believes localities should decide what gets taught, and the Federal Govt should not be involved in engineering a specific curriculum.

He doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS.

Have you been searching some odd website? He is a Doctor!! This is another lie, but if it were a true statement, then it would be one we should take a second look at, because....... He is a Doctor!!

While he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn't support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states' rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

The first one that you are at least half-correct. He does not suppor a Federal "legalization" of anything. He does support states' rights issues, and this involves having no ban on gay marriage, and much, much fewer Federal drug laws, but he doesn't support any Federal mandate legalizing or criminalizing anything.

He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

Yes, the same economists that brought us consumptionism and keynesian economics, are against a gold standard. Big surprise. While I think a "gold standard" is out-dated, I also think a fiat currency with no basis in anything except growth and inflation is insane. The current economic system was designed to spur the economy after the Great Wars, and keep the factories running. It was always set up to be a TEMPORARY fix, and it has run its course. Ron Paul is headed in the right direction, but I agree his plan might be a little dated and incomplete, but at least it is an improvement.

He believes in laissez faire capitalism.

Yes he does. This is the only way capitalism works. Any regulation or fiddling or preferential treatment of one entity over another makes capitalism fail. It quickly turns into Corporatism. Only a truly FREE MARKET can work as a capitalist economy.

reply to post by spyder550

Yes I watched the debate. He looks like the crazy uncle that sits at the table and spouts, nobody listens.

Just because he looks crazy to you means nothing. I'd probably think the person you support is crazy, as well. So it means nothing.

The bit about a gallon of gas for a silver dime, yes I understood what he meant -- but a return to the gold standard - no.

Why not a return to the gold standard? It's what worked in America for years, it's what the Constitution says to do. Printing money causes inflation and the debt owed to the Federal Reserve is never created, so the country owes more than is in circulation. What makes you think we shouldn't go back to the gold standard?

I like the part that if I get poisoned by food -- I can sue and the market will protect me. Kinda like being a guinea pig every time I eat something.

The FDA surely isn't helping us. It's obvious they're in bed with the drug companies as well as the food companies; intentionally putting poison in food so the drug companies make money, and intentionally suppressing new cures, such as Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons. People are getting sicker than ever, and the food is lower quality than ever. If the market starts doing it, once people see what food is unhealthy, they'll stop eating it, and the company will have to either go out of business or put out a better product. People aren't stupid.

I think he needs to run on a third party ticket and split off votes from Romney.

So you want Obama to win?

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

Ron Paul most certainly believes in the separation of church and state. What makes you think he doesn't?

He believes abortion should be illegal.

Ron Paul thinks abortion should be illegal, but he thinks it should be left up to the states, so that position isn't very relevant as to what he'd do as President.

He doesn't support the repeal of DoMA...

“I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize [same-sex marriage] and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” He's right; it doesn't make gay marriage illegal; it just means that states don't have to recognize gay marriage recognized in other states.

...and didn't support the repeal of DADT.

Ron Paul does not support DADT, but also said he wouldn't work to repeal it; probably because he feels he needs to be working on more important matters.

He doesn't support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.

He does not support vouchers: "...the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education." Ron Paul thinks the Federal government needs to get out of it.

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Ron Paul thinks the federal government should get out of schools, so his position on that is irrelevant.

He doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS.

He has questioned the link. Do you think he should just go along with whatever mainstream doctors tell him and not find out for himself?

While he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn't support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states' rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

Ron Paul supports letting the state's handling not only marriage, but also drug's, too. Actually, he thinks marriage should be left up to the church, and all the government's should get out of it.

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn't be trusted to run anything.

Ron Paul has apologized for letting that content go under his name. However, just because he made one mistake in oversight over several decades in politics doesn't mean anything. He's obviously not racist, and has said he won't let that happen again.

He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

Economists are shills for the state. It's irrelevant what "most economists believe" as you need to look at it for yourself. The cause of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve system, and while there were crashes before that, that doesn't mean it's caused by a gold standard. We've had a gold standard for years, and America was very prosperous, and now people are saying it's the reason our economy crashed?

He believes in laissez faire capitalism.

Of course; the market can dictate itself. It's a fallacy to think the market is stupid and can't regulate itself.

It all boils down to he wont win the nomination -- that is it.

Rick Perry's "attack" on Ron Paul has really got the white supremacists over at Stormfront.org knotting their panties. Perry is messing with their guy, and they are upset about it.

reply to post by spyder550


I doubt very much that Rep. Ron Paul would Need or Cater to ANY White Supremacists Groups for Support in his Current Presidential Run . Now Rick perry on the other hand seems more like " Their " Kind to me.......

reply to post by spyder550


WOW! You are absolutely Delusional! Research your facts before you decide to write please!!!!!

reply to post by spyder550


Nah it all boils down to your failures and how you can't cope with it.

You brought up a bunch of spun up points that you heard from some manipulated source and got destroyed so you resorted to saying he just can't win. This is called backpeddling and there is much of that going on in ATS right now by people that have nothing on Ron Paul.

THis is nothing new folks, typical stuff from the same people saying the same things about Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by spyder550

 

I doubt very much that Rep. Ron Paul would Need or Cater to ANY White Supremacists Groups for Support in his Current Presidential Run . Now Rick perry on the other hand seems more like " Their " Kind to me.......

He certainly is loved over there --

I cant link to the site but they were up to 7 pages.