predictions for the debate tomorrow?

[jimmy1954]

Not his first rodeo

I must say, Dr. Paul has been around for a long time and this is not his first rodeo... He has debated issues that we never knew existed... Bill Mayer really had to know his position on the Civil War and he left Mayer speechless...

When you have an understanding of the issues as Dr. Paul does, you do not have to speak from a memorized text. You just answer the questions with an explanation that leaves the moderator understanding the root of the problem.
Example,
Question; How can we cut spending?
Answer; If we want to be the world’s policeman then we can not cut spending, we must continue to borrow money and increase our debt.

 

[Lesgov]

I agree with Jimmy, this is not Ron's first trip around the block, I think he has been campaigning for this for years.
I think they will ask him some very difficult questions, but I have faith in him. He knows how to answer questions from what I've seen.

Les

 

[billv]

I'm expecting:

"Congressman Paul," asks some ridiculously involved question and then, "You have 5 seconds to answer"

"Thank You Congressman Paul. Governor Romney...You have 10 minutes to answer".

 

[wraft]

If Ron ducks the question of 9/11 Truth, it will be a one way ticket to Palookaville.

 

[Erazmus]

If Ron ducks the question of 9/11 Truth, it will be a one way ticket to Palookaville.

I don't think he'll dodge it, I think he'll tactfully massage the question. Seeing how he masterfully answered the mainstream media question, I think he can tackle the question, if brought up. Somehow, I don't think it will be brought up. Big media doesn't want to bring a spotlight to the 9/11 truth movement. The reason as to why is open to debate, and honestly the reason is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is the media just doesn't want the spotlight to go there.

 

[ModeratorTest]

If Ron ducks the question of 9/11 Truth, it will be a one way ticket to Palookaville.

No it won't be a one way ticket to "palookaville"...

The debate won't even bring up any question of the sort.

You mention 9/11 truth in 4 out of your last 5 posts. We got it, lay low with it.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Does anyone know if the debate will be streaming anywhere on the 'net? I watch tv so rarely, I don't have cable.

 

[AlexWallenwein]

Weak on Defense?

What's weak on defense is taking our troops halfway around the world to fight an undefinable enemy while leaving the Mexican border wide open to exactly that enemy.

Ron has already pointed this out in the first debate. All he needs to do is to stick to the truth and tell 'em how it is. The rest is common sense, which he has lots of because, funny thing that is, the truth always makes sense.

 

[dam4freedom]

Mainsteam Media

I believe the mainstream media will try to make him look bad, by asking meaningless questions! Like how he feels about the other canidates views, tring to get him to be more like the others and bad mouth them! This will not work, he is a good HONEST MAN with no CONFLICTS of INTREST! If he does GOOD tonight, I think it will lead to the MAINSTREAM MEDIA to ask him the QUESTION that REALLY needs to be ANSWERD!!!! This Is the time to keep the PRESSURE ON!!!!! THEY will think,so ARROGANTLY, if they ask him his views on 9/11 hoping he will say their needs to be A CITIZEN COMMISION on the events of SEPT 11,2001,Or if he believes in the 911 truth movement! What they don't understand ,I BELIEVE, is that the majority of AMERICANS believe our LEADERS of the EXCUTIVE BRANCH, at the very least had some prior knowledge to what was going on! IF I could ask Sen.PAUL 2 ?'s it would be;
#1 Considering his VOTE to IMPEACH President CLINTON, Would he VOTE toIMPEACH President BUSH?
#2 Does he remember WHERE he was on 9/11?

 

[llamabread]

I have full faith that Ron Paul will stick to his guns, and it will only gain him more support, and the media will only hate him that much more. They are used to candidates that send every message possible to any group willing to support them, and end up sending no message at all. At least we will know what Ron Paul is going to do if he is elected president. Honest and integrity just aren't held to the standards that they used to be.

 

[wecandoit]

I fully expect a question to Ron Paul on 911 truth. At this point I think they are desperate for RP to have a "Howard Dean" moment that they can replay over and over again on the MSM and say :"see, he's a whacko"

It's either that, or about what would happen to Iraq if we totally pulled out like you advocate, and wouldn't that make everything we've done for naught?

I think both are a dangerous strategy for those who want to silence the RP movement, as Paul's possible answers on both might be very well stated, and cause the largest applause of the night.

The masters of editing at Fox might have their hands full, it'll be interesing.

 

[Brandybuck]

Does anyone know what his specific stance on the matter is?

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. See http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm for more info. It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure it would work now, after Bush stirred up the hornet's nest, but it could have been effective back in 2003.

 

[Brandybuck]

This is the last I will post on this. I am for Ron Paul and this is what I am here for.

Sorry for my earlier rant. "Truthers" are one of my hot buttons.

 

[NMCB3]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. See http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm for more info. It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure it would work now, after Bush stirred up the hornet's nest, but it could have been effective back in 2003.

Thanks for the link. I`ve actually heard him mention this as well. I`m sure there are plenty of ex-special forces types who would take on the challenge. I think that along with law enforcement cooperation between countries would help quite a bit.

 

[chandlerLBT]

Many Republicans I have talked to believe that he is weak on defense. If we pull out of Iraq they want to know what he will do about terrorism which will still be with us. After all this is a Republican primary and he must win it to proceed further.

Does anyone know what his specific stance on the matter is?

ron paul believes in a foreign policy of nonintervention. this is the same policy that our first president of the united states, george washington believed in.

right now, there are many troops stationed all over the world, in 130 different countries. how can our troops stand firm and defend america if they're out playing mediator with other countries?! with more troops at home, we have more protection to fight terrorists, and prevent terrorist attacks.

also, the whole reason many people throughout the world have come to despise america is because of our current foreign policy of intervening whenever we please. america has had it's fair share of problems. so do other countries. we don't need any help from other countries to fix our problems. so why do we feel the need to 'help' other countries with theirs? this only causes hostility from the opposing side on an issue that has nothing to do with american citizens.

we need this foreign policy of nonintervention for two reasons: to keep our troops in our OWN country so they can effectively defend our country, and to reverse the world's ever-growing hatred for intervening in their respective countries.

 

[jimmyjamsslo]

terrorism has root causes

.. to the poster who mentioned the terrorism and defense issue: it is the policy of foreign meddling, military aggression, and aiding the Zionist agenda in the Mideast that foments terrorism. The concept of a 'war on terror' is a misleading one. It is waging a war against an abstraction. The prosecution of this so-called 'war' has been instrumental in spawning a new generation of terrorists, like the debacle in Iraq has shown us. All the other GOP shills, as well as the Democratic ones (Hillary, Obama, J. Edwards) are apparently loathe to address the root causes of terrorism like this overseas. It is much like the 'war on drugs' which is responsible for the rampant gang problem, burglary and police corruption in the cities. This why Dr. Paul's clarion call for non-interventionism is so crucial at this juncture in history.

Jimmy

 

[AlexWallenwein]

Ron should come out for 9/11 Truth.

Ron should call for end of Iraq War.

Ron should support Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney. Ron should also call for congressional investigations into war profiteering and cronyism.

Ron should define his campaign and not wait for it to be defined by the media.

I really don't like the fact that people are using Ron Paul message boards to push the 911 issue. There's a little bit too much of that going on in my view.

If and when Ron becomes president, the issue will be dealt with. Cover ups are not his nature. He is one to uncover them. But pushing this issue on us now, at this time, when it can do nothing to help him win the nomination first and later the election, does both camps a huge disservice.

 

[AlexWallenwein]

Ron Should ...

I think Ron knows what he should do. he paid his dues in over twenty years in Congress, reminding more than unwilling fellow representatives that the COnstitution IS the law of the land and needs to be adhered to, or else.

Ron know what to say when, where, and to whom. That's what he has practiced, and how he blew away Bill Maher is the best proof of that. I don't think he needs advice from any of us. What he needs is our support (financially and time-wise) and our help in getting the word out, not what he "should" do to further somebody else's primary agenda.

This doesn't help.

 

[ronpaulitician]

Here are the questions I would ask (both to learn what his answers are and to give him a chance to beat his critics to the punch, by allowing him to further explain his votes):

1. What is your position on the "taxation without representation" issue in regard to the District of Columbia?

(The House recently passed a bill to allow DC to have a permanent vote in Congress, but since DC is not a state, that bill seems to be unconstitutional. I believe Ron Paul voted against it. Some possible solutions that I see: (a) Make DC a state, (b) Amend the Constitution, (c) Eliminate all federal taxes to DC residents, (d) Cede all of DC back to Maryland, except for federal buildings and parks.)

2. You voted to ban adoptions to gay couples. Why?

(Ron Paul voted to ban the use of federal funds for abortions to unmarried couples in DC. Some critics seem to have turned that into "Paul's against gay adoptions". Does anyone know if Dr. Paul provided any comments with that vote? Would he have voted to ban the use of federal funds for abortion regardless of the status of the prospective parent(s)?)

3. Do you hold the Constitution above God?

(I respect Ron Paul's religious beliefs, but, as an atheist, I'd like to know if, when push comes to shove, Dr. Ron Paul would put the Constitution about God.)

 

[DrStrabismus]

Does anyone know if the debate will be streaming anywhere on the 'net? I watch tv so rarely, I don't have cable.

www.foxnews.com says they will be streaming the debate live.