SC Debate - FNC (1/16/12) 9pm ET - Official Thread

I know this very well from an Asian friend I used to have. It`s a damn shame they flock to democrats because of this. It`s a really stupid reason for choosing your political affiliation but most people react emotionally.
I am asian, and I am part of that stereotype group
I used to support liberals because they "look good" and civilized
After some research and studying, i figure out i hate both parties and i am a libertarian
People outside USA always laugh at americans because of Bill o Reily and Repbulicans
 
He did fine....he came across as honest...as does Newt even if he isn't. I wouldn't discredit the people of SC too soon. The crowd came across as just "Fans" and i really think/hope the people still understand this whole Neocon chest pounding equals a loss in the general. "Smart" is back IN for selecting a candidate and the good thing is I think Romney had a horrible night....was actually talked down too in an effective way from all angles...Isn't RP the second choice by soft Romney votes?
 
hXXp://thepage.time.com/2012/01/16/grading-the-night-at-the-beach/


gradesgood.jpg
 
Romney doing poor is worth so much more than RP getting boo'd again on foriegn policy...take your eyes off our man. Everyone knows RP's positions on this. The first debate Romney LOST in the eyes of non RP people......HUGE. RP always has an honest answer to any question he's asked. The more confusing the better, he is getting the image of being the smartest guy in the room. He is never challenged beyond the initial question once they get into details...
 
He knows it's coming yet he still hasn't developed a set of talking points. The entire crowd was booing. He won't practice for the debates. He's not serious. And I'm losing patience.

Lose all the patience you want. Ron Paul just caused Christian Republican warmongers to boo Jesus Christ, by acting Christlike. You have to know that rung a LOT of bells.
 
Last edited:
Just saw the highlights of Paul. He was a bit over excited in the beginning, and mumbled and fumbled words. That does not bother me, since I know what he is trying to say, but some are gonna let this affect their perception of him in a negative way. But all in all, he won many people over tonight. Perhaps not in SC, but elsewhere, across America and in grand numbers.

This crowd was of course going to be the most difficult. Winning in South Carolina is amongst one of the most difficult states Ron could win since the military industrial complex is embedded in the fabric of their politics and culture. Many in those crowds are dependents of the militarism of this nation. They feed their children with the money they make doing it. We are most probably not going to win South Carolina, which is a shame, because how does it reflect that those in active duty give overwhelmingly to Ron Paul, but the ones who lead them to die in undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal wars and foreign occupations spend millions and subvert the entire mainstream media to blackout, belittle, attack and libel the most honest man to walk in the halls of Congress for generations.

No One But Paul!!!
 
Last edited:
“Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love.”
--H. L. Mencken

Interesting quote. I'm not sure I agree, but then again, I'm not sure I don't.
 
So, how did our old' man do tonite?

He did well enough. Despite all of the teeth gnashing going on, Ron was Ron. He isn't going to magically turn into an Obamaesque speaker, so there was his usual stutter and odd wander off here and there (I think his mind works a lot faster than his mouth,) but overall he told the truth and was moderately effective. I wouldn't say it was his best performance, but I don't think he did as poorly as some in this thread are making out. RP2012!!
 
He did well enough. Despite all of the teeth gnashing going on, Ron was Ron. He isn't going to magically turn into an Obamaesque speaker, so there was his usual stutter and odd wander off here and there (I think his mind works a lot faster than his mouth,) but overall he told the truth and was moderately effective. I wouldn't say it was his best performance, but I don't think he did as poorly as some in this thread are making out. RP2012!!

Yeah, I saw the highligths now. He did pretty good, nothing bad really. Even though he should speak a little bit slower :D
 
I'm rather surprised at how critical people are of Ron's debate performance. I thought he answered the questions earnestly and made some powerful points along the way. Sure he stumbled and meandered a few times, but you can clearly see he is trying his very best to express his viewpoints. He's only human, you know.
 
I know, I am one of those who, as a defense mechanism to my attachment on Ron needing to do well all the time (since this feels like my last ticket to prosperity and happiness in this country I love so much), is a pessimist some times. I am very critical of Ron's debate performances. Most of the time he did good, but Fox News knew to ask him questions on his weakest points and ignore him on where he shines. Having said that, he did OK. Not as great as his NH ABC performace, but he did OK. However, it really wasnt one of his best, because Fox made it that way. He is just not good at articulating his points in a way that is tailored to the crowd hes speaking to. He gets defensive a little flustered. I wish he would turn the question back into a way that appeals to the audience, such as *starting with normal Ron Paul answer* but then follows it with "I too would make sure I protect this country and the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and I too would use our great military might to destroy any true threats, but I would not start wars, waste American lives, cost trillions and end up less safe than before, but I can assure you that as Commander in Chief that no enemie will dare harm us! And if we need to go to war, I will let the people decide by asking congress for a declaration of war and if faced with an immenint threat, to immediately defend American People with our STRONG military if necessary!".. But instead, he goes into the Golden Rule and Taliban being freedom fighters, which we all know what he means is the truth, but to still sick GOP status quo white southern Republicans, it sounds like he is a bleeding heart liberal. We all know the truth that is not the case, but he needs to know the audience better. I hope Im wrong and that the American people are smart enough to see the truth, but I am pessimitic and believe the average American is brainwashed by Fox and CNN unfortunately.
 
I thought so. Santorum just referenced it and claimed the endorsement.

There were accusations that some of the newt people had to leave by the time of the 3rd vote and were not allowed proxy votes. Santorum's version made it sound like the Newt people changed their vote to Santorum. Doug Wead made a statement about the event which indicated that it was set up for a Santorum win from the get go.
 
Great article on the whole FOX Debate. http://www.nolanchart.com/article9284-ron-paul-shines-in-sc-debate-despite-fox-news-antics.html
Ron Paul Shines in SC Debate, Despite Fox News Antics

Though Fox News moderators turned the once-honored SC Republican Debate into a three-ring circus, Congressman Ron Paul stays above the fray and comes out on top in Twitter poll.
by Jake Morphonios
(libertarian)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate has a special place in my heart. Back in the 2000 election cycle, I was working for candidate Steve Forbes as a North Carolina state campaign manager. It was my opportunity to act as an escort and personal driver for Mr. Forbes during the debate in our sister state of South Carolina. While Mr. Forbes was prepping for his performance, I spoke with all the other candidates behind the scenes: John McCain, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush and Alan Keyes. After the debate was over, I took Mr. Forbes to surprise thousands of independent distributors who were gathered for an Amway convention. The entire evening was memorable.

South Carolina had been my home, off and on, throughout my life. Being the third state in the nation to host a presidential contest was a big honor for us, and our televised presidential debate was the cherry on top. On Monday night, as I watched this year’s SC debate, my heart sank. Fox News took a special tradition and spat upon it to muster cheap ratings. The five remaining Republican presidential hopefuls from the 2012 Republican primary gathered in Myrtle Beach, SC for the Fox News/WSJ Debate. The hour and a half long farce was an insult to the candidates, as well as to the people of South Carolina.

Fox News moderators immediately called on Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and gave them opportunities to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney. The three candidates sparred over SuperPac advertising, television commercials, and statements that each has made against each other. Sparks flew, with one-liners and sharp retorts drawing boisterous jeers from the audience. The debate became a free-for-all – more a school-yard taunting match than a discussion of ideas and substance.

Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul refrained from joining in the mud-slinging and waited for the moderators to address a question to him. He waited a long time.

In the first 40 minutes of the debate, Fox News moderators only directed a single question to Ron Paul. During one commercial break, the effort to ignore Paul was so obvious that it was the topic of discussion by a Fox political panel, including analysts Doug Shoen, Pat Caddell, Ed Rollins and Harris Faulkner. Rollins, commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side.”

Following the commercial break, an additional question was finally directed to Congressman Paul – though Paul had to begin his response by correcting the moderator, Bret Baier, for grossly distorting his position and effectively calling Paul a terrorist-sympathizer. The debate team was orchestrating a circus atmosphere and they knew that Paul was there to discuss substance, rather than participate in the political equivalent of professional wrestling entertainment. They tried to draw him in to the spectacle, but Paul would not take the bait.

Instead, Ron Paul used his few opportunities to speak clearly on real issues, such as eliminating taxes, protecting against inflation, the difference between defense and military spending and the constitutional role of the federal government. The response of the liberal debate moderators, including Juan Williams, was to get Paul off the microphone as quickly as possible and get back to cheap entertainment. If you want an answer to a serious question, you go to Ron Paul. But if you want to get the audience to whistle and hollar, give the microphone to Newt Gingrich and let him hurl self-righteous insults in whatever direction the mood strikes him.

Even the post-debate commentary was biased against Ron Paul. All throughout the event, Twitter users were encouraged to tweet about how well the candidates were answering their questions. Fox News tracked these results and graphed them to show who was answering questions directly and who was dodging. While a passing comment was made that Paul had given the most honest answers, he was conspicuously left off the graph by Fox reporter John Roberts.

Nearly an hour later, Fox had been flooded with such discontented messages over the collective effort to discount Ron Paul that John Roberts was brought back to re-explain the Twitter voting tallies. He went through each debate topic and displayed the Twitter results. In every category, Ron Paul not only won – but he won by significant margins. Roberts was noticeably uncomfortable having to go through the exercise and was flippant in his mention of Paul’s success. His attitude did not go unnoticed by the Fox political panel. After Roberts again made light of Paul's performance, Harris Faulkner said, “But John, let’s be clear. These charts show that Ron Paul was the big winner.” Roberts snapped back, “Harris, I’ll just say – “We report, you decide”. The testy exchange was bizarre. The fact, however, is that Fox was guilty, again, of reporting in a very biased way against Ron Paul and his supporters. It's hard for an audience to make an informed decision when the facts are distorted in a biased fashion.

In every respect, this debate was a joke. It was clear that the moderators were not looking to provide viewers with substance, but rather, sick entertainment. The objective was to turn candidates against each other like pit bulls in an underground dog fighting ring. Throughout the debate, an element of the audience hissed, booed and screamed as the candidates spoke. Analyst Pat Caddell said the South Carolina audience was “off-putting, snarky and nasty.”

During the post-debate analysis, one viewer sent in a question to the panel asking, “Can the Republican nominee win the presidency without Ron Paul or his supporters?” Ed Rollins replied emphatically, “No.” It was a sentiment echoed by the other panelists. There are far too many committed Paul supporters who are angry at having their opinions ignored by the MSM and the Republican establishment - as was so clearly demonstrated that very night by Fox News. Paul supporters are highly motivated and are a powerful force that can and will have a monumental impact on this election, one way or another.

After Paul’s excellent debate performance, it is clear that he is only gaining greater power as a candidate. Each day, it is being more widely reported that the Republican nomination has come down to a two man race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul – even if Fox News reporters can’t accept this truth. As Ed Rollins correctly pointed out, “Paul and Romney are the only ones with the money to keep on going.”

Today, CNN released poll results showing that Ron Paul is tied with Mitt Romney in a head to head match up with President Obama. The results are no surprise to ardent Paul supporters who have dug in and look forward to the long campaign ahead. With supporters like these, one way or another - Ron Paul is going to win this election.
 
I think Newt is a terrible debater. I don't understand why people think he does well. He comes off as a pompous ass. I'd think people would get extremely turned off by the way he acts. I'd say besides Perry he is the worst debater.

He comes across as confident.Oh, also like a pompus ASS.
 
He comes across as confident.Oh, also like a pompus ASS.

Obviously most people didn`t think that. He had great performances starting at the bloomberg debate and his poll numbers jumped greatly after that. Ron Paul was able to kill his momentum with the serial hypocrisy ad. If wasn`t for that, he`d still be the frontrunner based purely of his debate performances.

The twitter survey made by Fox also showed that after Paul, he came in second. Paul most loyal following that voted him as no1 although Newt was the big winner of the debate.

We often make the mistake of thinking everyone thinks like us. Big mistake. I was actually shocked to see people giving Newt standing ovations after saying US should kill people. He`s very energetic and can get points across with clarity and conviction.

He basically managed to turn a question about race, where he was basically on the defensive into making a great point about worth ethics, which earned him standing ovation. His answer was that good that makes you wonder if he didn`t know the question in advance somehow.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top