SC debates, Ron Paul answering the question wrong

T

Travis B

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
76
While they were addressing the iran speed boats and it was pauls turn to talk, he said about how they are all up in arms about to start world war 3 over speed boats and a radio message which isn't confirmed to be from those vessels. Then the questioner said "all the other candidates have supported passiveness." So then Ron got confused and said he couldn't hear, but really i don't see why he got confused or that he answered anything wrong at all since everyone did make iran sound like some big threat. and they were making a big deal about speed boats, honestly what were they going to do to a destroyer unless they were fitted with explosives.

i'm just surprised he left them make an ass out of him when he easily could have talked his way out of that situation, but i think we've seen he isn't good at the debates since he isn't all rehearsed like the other candidates, namely romney, huckabee, and giuliani.

Also i was quite upset at how the SC voters thought fred thompson won, he didn't make any points, all he did was crack jokes about everyone else, then when they picked a loser, everyone of them picked ron paul, where did they find all these extremely agreeable people. especially since the cell phone polls showed the exact opposite, i'm not so much upset that paul was picked as a loser, but seriously, how about mccain or huckabee over thompson.
 
Travis B said:
Also i was quite upset at how the SC voters thought fred thompson won, he didn't make any points, all he did was crack jokes about everyone else, then when they picked a loser, everyone of them picked ron paul, where did they find all these extremely agreeable people. especially since the cell phone polls showed the exact opposite, i'm not so much upset that paul was picked as a loser, but seriously, how about mccain or huckabee over thompson.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... those Frank Luntz focus groups are absolutely manipulated/fake. Look into it. Maybe you can search the forums or someone will throw you some links. (I don't have any).
 
His answer on the speed boats made perfect sense. The moderator and any objective viewer knows exactly what he was talking about.

Its difficult to reason with fake and biased news people who have an action item from their superiors to destroy you.

They gave it their best effort, and maybe some still do not see it, but the other guys are the ones worthy of ridicule.

I think Dr. Paul points this out very effectively.
 
One important thing to keep in mind is that his focus group is basically the same people over and over again. he doesnt mention this, because he wants it to seem like these people actually live in that area and represent the local consensus with regards to which candidate is favored in that region. it makes me fucking sick
 
Hume made it sound as if the rest of the candidates supported the response by the Navy to this incident. However, I didn't hear that at all. Huckabee's comment about Iran seeing the "gates of Hell" and Thompson's response about 72 virgins is hardly a passive response as Hume had suggested. I'm not surprised though - I have heard Brit Hume disparage Ron Paul on the air, even prior to the campaign (specifically, I have heard him call Ron Paul a "kook" on the Beltway Boys a while back), so I know where his biases lie (basically with Guiliani). I thought Ron Paul did Ok, but could've done better. He needs to defend himself - people will respect that.
 
While the other candidates ratcheted up a little trigger happy warmongering rhetoric, Ron Paul responded with a little hyperbole into his objection. Based on what was said, it was clear the other candidates wouldn't have any problem with attacking Iran. Conclusion: with the exception of Ron Paul, every other Republican candidate is a warmongering trigger happy industrial military complex worshiping pawn. Here's the transcript of what immediately preceded Paul's comments:

HUCKABEE: I'm going to trust that the president, with the information that he had and that those commanders had, made the right decision. I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you're going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that.

HUME: But, sir, in this instance, the American warships -- in this instance, however, the American warships were approached in a way that the commander said that he found provocative, indeed, aggressive. They also received a warning that suggested that the American ships might be blown up and things were thrown into the water. They didn't know what they were. They did nothing.

Now, are you prepared to say, after what you just said about these people being willing to face the gates of Hell, that that was the right call?

HUCKABEE: I believe that those commanders, hopefully ... I
think it's very important that we make it crystal clear that we will have the most powerful, the best trained, the best-equipped military on the face of the planet that has ever existed. And we hopefully will have one that no one wants to engage in battle, but we'll make it clear that if they do, there'll be a severe price to pay for engaging us

THOMPSON:I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing. But they need to understand that if they cross the line, they're going to be destroyed.

GHOULIANI: I think an incident like this reminds us that we shouldn't be lulled into some false sense of confidence about Iran. Maybe by using this incident and the fact that Iran certainly shouldn't be seen as benign ... this incident should wake a lot of people up.

MCCAIN: But don't think that this wasn't a serious situation of the utmost seriousness in one of the most important waterways in the world, because of so much of the world's oil goes through there. The Iranians better understand that the United States will stick to its many years-long tradition of preserving the fundamental principle of freedom of the seas.

PAUL: I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information. So here we have -- let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. [***HYPERBOLE ALERT***]And here we're ready to start World War III over this?[/***HYPERBOLE ALERT***]
And now, guess what, today, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? Was there a rush to judgment on this, ready to go to war? And you know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance. They were so disappointed with the national estimate on intelligence. And they were disappointed that there's no attempt to build weapons in Iran since 2003.

ROMNEY "the CHILD": I think Congressman Paul should not be reading as many of Ahmadinejad's press releases. But let's...

(APPLAUSE and Snickers from ROMNEY, MCCAIN, et al.)

PAUL: Laugh it up, buddy.

ROMNEY: I think Iran represents a very serious threat. I do not believe this action was taken by rogue elements within the Iranian forces. I believe it was calculated. And I believe it was designed to test our defenses. I believe it was also designed to rattle a sword to the Arab neighbors to see that they could go after the Straits of Hormuz. I believe, as well, that it was a diversionary tactic for them to consider other actions in other places.
And so I believe it was a very serious act. And the Iranians continue to take acts like this, it points out that we have in Iran a very troubled nation.
Click to expand...


Sure seems like the other candidates are all too anxious to pull the trigger against Iran. Ron Paul presented a little hyperbole to make a point, which was a little more sophisticated form of argument than the candidates and moderators had the capacity to digest at the time.
 
That debate was an absolute joke. Here is an example of how stupid it is: "Ron Paul can you tell some of your supporters to stop believing 911 truth movement." Cmon now they have stooped to the level of asking candidates about their supporters beliefs. Pathetic.
 
Pay attention to the fact that, Giuliani did not answer the question at all. He completely ignored it, and used his entire response to talk about how Iran was a huge threat.

This whole Brit Hume thing is a good example of mass delusion. It is scary how this whole thing was so deftly manipulated. Because even if Brit Hume had not asked Ron Paul a slightly different question he was still correctly addressing statements like Giuliani's, and McCain's. What did you guys think he was responding to? No, it wasn't the witty remarks from Huckabee and Thompson, it was what Giuliani and McCain said and how Brit Hume almost pleaded with the candidates to oppose the fact that the Captains had not started a war.

Also, even though all of the candidates supported the Captains ability to make decisions for themselves, McCain and Giuliani, like I said before added something to it, and it was only after Brit Hume basically pleaded for them to disagree with the Captains' decision.
 
jclay2 said:
That debate was an absolute joke. Here is an example of how stupid it is: "Ron Paul can you tell some of your supporters to stop believing 911 truth movement." Cmon now they have stooped to the level of asking candidates about their supporters beliefs. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yea, when heard that question come across I was pissed! What kind of question is that in a Presidential debate? It's so childish.
 
Travis B said:
While they were addressing the iran speed boats and it was pauls turn to talk, he said about how they are all up in arms about to start world war 3 over speed boats and a radio message which isn't confirmed to be from those vessels. Then the questioner said "all the other candidates have supported passiveness." So then Ron got confused and said he couldn't hear, but really i don't see why he got confused or that he answered anything wrong at all since everyone did make iran sound like some big threat. and they were making a big deal about speed boats, honestly what were they going to do to a destroyer unless they were fitted with explosives.

i'm just surprised he left them make an ass out of him when he easily could have talked his way out of that situation, but i think we've seen he isn't good at the debates since he isn't all rehearsed like the other candidates, namely romney, huckabee, and giuliani.

Also i was quite upset at how the SC voters thought fred thompson won, he didn't make any points, all he did was crack jokes about everyone else, then when they picked a loser, everyone of them picked ron paul, where did they find all these extremely agreeable people. especially since the cell phone polls showed the exact opposite, i'm not so much upset that paul was picked as a loser, but seriously, how about mccain or huckabee over thompson.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
I think it is amazing that they ask such stupid questions in the debates. Not shocked because I see it all the time but amazed they the public doesnt ever ask for somehting more substantive.
 
wow haha i haven't ran into this many people that i agree with so much ever. im not even conservative, i always test out as a liberal liberitarian on politicalcompass.com which puts me closer to kucinich, but i don't like him as much as paul, although i think he should win for the democrats, but they can't look passed the women and the minority.
 
I know this response is alittle behind but I just joined this forum and wanted to comment on this - During this debate, when Brit asked Dr. Paul who he was responding to, the correct answer was "I was responding to YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, Brit!" After so much kumbya singing by McCain, Thomson, etc, everyone forgot what the ORIGINAL QUESTION had been. The original question asked for a response to the captain's statement that he had felt THREATENED by the incident. Oops! How soon we forget!
 
I always thought a debate was where all of the candidates were asked the same questions.
They then respond and people get to know their views.

This was not a debate but instead a group interview.

I am thinking the other candidates probably even knew what the questions were going to be. (ie. scripted)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Battle of the Stupid: The Debates are On
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
Judge resigns after admitting he thinks all defendants are guilty
Replies
1
Views
225
TheTexan
TheTexan
jmdrake
NY Mayor Eric Adams pledges to work with Trump on public safety, infrastructure
Replies
0
Views
350
jmdrake
jmdrake
Swordsmyth
Gabbard Launches Major Move Against The Deep State
2
Replies
21
Views
351
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
T
Secret Service breaks into a salon to use its bathroom
Replies
1
Views
301
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Back
Top