This wasn't Ron Paul's best performance. On the other hand, it wasn't bad either. People are definitely overreacting. Also worth noting that he did well in the twitter performance thing, though that doesn't necessarily translate to votes. Romney didn't do well and was in the red most of the night, which is good.
Ron fumbled the Osama question...his answer made sense, but he stuttered and jumped around too much, and ultimately it got hard to follow. All he needed to do was shorten it and say "Yes, we should have gotten Osama, but should have followed the proper procedures to respect the sovereignty of the Pakistan, just like we would expect were the situation reversed".
The Golden Rule thing confused me a little bit. He said that we should treat other countries more like we want to be treated and got booed, as if the crowd wanted more wars, and then just after that said that we needed to end these wars and not go to war with Iran and they cheered. Seems like those two sentiments were at odds with each other.
Aside from that, most of his answers got cheers. One was very silent (I think it was the racial question), but then some clapping came just as they moved on to the next question. Overall, I'd say more positive than negative - and that was with loaded questions and not getting as much mic time. He sure was fighting to get to finish though, so kudos to him for that.
Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did play some tricks for the crowds reactions. During the last primaries they played a lot of dirty tricks on Paul like having "audience reactions" where they ripped Ron Paul, but then those people were exposed as paid panelists and whatnot later. Make no mistake, we are not in a fair fight.
You're one of the people who thinks Ron Paul "got owned" during the debate. You are consistently one of the most negative posters here. You may not be as blunt as some, but you spread poison just as much from what I've seen.
