One of the few big battles of Saturday’s New Hampshire presidential debate came when Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich fought over military records. Paul has been attacking Gingrich for not serving in the military while supporting potential military action in places like Iran.
Gingrich responded that he wasn’t able to be drafted because he was married with a child. However, Paul had a ready answer to that… A very cutting answer.
Paul attacked Gingrich for getting Vietnam deferments, and Gingrich tried to push back. Here’s what it sounded and looked like:
The transcript:
PAUL: I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked they say, ‘Oh I don’t think one person could have made a difference.’ I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal because when I see these young men coming back my heart weeps for them.
GINGRICH: Dr Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is I never asked for a deferment, I was married with a child, it was never a question. My father was in fact serving in Vietnam in the Me-Kong delta at the time he’s referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your family getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments an aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information.
PAUL: I need one quick follow up: When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids. And I went.
On January 08 2012 12:38 koreasilver wrote: Huntsman is one of the best candidates, and it's a bit sad that he's so marginalized. People think Ron Paul is ignored and whenever I hear that it just makes me lol.
Well Huntsman only gets like 1% of the vote. It's understandable to marginalize him. Paul has been in the top 2-4 the whole time, and is completely ignored.
And in real solid terms, Ron Paul took just under a third of the votes in Iowa. With Romney and Santorum getting 1/3 a piece. Whatever people's views on Paul, there is absolutely no reason to ignore him except sheer bias.
One of the few big battles of Saturday’s New Hampshire presidential debate came when Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich fought over military records. Paul has been attacking Gingrich for not serving in the military while supporting potential military action in places like Iran.
Gingrich responded that he wasn’t able to be drafted because he was married with a child. However, Paul had a ready answer to that… A very cutting answer.
Paul attacked Gingrich for getting Vietnam deferments, and Gingrich tried to push back. Here’s what it sounded and looked like:
The transcript:
PAUL: I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked they say, ‘Oh I don’t think one person could have made a difference.’ I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal because when I see these young men coming back my heart weeps for them.
GINGRICH: Dr Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is I never asked for a deferment, I was married with a child, it was never a question. My father was in fact serving in Vietnam in the Me-Kong delta at the time he’s referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your family getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments an aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information.
PAUL: I need one quick follow up: When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids. And I went.
Indeed, it was the best moment of the debates in my opinion so far. Paul cut through him like butter.
On January 08 2012 12:38 koreasilver wrote: Huntsman is one of the best candidates, and it's a bit sad that he's so marginalized. People think Ron Paul is ignored and whenever I hear that it just makes me lol.
Well Huntsman only gets like 1% of the vote. It's understandable to marginalize him. Paul has been in the top 2-4 the whole time, and is completely ignored.
Paul has never been top 2 nationally, and he's never been #1, like pretty much every other candidate has been at some point
On January 08 2012 12:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So to summarize the debate: Ron Paul makes valid points especially about Drug Policy, Gingrich wants WWIII, Santorum hates the Gays, Arabs, etc. Romney thinks John Adams wrote the Constitution and doges a tax loophole question, Perry was just there, Huntsman had a very good performance.
For the most part agree. I was kind of ticked when Romney dodged the question about loopholes. Man up and answer it. Perry I thought was having a good(better than usual) night, but nonetheless amazed me with his idiotic comments later. I thought Huntsman did great, It's a shame most republicans don't give him adequate attention, IMO he would be a great alternative to Romney. Too bad he's intelligent and reasonable, which in the republican party, apparently automatically drops you to the bottom in popularity...
This debate was very boring. Every candidate just tried to attack the president and not harm each-other's chances or image, except Paul. There was nothing interesting (funny I already miss Cain and Bachman) to hear from any of the candidates. Overall, every candidate did a lot of sidestepping around social issues not to offend independents who vote in the N.H. Primary. I only watch part of the debates because I got bored to quickly or I couldn't stand some of the Bulls*** they were talking about.
Huntsman sounds still too normal and responsible but has no energy. Romney flip-flopped somewhere in the debate, but I don't know where( I think it was on Iraq and Afghanistan troop withdrawal or contraception [female birth control pills or the "morning after pill"]). Rick Santorum and Rick Perry were bumbling idiots (haha, I just noticed that both of their nicknames are the same). Ron Paul always says something interesting (or crazy) and had a good line on how Gingrich is a draft dodger. Gingrich was hyped to be a kamikaze, because he lost so bad in Iowa and his campaign was DOA in N.H. but he was just boring, he will probably stick in until S.Carolina.
Nothing changed Romney will win this primary by a comfortable margin by most polls. It is very unlikely that there wil be a strong challenger in the later Primary and Caucus elections to him, unless the vote fractures against Romney. Huntsman will almost definitely drop out of the race unless he wants to compete in Nevada (the state that neighbors Utah where he was governor) where he could spilt the vote so Ron Paul could win against Romney, but that is very unlikely.
That is my take on this debate and what will happen in the next month.
PS: Can some one please have the OP updated so the information is more recent, thanks.
Ron Paul doesn't have to attack Romney because Romney does that to himself. How? This man lost his job because of Mitt Romney, so he made an ad to fight back:
Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
I'm really curious to see if anyone has found a YouTube clip of Gingrich in tonight's debate saying he would basically reinavde Iraq and then invade Iran.
This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
On January 08 2012 15:17 Sumahi wrote: This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
Actually, the reason he's doing alright (but not great) is because he is almost the exact definition of conservative. His ideas and policies are a reversal of about a decade of policy, and not very radical. Other than being a Mormon, his fits the bill of conservative quite well, definitely the best of all the candidates.
What he doesn't fit is the GOP's new base of reinvigorated evangelicals with libertarian economic leanings. They want to roll back the policy not a single decade, but 10 instead. A full century backwards, which is essentially different than conservative thought.
This is what the GOP faces today, a redefining civil war between conservatism and classical liberalism. It's been going on since 2008, with the latter winning ground in 2010. In 2012, both in congress and the presidential races will likely be the biggest battle fought and will likely define the GOP for the next decade.
On January 08 2012 15:29 Instigata wrote: Ron Paul might win if young people actually voted instead of just posting comments, trolling, and blabbing their mouths. I haven't voted ever
The best part about that statement is that the party Paul is running for is the one largely accused of promoting policies that keep young people and minorities out of politics/voting.
On January 08 2012 14:47 churbro wrote: Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
Though I am Australian, I do support most of his policies - but most importantly I support the ones that will impact the world, namely his economic and foreign policies.
I'm not so sure if he is against gay and trans-gender rights, but I haven't looked into that, you'd have to show us a case of that being true.
However, I can say he doesn't want to abolish public education. Rather, he wants to remove the FEDERAL government from the equation and leave it to the states - for one main reason, the money spent on the Department of Education is inefficiently spent, so he'd rather have it go to the states. It makes sense - the closer down the chain the policy makers are to the people being affected, the better the policy you'll get.
Not so sure about social security - what I do know is he wants to have a pragmatic approach to fixing it as right now it's not working and the country isn't on any path to fix it in the next 10 years, in fact it's on a path to get worse.
Let me just take a break here to say I'm not criticising you either, as you're not criticising us either - just simply answering the questions you've posed.
Not so sure about him being against the popular vote - or rather, what do you mean by that? It will help if you provide a particular example.
On the Civil Rights Act, yes he is against the creation of a law, but he is in favour of the principles. It comes back to the way he thinks the Federal Government. This is an easy position to demagogue, but when you listen to what he says he is in favour of minorities' rights (for example, being one of few people that speaks out on how minorities are disproportionately prosecuted in comparison to caucasians in the Justice system).
Also on the estate tax, he just believes in lower taxes in that it will leave less money to the government for them to spend inappropiately.
If you've any other questions or qualms with something I wrote here please write again.
EPT
