BF2S Forums Republican Debate: The Issues

Do you guys have the worm by any chance?

Ron Paul was solid tonight, and I am not exactly a Ron Paul fan. He didn't lose any ground and he was non-destructive (that's the whole idea behind these debates). Internet polls seem skewed to me. Remember Dems are no doubt padding the Paul vote. However those are votes that won't matter in the primary. This is something people still don't seem to understand. If you go over to Fox you will see them putting Guiliani as the leader. Which is insane in my opinion.  Romney made Guiliani look like a fool when he challenged him on his immigration stance. Huck did very well also. I was live blogging with about 300 hundred conservatives (with Michelle Malkin) and they are leaning towards a Huck victory this debate. Huck seems to be leading in Iowa, which as you probably know is a very good thing.

Think twice before counting Hillary as the definite. She has been losing major ground since the Oct. debate.


They (media) are saying Iowa wont matter unless Hillary loses by more than 10 points. I don't buy it. If she is dethroned in Iowa I see it as having a significant impact.


If you are one to subscribe to polls go ahead and check out this Zogby poll : General election match-ups show the New York Senator would lose against every top Republican. It makes since to me. I could consider Obama or Edwards.. certainly not Clinton. As a conservative that is.

Turquoise wrote:

I'd much rather see Huckabee run than Guiliani or Romney.  Huckabee is at least a nice guy, if a bit confused on the whole Creationism thing.

Which candidate isn't... either side?

Turquoise wrote:

What do you mean?  The smart ones believe in evolution or at least don't believe in creationism.

Which candidate is promoting evolution? Huck actually told people not to take the bible literally tonight. That's about as close as you will get with any candidate... me thinks.

edit: I meant evolution.

Here is the question I was referring to. Watch Romney Stumble.

.

Turquoise wrote:

It's quite amazing really...  Maybe Paul should use the publicity he gets from this campaign to launch a full-fledged Libertarian presence in the general election.  That would kick so much ass....

It would also be guaranteed defeat.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's quite amazing really...  Maybe Paul should use the publicity he gets from this campaign to launch a full-fledged Libertarian presence in the general election.  That would kick so much ass....

It would also be guaranteed defeat.

So what...  Did Paul care about that back in 1988?  You have to start somewhere.  The Whig Party wasn't an overnight success, and neither was its successor, the Republican party.

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's quite amazing really...  Maybe Paul should use the publicity he gets from this campaign to launch a full-fledged Libertarian presence in the general election.  That would kick so much ass....

It would also be guaranteed defeat.

So what...  Did Paul care about that back in 1988?  You have to start somewhere.  The Whig Party wasn't an overnight success, and neither was its successor, the Republican party.

So, vote Libertarian in 2008 then. What do you think your chances will be? Maybe you can get 3%. That'll show 'em.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-11-28 23:12:28)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It would also be guaranteed defeat.

So what...  Did Paul care about that back in 1988?  You have to start somewhere.  The Whig Party wasn't an overnight success, and neither was its successor, the Republican party.

So, vote Libertarian in 2008 then. What do you think your chances will be? Maybe you can get 3%. That'll show 'em.

Mark my words...  If things continue as they have for both parties over the last decade or two, more and more people will be looking for alternatives to the big 2, and for good reason.

Admittedly, Libertarians could gain a lot more ground if they'd take Paul's approach in the past.  Basically, he joined the Republicans for the second time to win his current district at a time when the constituents there were looking for a small government advocate.  If nothing else, Paul is forwarding a mostly Libertarian agenda among the Republicans, and slowly but surely, the party as a whole is changing because of it.

So, in a way, you're right.  You don't have to run as a third party candidate to make a statement, but if you take Paul's approach, you've got to be vigilant as hell.

Kmarion wrote:

They (media) are saying Iowa wont matter unless Hillary loses by more than 10 points. I don't buy it. If she is dethroned in Iowa I see it as having a significant impact.

The argument there has been that Bill Clinton and GWB both lost in Iowa, but ended up winning their respective elections.

I think that since she has been crowned the heir apparent by the media, that they're trying to cover their asses so they can say "See, I told you so" if she loses in Iowa.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Debate was a huge bust, like the republican party. Exception being Ron Paul.

Maybe they should have used some plants?

I believe we all have a civic duty to elect Ron Paul in '08.  He is going to save this country from tyranny, get our boys home, save our economy, stop immigration, and most of all STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOVEREIGNTY!

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:

I believe we all have a civic duty to elect Ron Paul in '08.  He is going to save this country from tyranny, get our boys home, save our economy, stop immigration, and most of all STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOVEREIGNTY!

For those of you who don't know what <SS>SonderKommando is referencing, it's video number 5 in the OP.