ron vs mitt

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

Oh here we go again.....

Ron Paul - the redhead stepchild of the republican party.


I'm just playing with you all, I do believe he has received less media coverage then he should have, but not to the degree and with the amount of whining that most of you do! :twisted:

end the fed, baby...just end the fed...

all of the worlds ills will be cured....

inlet13

inmytree wrote:

as I stated in another post, I watched about 15 to 20 mins of the debate...I saw him say the same thing he always says...

I find it interesting that Paul is always a victim...nothing seems good enough for Paul supporters...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns- ... with-boos/

Give him equal time, and I (at least) wouldn't complain. Also, when you go down the line and ask every candidate a question... it seems odd when you skip the Doctor on the end (TWICE) on medical-related questions.

inmytree

inlet13 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

as I stated in another post, I watched about 15 to 20 mins of the debate...I saw him say the same thing he always says...

I find it interesting that Paul is always a victim...nothing seems good enough for Paul supporters...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns- ... with-boos/

Give him equal time, and I (at least) wouldn't complain. Also, when you go down the line and ask every candidate a question... it seems odd when you skip the Doctor on the end (TWICE) on medical-related questions.

he's a doctor, so what...why does that give him special attention...? I didn't see his answer, but I'd be willing to bet he said something about "getting the gov't out of it and allowing individuals to take care of themselves"...am I right...?

Jason P

EZ1221C wrote:

whygohome wrote:

EZ1221C wrote:

I consider myself a pretty liberal person, especially socially, but I do not agree with many things President Obama has done or failed to do, and would sooner vote for someone who might bring about true change.

Like what?
I'm interested in what a "pretty liberal person" feels is a failure, and why she/he wouldn't vote for Obama again.

For one, I don't agree with the indefinite detention section of NDAA. He hasn't closed Guantanamo and still hasn't got troops out of Afghanistan. Solyndra scandal, US intervention in Libya, has done nothing to bring US closer to energy independence, has continued to support Israel regardless of situation, has done nothing to shrink the military and defense budget. It has all been his fault either, but me, he hasn't been the strongest leader. For a long time, he let John Boehner smack him around. I by no means think he is a failure, but I think at this point, we need to policing the world, something that Obama has continued. Obama certainly has had his successes, like health care, and the stimulus, but I want the US to get its dick out of places like Afghanistan where it doesn't belong. I like what Obama tried to do when coming into office by extending talks to Muslim nations, but it hasn't been enough because, as at least in my mind, we are creeping close to war with Iran.

For me the biggest issues are foreign policy, the economy, and energy independence. Foreign policy and energy independence really go hand in hand, as our need for oil dictates our involvement overseas. I would rather vote for Ron Paul in this regard because he would end our involvement overseas, at least from a military standpoint.

Regarding my political views, I am extremely liberal socially and pretty moderate economically.

I guess looking ahead I would vote for Obama in 2012 over Mitt, but it would be a much tougher decision if it came down to Ron Paul and Obama.

I agree. Every once in a while, he will throw a few bones to his base to keep the support money rolling in, but that is all they are, bones.

I didn't vote for him, but when he was elected, I was willing to accept and see what change he would bring and what the effect would be. Three years later, what has changed?

If it's Mitt vs. Obama, I don't think I will waste my time voting. It's like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. There is a minor taste difference, but in the end it's just cola.

cincybearcat

Jason P wrote:

It's like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. There is a minor taste difference, but in the end it's just cola.

Strongly disagree!!!

Oh, and I strongly disagree about Mitt and Obama being the same as well.

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

as I stated in another post, I watched about 15 to 20 mins of the debate...I saw him say the same thing he always says...

I find it interesting that Paul is always a victim...nothing seems good enough for Paul supporters...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns- ... with-boos/

Give him equal time, and I (at least) wouldn't complain. Also, when you go down the line and ask every candidate a question... it seems odd when you skip the Doctor on the end (TWICE) on medical-related questions.

he's a doctor, so what...why does that give him special attention...? I didn't see his answer, but I'd be willing to bet he said something about "getting the gov't out of it and allowing individuals to take care of themselves"...am I right...?

why even have debates then, why ask anyone any questions, their answers are usually the same...in fact they usually have platforms. maybe we should just show graphs on how a candidate would feel about hypothetical situations...I know, extreme examples, but I wonder if one of them was a General in the army, would they get left out of a war related question after all others had a chance to answer? Don't you think it is pertinent to the discussion to talk to someone who worked in healthcare before and after the existence of medicaid and medicare when discussing the subject of government involvement in healthcare?

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

why even have debates then, why ask anyone any questions, their answers are usually the same...in fact they usually have platforms. maybe we should just show graphs on how a candidate would feel about hypothetical situations...I know, extreme examples, but I wonder if one of them was a General in the army, would they get left out of a war related question after all others had a chance to answer? Don't you think it is pertinent to the discussion to talk to someone who worked in healthcare before and after the existence of medicaid and medicare when discussing the subject of government involvement in healthcare?

perhaps...but he's running for POTUS...not surgeon general...on that stage, he's a politician, not the nation's doctor...

and yes, he says the same thing over and over...personally, I'd stop asking various questions if the answer was always the same for each question....I guess his platform is very small....

cincybearcat

When was the last time Dr. Paul practiced medicine?

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

why even have debates then, why ask anyone any questions, their answers are usually the same...in fact they usually have platforms. maybe we should just show graphs on how a candidate would feel about hypothetical situations...I know, extreme examples, but I wonder if one of them was a General in the army, would they get left out of a war related question after all others had a chance to answer? Don't you think it is pertinent to the discussion to talk to someone who worked in healthcare before and after the existence of medicaid and medicare when discussing the subject of government involvement in healthcare?

perhaps...but he's running for POTUS...not surgeon general...on that stage, he's a politician, not the nation's doctor...

and yes, he says the same thing over and over...personally, I'd stop asking various questions if the answer was always the same for each question....I guess his platform is very small....

ok.

I am not sure when consistency became a bad thing.

They all say the same things over and over. What has Santorum said before last night that he changed during last night's debate? what has Gingrich changed since the last debate? what has Romney? They all say the same answers.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

why even have debates then, why ask anyone any questions, their answers are usually the same...in fact they usually have platforms. maybe we should just show graphs on how a candidate would feel about hypothetical situations...I know, extreme examples, but I wonder if one of them was a General in the army, would they get left out of a war related question after all others had a chance to answer? Don't you think it is pertinent to the discussion to talk to someone who worked in healthcare before and after the existence of medicaid and medicare when discussing the subject of government involvement in healthcare?

perhaps...but he's running for POTUS...not surgeon general...on that stage, he's a politician, not the nation's doctor...

and yes, he says the same thing over and over...personally, I'd stop asking various questions if the answer was always the same for each question....I guess his platform is very small....

ok.

I am not sure when consistency became a bad thing.

They all say the same things over and over. What has Santorum said before last night that he changed during last night's debate? what has Gingrich changed since the last debate? what has Romney? They all say the same answers.

perhaps you're right...maybe the "end the fed" and "get the gov't out our lives" has grown old to me...

I guess I'm just not buying what paul is peddling...

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

When was the last time Dr. Paul practiced medicine?

early 90's i believe

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

perhaps you're right...maybe the "end the fed" and "get the gov't out our lives" has grown old to me...

I guess I'm just not buying what paul is peddling...

fair enough, I understand how it can get old to people. I could go into a long post about how deficit spending, war, and an ever increasing federal reach has grown old to me but I think you know that already

If you aren't buying it that is cool, hopefully you get out there and support someone who fits what you want, we all need to get involved, no matter who we support
***
i didn't mean that to sound like I am assuming you aren't supporting someone, just that I hope you are

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

perhaps you're right...maybe the "end the fed" and "get the gov't out our lives" has grown old to me...

I guess I'm just not buying what paul is peddling...

fair enough, I understand how it can get old to people. I could go into a long post about how deficit spending, war, and an ever increasing federal reach has grown old to me but I think you know that already

If you aren't buying it that is cool, hopefully you get out there and support someone who fits what you want, we all need to get involved, no matter who we support

I agree with you last statement wholeheartedly...

To me, Paul is a libertarian running as a republican...

This line from the debate struck a cord with me:

"So most of the things to improve the environment is getting the government out of the way and enforce contract laws and enforce bankruptcy laws"

i.e., get gov't out of the way (the way of what, I'm not sure of) but allow the gov't to enforce these laws that he seems to like...

he seems to like gov't involvement only when it suits him...

edit: also, I do find it interesting that Ron is not planning on releasing his tax returns...what's he hiding... :twisted:

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

he seems to like gov't involvement only when it suits him...

Ummm...isn't that the case for everyone?

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

he seems to like gov't involvement only when it suits him...

Ummm...isn't that the case for everyone?

maybe...

I guess for me, I understand that I won't always agree with the gov't, but I understand the role of it...I just find it ironic for someone who has built his platform on "getting he gov't out our lives" to then seek to have gov't involvement...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

he seems to like gov't involvement only when it suits him...

Ummm...isn't that the case for everyone?

maybe...

I guess for me, I understand that I won't always agree with the gov't, but I understand the role of it...I just find it ironic for someone who has built his platform on "getting he gov't out our lives" to then seek to have gov't involvement...

enforcing property/individual rights is part of the governments function as per the constitution.

he isn't for anarchy. Being for limited government isn't an all or nothing proposition. He just wants a constitutionally limited government. Plenty to disagree with him about, but not a whole lot of inconsistency from him.

UpSideDown

Just thinking out loud here.....but my guess is that there are a lot more people that would support a 3rd party this time around, since practically everybody is sick of Democrats AND Republicans.

Also, keep in mind that Paul has a big Democrat fan base as well and that is not necessarily showing in the primaries.....

A third party run would allow him to directly debate Mitt and Obama, and I think people would flock to him after considerable TV time all three candidates. The media won't be able to just ignore him once there are only 3 people left.