Ron Paul Wins Iowa Debate

[deprave]

so ron paul won yet ANOTHER debate in the eyes of his true believers.

will this debate, the 13th one that he has won, finally give him that bump in the polls?

Lol...If I didn't even watch it Id say Ron Paul won, Ill admit it lol...but I have watched all the other debates so thats pretty easy..the other candidates are complete morons I don't think there is really any competition. I thin huntsman is probably the only other one with a brain inside his skull.

But yeah..Not sure he needs a bump in the polls..regardless he is polling well in most polls polling 1st or 2nd, in particular in 5 states and all very key states..Not sure how much I trust the polls when newt is hiring robot armies on twitter. On Intrade.com he is actually winning for the first time also, this is a site that people bet money on predictions. So people are betting their money on him winning.

Overall I think this was probably pauls 3rd to worst performance actually.

I think the last debate before this and Nevada were the best performances, also I think the foreign policy one he destroyed but I am not sure a conservative would agree with me on that, any liberal would agree, however.

Additionally, although many media outlets continue to completely ignore him, leaving his name completely out of articles that should contain at least his name or only having a brief mention if not completely ignoring him all together, while others continue to smear him. There has been a surge in positive coverage from Local and Network TV and also some good coverage on CNN and MSNBC. Its pretty hard to ignore him now that he is a front runner, although FOX is succeeding that for the most part still.

And with Paul's controversial television ads people like Rush, Beck, and Hannity are practically forced to mention his name. At least we are all finally aware that they can say the words Ron and Paul in the same sentence. Hannity is beginning to get quite frustrated with Ron Paul and very freighted, bringing up the newsletters twice recently, but we have Pro ABC and CBS anchors and even Coulter and Palin cheering for paul now..A lot has changed. Even Wolf Blitzer is coming around.

So Tomorrow Night Paul will be on Leno, Jay mentioned he is very excited and that he loves Ron Paul, Today another Money bomb has begun with the ticket hovering near a million and the goal at 5 million "TO WIN NEVADA, FLORDIA, IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SOUTH CAROLINA." , Other comedians like Stewart and Colbert continue to root for Ron Paul night after night our court jesters show us how much of a joke every other candidate is. The progressive talking heads not happy with Obama and suggesting Ron Paul is a better option.

So need I remind you of Jessee Jackson's 2nd run, Need I remind you that the Ron Paul momentum is even stronger and the polls are even better, need I remind you that Ronald Regan polled worse. Ron Paul has a very good chance at winning this thing! Ron Paul IS NOT unelectable!

 

[NLXSK1]

This just in!!!

The ron paul sycophants think ron paul won the election!!!

Later... Reality disagrees....

 

[NoDrama]

Do you really want congressmen out there looking for other ways to make income? Sounds like something that could go incredibly wrong.

God knows $175,000 a year plus unlimited benefits for life must be like living in a poor house. Not to mention they can participate in insider trading at their hearts content with no legal ramifications whatsoever. Must be very difficult to try and live on such a small amount of money.

 

[canndo]

I am not a Paul supporter but I have to admit he injected some reason into an otherwise repeatedly bloviating crowd of folks who all pretty much said the same damn thing.

 

[deprave]

Well tonite, Jay Leno + Joe Rogan + Ron Paul = Can't Miss

 

[jpill]

God knows $175,000 a year plus unlimited benefits for life must be like living in a poor house. Not to mention they can participate in insider trading at their hearts content with no legal ramifications whatsoever. Must be very difficult to try and live on such a small amount of money.

you said it. If you serve one year or 20 years in congress , you get 175k and benefits for the rest of your life. WTF is that? Not to mention as you said , insider trading with no legal ramifications.. And for what, signing bills into effect.

 

[mccumcumber]

God knows $175,000 a year plus unlimited benefits for life must be like living in a poor house. Not to mention they can participate in insider trading at their hearts content with no legal ramifications whatsoever. Must be very difficult to try and live on such a small amount of money.

I just saw that on 60 minutes not too long ago. That was incredibly disturbing. I love how they nailed Pelosi.

 

[Rob Roy]

so ron paul won yet ANOTHER debate in the eyes of his true believers.

will this debate, the 13th one that he has won, finally give him that bump in the polls?

Many people will argue for the continuation of a Warfare / Welfare state. The Uni - party will likely prevail and either Shit Sandwich or Turd whatever will win.

 

[UncleBuck]

Many people will argue for the continuation of a Warfare / Welfare state. The Uni - party will likely prevail and either Shit Sandwich or Turd whatever will win.

i consider ron paul to be a shit sandwich, in any outcome....

 

[Rob Roy]

i consider ron paul to be a shit sandwich, in any outcome....

Yes but you get fries with that !!

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes but you get fries with that !!

and turtle soup on the side?

 

[Dan Kone]

God knows $175,000 a year plus unlimited benefits for life must be like living in a poor house. Not to mention they can participate in insider trading at their hearts content with no legal ramifications whatsoever. Must be very difficult to try and live on such a small amount of money.

Right now congressmen typically turn their businesses over to other people and put all their stock in blind trusts when they enter office. Do you really think it's wise to have the guys writing the laws also competing in the market? There is already massive blatent insider trading going on in congress. Congressman's portfolio's generally out perform the average stock portfolio by over 100%. If you turn congress in a "part time job", they'll use their time in congress to advance their own financial interests instead of legislating. They do it now, it'd be 10000000x worse if you give them permission to do it.

Cutting a politicians pay is a nice feel good populist message. But if would provide no measurable benefit to the people what so ever and would likely only hurt us. Congress barely gets any work done now. If you cut the ammount of time they are there they will litterally get nothing done.

You guys say you're pro-constitution right? Well the constitution intended for 3 equal branches of government. Making the congress part time will essentially make them obsolete. They won't be able to get the job done they are supposed to do. That decision making power will naturally end up going to the executive and judicial branches, tipping the balance of power. If anything, congress should be in Washington doing their jobs more often, not less. Making congress a part time gig distorts the intent of the constitution.

You can't claim to be a constitutional defender and support tipping the power balance set up by the constitution at the same time.

 

[NLXSK1]

• They won't be able to get the job done they are supposed to do.​

  
  
  ​

They were supposed to pass a budget every year but havent done that in 2-3 years. It is a REQUIREMENT but they keep bumping the thing down the road by continuing resolution.

The federal government is into FAR more that it was ever designed to do. They have very limited roles that have been expanded to the point that the job is so vast nothing can get done.

Maybe if we got back down to a constitutional congress that actually did what it was designed to do (protect our borders, pass a yearly budget, etc) and got out of all the other things then we could consider part time legislators.

 

[beardo]

They were supposed to pass a budget every year but havent done that in 2-3 years. It is a REQUIREMENT but they keep bumping the thing down the road by continuing resolution.

The federal government is into FAR more that it was ever designed to do. They have very limited roles that have been expanded to the point that the job is so vast nothing can get done.

Maybe if we got back down to a constitutional congress that actually did what it was designed to do (protect our borders, pass a yearly budget, etc) and got out of all the other things then we could consider part time legislators.

So you Are voting for Ron Paul
You had me worried for awhile their

 

[Dan Kone]

They were supposed to pass a budget every year but havent done that in 2-3 years. It is a REQUIREMENT but they keep bumping the thing down the road by continuing resolution.

And you think if they work less they will get more work done? I don't see the logic.

Maybe if we got back down to a constitutional congress that actually did what it was designed to do (protect our borders, pass a yearly budget, etc) and got out of all the other things then we could consider part time legislators.

Maybe. But I promise that congress spending less time working will not produce that result.

 

[tomahawk2406]

I didn't think Ron Paul was supposed to mention that the president was doing good things by backing off Iran.

 

[NoDrama]

Right now congressmen typically turn their businesses over to other people and put all their stock in blind trusts when they enter office. Do you really think it's wise to have the guys writing the laws also competing in the market? There is already massive blatent insider trading going on in congress. Congressman's portfolio's generally out perform the average stock portfolio by over 100%. If you turn congress in a "part time job", they'll use their time in congress to advance their own financial interests instead of legislating. They do it now, it'd be 10000000x worse if you give them permission to do it.

Cutting a politicians pay is a nice feel good populist message. But if would provide no measurable benefit to the people what so ever and would likely only hurt us. Congress barely gets any work done now. If you cut the ammount of time they are there they will litterally get nothing done.

You guys say you're pro-constitution right? Well the constitution intended for 3 equal branches of government. Making the congress part time will essentially make them obsolete. They won't be able to get the job done they are supposed to do. That decision making power will naturally end up going to the executive and judicial branches, tipping the balance of power. If anything, congress should be in Washington doing their jobs more often, not less. Making congress a part time gig distorts the intent of the constitution.

You can't claim to be a constitutional defender and support tipping the power balance set up by the constitution at the same time.

WTF are you talking about? Who the F ever said we need to cut the pay, cut the benefits etc etc of Congress? Im all fine and happy that they get 175K a year and great health care/retirement WHILE THEY ARE WORKING, I am not fine with them getting it for life. In a persons life span of 80 years, the country could possibly have up to 10,700 former and current congresspeople still alive. That would be an expenditure of $1.9 BILLION PER YEAR, just on pay, not even going to go into how many millions could be spent on health care... You don't think $1.9 Billion is a lot? If we only paid them while they were in office it would save $1.8 BILLION PER YEAR!!

 

[Dan Kone]

WTF are you talking about? Who the F ever said we need to cut the pay, cut the benefits etc etc of Congress? Im all fine and happy that they get 175K a year and great health care/retirement WHILE THEY ARE WORKING, I am not fine with them getting it for life. In a persons life span of 80 years, the country could possibly have up to 10,700 former and current congresspeople still alive. That would be an expenditure of $1.9 BILLION PER YEAR, just on pay, not even going to go into how many millions could be spent on health care... You don't think $1.9 Billion is a lot? If we only paid them while they were in office it would save $1.8 BILLION PER YEAR!!

I'd like to see some sort of proof that this is a real number and not something you invented.

 

[mccumcumber]

WTF are you talking about? Who the F ever said we need to cut the pay, cut the benefits etc etc of Congress? Im all fine and happy that they get 175K a year and great health care/retirement WHILE THEY ARE WORKING, I am not fine with them getting it for life. In a persons life span of 80 years, the country could possibly have up to 10,700 former and current congresspeople still alive. That would be an expenditure of $1.9 BILLION PER YEAR, just on pay, not even going to go into how many millions could be spent on health care... You don't think $1.9 Billion is a lot? If we only paid them while they were in office it would save $1.8 BILLION PER YEAR!!

I 100% agree. I have no idea why congress thinks that they deserve a pension... but oh well. There's really nothing we can do to stop it, unless we kicked out everyone in congress who isn't greedy... which is not possible .

I'd like to see some sort of proof that this is a real number and not something you invented.

I'm not sure about the numbers, but he does bring up a good point. All the career politicians who just sit around in various congressional offices (state and national house + senate) already have a cushy enough job. Not to mention that they are making absurd amounts of money behind closed doors, insider trading, lobbying etc. They don't need a pension by any means. Even the ones who are only in office for 5 years (I don't think that is very common) still make a killing while in office, and once they are out and over 62 they are set for life? That's fucking bullshit. They barely do shit while in office and get to live off of our tax dollars while they are out?

I know this will never happen, butI think the congressional salary and pension should be based off of congress' approval rating. Even raise the salary and pension to 200k, if they preform to their full potential and actually get shit done, then I don't mind paying them. But if their approval rating is only at 9%, then they're stuck with 9% of 200k, <20k a year seems like a good enough incentive to actually get something done and benefit the country while in office.

 

[NLXSK1]

BTW, all they have to do is serve in the congress and/or senate for 1 day and you have lifetime health coverage.

Not a bad gig if you can get it.