On Saturday evening ABC presented a GOP debate live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. The debate was sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo! News, WOI-TV, the Des Moines Register and the Republican Party of Iowa. This was the first debate held since Herman Cain ended his 2012 run leaving just 6 candidates on stage to field questions. Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling requirements set forth by ABC to participate in this debate.

Here is the entire 1 hour and 30 minute debate video via YouTube:


(Video fixed)

You can also view the full video directly from ABC News available here.

Original Air Time: Saturday, December 10 at 9pm ET / 8pm CT / 6pm PT on ABC

Participants: Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul

Report from ABC News:

With the Iowa caucuses looming, six Republican presidential candidates clashed tonight over their conservative credentials and personal histories in a Des Moines debate that saw resurgent frontrunner Newt Gingrich battling attacks by his rivals from all sides.

But it was Mitt Romney who stole the spotlight for a $10,000 bet with Texas Gov. Rick Perry over what he wrote about the individual health insurance mandate — then removed — in subsequent editions of his book, “No Apologies.”

“I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book,” Perry said. “But, you know, I’m just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend.”

Romney disputed the claim, challenging Perry to a $10,000 bet over who was right.

“I have not said, in that book, first edition or the latest edition, anything about our plan being a national model imposed on the nation,” Romney said.

“I’m not in the betting business, but I’ll show you the book,” Perry replied.

In the first version of Romney’s book, a line referring to a universal health care mandate reads: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.”

In the later paperback version, the line was changed to: “And it was done without the government taking over health care.”

I think each candidate performed well with, perhaps, the exception of Mitt Romney who was knocked a little off his game. Santorum, Paul, Bachmann and Perry all came off quite strong in this make-or-break debate. Newt Gingrich seemed to get by fairly unscathed as he was mostly able to explain away or dispute any lines of attack. I say “mostly” because I think some may have brought him down a peg.

This could open the Iowa field and give Santorum, Paul, Bachmann or Perry a chance to improve in the caucus polls and maybe pull out a win. Iowa can be unpredictable and the ground game efforts of Santorum, Paul and Bachmann, most notably, can’t be underestimated despite the “front runner” status of Ginrich and/or Romney.

Overall a good debate, quite informative, substantive and entertaining.

112 COMMENTS

    • Seriously! If it weren’t for 2012PresidentialElectionNews, I wouldn’t be able to find a decent file to watch when I miss the debates.

      All the cable networks should have it available on their websites if they really want to attract more visitors.

    • If you download RealPlayer then open this site in Internet Explorer 8 (whatever newest one is). Then, play the clip and a little Realplayer download option appears in the upper right of the “small” version. Click it…wait…and don’t close Internet Explorer until download completes. So, YES – you can download this debate 🙂

  1. I don’t think it’s just me that realizes that every single debate the candidates adopt more and more and Ron Paul’s principles and ideas. He’s the innovator here. They’re copying his words, but the exception is that they don’t mean a word of it.

  2. wow. What Newt said about Palestinians are simply not true!
    What about Israels inhumane treatment of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip, such a treatment creates terrorism and doesn’t lend itself to peaceful negotiation

    • Give me a break….Israel is inhumane ? How about the thousands of rockets that rain down on Israel every year from hamas and NON peace loving Palestianians. How about the hundreds of Isralis killed from these rockets ? Get your facts straight.

      • The US funds the Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians in such hopeless conditions that terrorist groups have to emerge… the Gaza strip has 1.5 million inhabitants, they do not get enough aid, and cannot rebuild the thousands of houses that the Israelis have bombed. Over half the population there are children or teenagers with bleak futures; not hateful terrorist-prodigies.

        During the war in 08/09 Israel killed 1500 Palestinians, a 1000 of which were civilians. (13 Israelis were killed, 3 of which civilians). 4000 homes were destroyed. 4000! With only a fraction of them being rebuilt. And all of this with American tax money and US drones used without a care in the world for human life.

        If you actually get out to the world and get an ounce of perspective you’ll see that the one western country in world blind enough to support Israel is the US… Personally I NEVER support terrorism; whether that comes from Al Qaida, Hamas or the Israeli government.

    • Both sides are at fault and we should stay out of it, let them work things out. They are not kids and until they stop acting like kids we really have no business helping out either side financially or with military. The only thing we should be doing is helping the innocent civilians escape the madness over their.

  3. Ron Paul was the clear winner of this debate. No one on that stage comes close to his level of principled consistency on the issues. Other candidates even admitted in their closing statements that he has the most campaign energy and that he has been right for the past 30 years about the economy and the abuses of the Fed. There is a reason that Ron Paul has the most energetic support. It is because he is the only candidate that abides by the constitution, and this country hasn’t seen that sort of statesmanship in a very long time. If you want real change in this country, Ron Paul is the only candidate that will bring it. All the other candidates represent only a slight variation of the current administration… corrupt politicians, crony capitalism, unconstitutional government actions, restriction of liberty, and government authorized theft from the people. The sad part is that some people have gotten so accustomed to these injustices that they find liberty and constitutionality to be “extreme”. It is going to be a very tough fight to fix America because many powerful people benefit from the current system, including those who control the media. If you are reading this, I will only ask one thing of you… do your own research and don’t let the media forcefeed you their bias. Evaluate each of your thoughts to determine if it is something you came up with on your own or something a reporter planted in your head. After watching every debate, studying every issue, and researching every candidate, tonight I concluded that Ron Paul is the only candidate that can fix this nation. He’s the only one that isn’t puppetting for some big corporate interest in maintaining the status quo.

    • Totally Agree with that,

      Make sure you get your friends family and coworkers to the primaries and vote Ron Paul. If he is not elected and we get stuck with Obama or one of these other clowns for four more years we’re going to be screwed.

      Paul 2012, Get out and vote!

      • Dag, if I can get it through my family’s thick skulls. Keeps talking about getting Bin La din, I say that was the military, could have happened on anybody’s watch. Very interesting that Bin La din was found on Obama watch. There is a cycle going on here Bush is now bad and Obama is the savior, then Obama will be bad and another puppet will enter. Then family says minimum wage nobody can live off that. I have to argue simple Economics and how that is a starting point and by raising with inflation many companies only hire individuals with more qualification. I argued all the companies that closed because of this and the Walmart’s stay open killing jobs and the economy. I argue you rather have several people losing jobs, several people not being hired so a few people can get a raise. I say the economy has to work on supply and demand and the government should not interfere. I said I start several jobs in a good economy a minimum wage and got raises regularly. You hire the right president we will be on the way to a good economy. Some people are stubborn for puppets, I argue the last real solid president would have been JFK and Ron Paul is who I’m voting. I bring up Bush’s policies still enforce and the newly NADD stripping our liberty. Is it me or is people this blind? I linked them to Obama deception video, I told them to watch but don’t take it for face value do the research. Most Obama supports don’t have open minds and need to be led by Media/Political propaganda.

  4. Finally!!! Newt, you bring what you’ve said, after 20 years, but no results. Nothing can change what will happen.
    I was raised Republican but now I see what is true about our nation.
    Vote Ron Paul!

  5. I would like to see a debate format that asks a question, then every single canidate answers it in a specified time without taking aim at other canidates, so there would be no rebuttals. This should eliminate seeing and hearing from the frontrunners for the majority of the debate. That said, I believe that Newt is the strongest “speaker” of the group with a very casual, confident style that does not sound like he is either trying to remember his lines or stuttering to get words and ideas out of his mouth. I also believe that he may be the only canidate able to beat Obama, do to his vast experience/knowledge in and around Washington coupled with his speaking skills. My choice, however, would be Ron Paul, for his outright honesty and his strong belief in the constitution of these United States and the people it is meant to protect. There is also Mr. Paul’s intentions to dismantel government as we know it today, and do away with it’s waste, corruption and assault on American’s Freedoms.

  6. Now Newt has set up another Lincoln/Douglas Style Debate with Jon Huntsman for Dec. 12th. (another Candidate who soon will be dropping out of the race) Why doesn’t he Debate someone with some REAL Conservative Values and a Superior Intellect than himself? I don’t know….maybe someone like Ron Paul?

      • B Anderson So… then why is Newt Debating Jon Huntsman, of all people? Could it be just to show people how much “trivia” he knows? I have to agree with Shawn. If Gingrich faced off against Ron Paul, Gingrich would be spun in circles, especially on the Topics of the Monetary System, the Federal Reserve and Foreign Policy. He’d be on the defensive all through the Debate.

        Newt is great at “talking” and maybe, writing books, but when he’s confronted about his ANTI-Conservative Record, his BIG Government Philosophies and of course, his “Flip-Flopping Hypocrisies”, he shrinks behind his “Historian” Cloak and “switches” the Topic to either blaming Obama or the Media Bias. He’s hardly the Leader the media is making him out to be.

        The Democrats would absolutely LOVE IT if Gingrich was nominated. Obuma wouldn’t have to do much at all. Just let Newt “talk and talk”. Newt’s haughtiness and arrogance would shine through. The Democrats would have a Field Day with all of Newt’s Baggage and his ANTI-Conservative Record. It would be John McCain all over again.

        Ron Paul is the ONLY one that can beat Obuma.

        • Ron Paul is not gonna be the GOP pick. If they put that guy forward it will be another McCain scenario. He appears frail. I know very many people that will not vote for anyone who does not support Israel. I won’t.

        • Darryl

          I like your comment. I want to add that IF Gingrich were to win the Presidency, Obama would retire to Hawaii well-rewarded and content that he served the globalists well and is only passing the scepter to the next heir apparent and chosen world order tyrant.

          I support Ron Paul

        • I’m not just voting for Ron Paul because he would shut Obama down, I like what he stands for.
          Obama is one of the smoothest talkers and quick on his feet, I know he didn’t get a degree in Speech Communications, it would be great to see the most knowledgeable and honest candidate go up against him. It was just be nice to shut Obama up along with all his supporters who refuse to have open minds and do a little research.
          Why do some people call him one the greatest president of all times? He is one of the worst!

          You are right besides Paul, Obama would shut the rest of the candidates down, he is just too cool,quick calm and collect, unless there’s another discrepancy in Florida of course 🙂

  7. These republican debates have brought to our attention the reasons we must change the course of our American government and leadership therein. I believe that anyone of these men and women who are running for the presidency of the United States of America are many times better than the present leadership – if you can call it that of Mr. Obama.

  8. @Bret, your remarks are spot on – no matter how much we all hate to admit it. Everyone, please take a moment to review his very thoughtful comments. I’m independent and have not made up my mind, but am considering registering as a Republican so I can vote in this crucial primary. Our lives will be so difficult if we don’t make a major change.

  9. Although I think Ron Paul is great on domestic issues, some of his isolationist positions could be detrimental to America. When Irag took over Quwait in 1990, would he have done anything to protect America’s strategic interests? If he had been president at that time he would have previously pulled all of our military out of Germany and other places close to the middle east to the extent that it would have been hard to defend our interests. I think that it is great that Ron Paul is in the race because he very effectively articulates many issues that the other candidates have not paid attention to, particulaly how the federal reserve and the people behind them will lead to our economic destruction. The US is on the financial precipice. We are on the verge of rampant inflation that will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar.

    My big concern is that if he became the republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election, Obama and the Democrats would be able to effectively paint Ron Paul as out of touch with mainstream America. This would result in Obama’s re-election. I also like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman but Obama and the Democrats would also be able to paint them as too “extreme”, whether or not it is true.

    I am more interested in seeing a Republican nominee who would appeal to mainstream America. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all would appeal to mainstream America. I have to add that I was absolutely disgusted with Mitt Romney’s attitude which was displayed when he was recently interviewed by Brett Baier of Fox News. When asked about Romney care in Massachusetts, Romney displayed this seething attitude of “How dare you ask me this question?”. This naked display of arrogance explains to me why the three main candidates in the election are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and “anybody but Romney”. I don’t trust that Romney is genuine in his positions. He says many of the right things, but can you believe him???

    • Hmmm… The most recent poll I saw indicating matchups between Obama and each of the GOP contenders in turn showed Ron Paul as the only one beating Obama. That’s the second time the same poll has showed the same result (the first was a couple of months ago, but I don’t have the reference here).

      There is also the reality that, in polls from Iowa that include independents and Democrats who are leaning toward voting Republican, the majority of the crossover vote goes to Ron Paul. It was Reagan Democrats that helped swing the 1980 election and turn Carter out of office, and I could easily see the same thing happening again next year.

    • Look at who has the most donation from military.. yes that would be Ron Paul, and not just a little more he has more donations from our military than all of the other candidates combined.

      The people protecting our country with their lives are voting loud and clear with their pocketbooks for Ron Paul, your takinmisconstrueded words from thcorporatete controlled media. Pay attention, wake up and look at his views, none of them are isolationist. And if you look instead of listen to what the media fabricating you will learn the truth that Ron Paul is not afraid to protect our country, but he’s going to do it the way its suppose to be done, with permission from the congress with declarationon of war.

      • Shawn H. Please check your sources. How would anyone know if a donation came from a person in service??? I sure did not give him any money.

        • B Anderson

          All campaign donations are tracked and reported quarterly. The 2012 presidential candidates must file their fund-raising reports with the Federal Election Commission The numbers will reveal not merely how much they are raising, but how much they are spending and where they are spending it and all contributions.

          Report Type: October Quarterly

          Filed 10/15/2011
          SUMMARY
          DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE
          ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
          CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER
          CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATE
          CONTRIBUTIONS BY ZIP
          CONTRIBUTIONS BY DATE
          CONTRIBUTIONS BY ELECTION
          DISBURSEMENTS BY PURPOSE
          DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE
          DISBURSEMENTS BY DATE

          • Windisea, I see a flaw in your thinking. How would the canidate reporting know the employer of the person’s who donated? I know I was not asked when I donate. Your source of “facts” is baseless. I see no way to determine if a donation came from a person in the military.

          • B Anderson

            I didn’t “think” it up, it’s is a copy taken directly from the
            Federal Election Commission Website.

            I was trying to be helpful.
            FYI I am always asked who my employer is when I donate.

    • That’s funny what you said about Romney’s Attitude while being interviewed by Bret Baier. Newt Gingrich was also interviewed by Sean Hannity. The only difference between the interviews is that Romney was asked the “tough” questions about his Flip-Flopping Record. However, the “haughty” Gingrich was NEVER asked the “tough” questions about his Flip-Flopping Record or even his ANTI-Conservative Record. Hannity just flipped him Soft-Balls.

      Apparently, FOX News has already made their Choice for President. Newt is their man.

      I once was a big FOX News fan until I watched them, with my own eyes and ears, LIE concerning the Economic Collapse of 08 and recently, the Wall Street 1% vs OWS. Now, I only watch them in passing and take what they say with a Grain of Salt. They are just a Propaganda Machine for the Republican “Establishment” Elitists, and not the Republican Party Faithful. Fair and Balanced they are NOT! They’re CONTROLLED by the Corporate Interests of the 1%. They are TOLD what to say and they sure don’t speak for you or me (average folks).

  10. Great website for watching the entire debate if you miss it on live tv. Ron Paul never ceases to amaze me. Smart as a whip, honest, and consistent basing his platform entirely on past history and our Constitution. I’m proud to be part of the Ron Paul Revolution!

  11. I didn’t fully understand Ron Paul’s answer regarding Newt’s comment about the Palestinians. First he indicated that Newt was not correct, but then two sentences later said that he was “technically correct”. Not sure what to make of that. I’m personally not familiar with that part of history, but I get the impression it might be one of the many areas in which historians take different points of view. Any historians here want to chime in?

    • I don’t know about the history of the area either but new peoples and countries are made all the time. If you go back 400 years there was no such thing as americans either.

  12. Look it up about Palestine…Newt is correct…It is not a biblical place or nation….He is right about everything he says and can prove it too…If you are in doubt do some searching on the internet yourself before you doubt him….He is very intelligent and is the only one who can out debate Obuma….He is a winner….Ron Paul is trying to go back into the womb so to speak and it is too late…He should have lived along with George Washington or Abe Lincoln … he is way outdated and lives in a dream world…He needs to go back to being a Doctor or just retire ….

    • So you consider working and striving for peace and prosperity is being outdated and living in a dream world? Then you sir are living in the wrong country, people like you who give up on freedom and prosperity is the reason our country is in the dumps right now.

      If you don’t want to live in a society that is controlleded by the people instead of the government than please leave.

    • Newt is a “Loose Cannon” who Fuels-the-Fires of Hatred and War throughout the Middle East. He hides behind his cloak of being an “Historian”, but people can see right through it by his TOTAL LACK of Diplomacy.

      I don’t know anyone could support this guy, unless you’re a Hate-Monger and a War-Monger like Newt Gingrich. People are being “hood-winked” into supporting this guy because he speaks articulately, but in reality, he WANTS Destabilization and War in the Middle East.

      Aren’t you Sick of it yet? How many more people must DIE or be Maimed? How many more Wars does Newt Gingrich want to involve our children in? Isn’t it enough for you yet? Or do you want MORE War? Plutocrats, like Gingrich, NEVER FIGHT!: They “pick-the fights” and then send others to do it. And if you notice, Newt Gingrich NEVER talks about PEACE! This is something foreign to a Warmongering Plutocrat!

      The REAL Newt Gingrich was “On Display” last night. He is Completely Psychopathic and he’ll use Ole’ Glory and Patriotism to “stir up” the masses. People need to WAKE UP! Warmongers, like Newt, MUST BE Marginalized and Disavowed or we’ll see Millions DIE from Nuclear Weaponry. Future “Historians” should write that “Historian” Newt Gingrich was the “Political victim” of a People desiring PEACE instead of War!

      Ron Paul is the ONLY way to go! He’s the only one Qualified to be President of the United States!

      • It occurred to me that if you truly value a Republican Party win more than you care to have the best leadership for our country, you would do better to vote for Ron Paul.
        Yes it makes sense.

        Ron Paul supporters are solidly convicted, so much so that they will write him in or follow him to a third party before choosing a lesser second candidate. It’s a fact that his supporters support the candidate above the party and are uncompromising in their support for him and as such should be better used to benefit the party. A quick search on the internet and social media sites will confirm the level of conviction and loyalty his supporters have for him to be fact.

        As many have justifiably pointed out, Ron Paul’s supporters are a force that could potentially sink the GOP’s chances if he were to break away, just as it surely will if his supporters write him in, and they will.

        It makes sense to me to vote for Ron Paul rather than permit that to happen. After all, Ron Paul is a GOP candidate, a conservative Republican, with Libertarian ideals and the candidate who originated the discussion the candidates are debating now.

        He is not a socialist, fascist, communist, corporatist, globalist, progressive, liberal, tyrant or a Democrat.

    • “look it up about Palestine…Newt is correct…It is not a biblical place or nation…”

      Even in Roman times, it was known as Palestine. If a place is known as America, wouldn’t its inhabitants be called Americans?

      If you are in doubt do some searching on the internet yourself. Newt may be intelligent but that says nothing about him otherwise.

      “He is the only one who can out debate Obuma.“ That is doubtful, but it could work against slick Newtie. You can’t fool most of the most of the time.

      “Ron Paul is trying to go back into the womb so to speak and it is too late…He should have lived along with George Washington or Abe Lincoln … he is way outdated and lives in a dream world…”

      Your “dream world is where the county is headed if the people fail to start seeing the wisdom of George Washington or Abe Lincoln.”

      “He needs to go back to being a Doctor or just retire ….”

      The country is very sick and needs a doctor like Ron Paul.

  13. An excellent debate all around! Thank you 2012 website for publishing these videos. I always come here now to watch them. Tried to find it last night to no avail. I am so proud of these Republican candidates each bringing something good to the table. And the last question brought out the benefits of the primary season where candidates learn from each other.

    I wish to also appreciate the moderators from abc.. this was the least “gotcha” journalism of any of the “moderators.” You did not see the big egos of journalists trying to play god on stage and I appreciate abc for that. As a result we got a much better debate.

    As a new republican this year i am starting to solidify my views. I think Ron Paul would make an EXCELLENT secretary of the Treasury and would be the person to oversee a dramatic overhaul of that department and perhaps some prosecutions as well and bringing to light who got all of our money. He has the knowledge and depth of understanding to do it. He is not going to be president but has brought an important voice to the debate.

    After leaning to Newt i am gravitating to Romney. Newt’s latest gaffe about Palestinians (as Santorum said “speak the truth with prudence”) has offput me about him. He is a loose cannon given to gaffes he then has to explain and we don’t need a candidate who is going to hand the ball to the other team. Romney has been steady and would guide the nation with a steady hand. He understands leadership and how to create jobs. He has given as good as he got and I think stood up well to the attacks coming from Newt. He stood even with him in the wrestling match thus showing that Newt is not all knowing and all great when it comes to debates. Romney has consistently given great answers to attacks with aplomb. He keeps cool where Newt heats up. And no, i don’t want calista as first lady.

    I would like to see Rick Santorum as his VP pick. He has excellent in these debates and would be an attack dog against the Obama machine. He is has the true conservative credentials Romney lacks with great foreign policy experience as well as domestic credentials. As he pointed out to Bachmann he was in the minority and won.

    I would like to see Bachman in charge of Health & uman HServices and overhaul and root out Obamacare.

    Perry can go back home to Texas where he belongs and Newt… not sure what role for him or if his ego would allow it. Something on the domestic policy side for sure.

    All in all a great debate experience!

    • Wow Colleen. I couldn’t agree more with any of that! Very well put. Perfect analysis of each candidates strengths where their strengths are most needed and would best be used.

      I am not yet set on a candidate but I agree at the moment I am leaning for Romney in 2012.

  14. I agree with many of those here. Obama is a very smooth debater and if we put him up against a weak debater like Bachman or Perry he will chew them up and spit them out. I think Paul, Romney, and Gingrich would all stand a decent chance against him in debates. As for Santorum, I can see obama getting santorm frustrated. But I’m going with the crowd on this one…RON PAUL is our guy. Ron Paul is the most consistent and the most right on every issue. That being said, I think Newt is probably the best debater and may stand the best chance against obama in debates, but I think Ron paul ultimately will be able to get more of the independant and democratic vote. For the record, I voted for Obama in 2008 in both the general and the primary election and I really liked what he stood for. I am dissappointed in how that translated to actual presidency though and if he was up against Ron Paul for 2012, I would vote for Ron Paul hands down. I can’t say the same about some of the other candidates.

    • I do not believe that Obama is either a skilled debater or skilled speaker. The times he has gotten off his teleprompter he is VERY BORING. Why do people give him more credit than he deserves? Hillary crushed him in the primaries in the debates and one comment of hers towards him was “You’re never responsible for anything!” Sound familiar? The press coddled him in both the debates and in person. The guy is boring. People just projected what they wanted to on him.

  15. Again, and the media agrees with me, Gingrich won the debate. This week it was the media that made a big deal about the Palestine remark, not Newt. As another poster above said, check the facts for yourself. You will find Newt is correct. Then there is another fact to it. SO WHAT??? Why would stating fact make some one mad??? We could say the United States came from Europe. Why would that be considered to be a nasty statement??? Don’t be lead by the left media spin.

    Newt is the only person in this debate that showed leadership. When he answered, people listened. He answered with knowledge backed answers. All the rest except Ryan were answering as someone begging for support of their answers. They show shame of the truth. They would rather make statements according to who is listening. Ron Paul answered as a Bible thumping preacher. Pointing to the Constitution as if it were the Bible in the midst of a heathen crowd. He may have a few believers, but He got nowhere with the crowd. Ron Paul is not a leader, and will never be president.

        • Yes. Obuma definitely needs to go. That’s for sure. But ANY? I totally disagree. What people fail to realize is that the FED is the MOST IMPORTANT Issue NOT talked about. Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate that understands this.

          All eyes should be on Europe next week. The FED is planning to Bail-Out European Banks on the “backs” of the US Taxpayer. What will happen? People are going to RISE UP all over the World like never before, including the people in the United States.

          If this happens, Newt Gingrich would be a VERY DANGEROUS President to have in Office. He HATES when people protest. He’s a Plutocrat with an “Attitude” and he wouldn’t think twice about using the Military against Protesters.

          • I would have to agree strongly with Darryl on this one. The Fed is a very big problem and several candidates appear to be over looking this very important issue. I also would like to add that agreeing with the bias media is not necessarily a good thing. The media has shown so much favortism over the last decade it’s pathetic. And the majority of Americans have been persuaded by the media over the last several years, I hope this time is different. The most important election I can recall in my life, I just hope the people of this country take the time to remember and research each one of the candidates; bad, lobbying ways and the good they have done for us to try to keep our liberty. The bottom line is we need a consistent president we can trust.

  16. I enjoyed this debate a LOT. One thing that stands out – ANY of these six would be much better Presidents than Obama. I probably agree the most on positions with Ron Paul. But, I also really liked each of the other 5 quite a bit, with Romney perhaps being my least favorite of the group, but if it were Romney against Obama – of course I will vote Romney.

    I thought Perry actually finally seemed comfortable in a debate, and I think he did quite well. His comments on foreign policy and Obama doing nothing re. our predator drone hit home. He was 100% right that the real threat to our country is Obama. Again, ANY of these candidates would be better than Obama. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but each will lower taxes and cut the size of federal government. I think Ron Paul’s positions are the best, but even Romney would be substantially better than Obama.

    I loved Perry’s idea for a part time Congress and think he is showing a real fire that he would direct against Obama, I think Gingrich is the most brilliant intellectually, Bachmann is sharp and crisp and could generate excitement as a woman Presidential candidate and Santorum has been consistently conservative and courageous. While Romney is my least favorite, I do think he has shown competence in a variety of areas – at Bain, with the Utah Olympics, etc.

    Re. the Massachusetts healthcare plan, one thing Romney did that Obama did not – Romney balanced the state budget BEFORE passing Romneycare, Romneycare uses private insurance companies, and it’s only 84 pages long vs. over 2000 pages for Obamacare. It also was set up for a state with only 8% uninsured, and where the voters really wanted it. So, while I don’t think Romneycare is a good thing, at the same time, I don’t think it should be an anvil around Romney’s neck.

    I think each candidate (except maybe Ron Paul) has had a few positions that are objectionable; however, while I will vote for my favorite in the primary, I will vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination in the general, because ANY of these guys would be better than Obama.

  17. The other candidates must view Gingrich as a real threat in Iowa to be attacking him so much. Maybe he’s the anti-Romney who won’t wither away. Click my name for our free fantasy politics game where you can predict the primaries.

  18. Thank you for the link.

    “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” -John Hancock

  19. My Fellow Americans;
    Before us now lies the prospect of a Christmas season spent pondering the future of our nation. From east to west, north to south, millions of Republicans, Independent Candidates, and Democrats disenchanted by the false promises of socialism, must nominate a candidate to fight for the restoration of American eminence.
    I think you will join me in appreciating the gravity of our situation. Melodrama aside, this is a very important election.
    As many of you know, our party is faced with a predicament: to nominate a candidate who will satisfy our mainstream but risk losing the election, or to nominate a candidate who might disappoint our base but prove most likely to garner votes from disenfranchised democrats and independents, and thus win the election. The solution is not simple, and we have erred before: McCain-Palin was an unrealistic choice, one the party must not repeat again. We must balance the importance of staying true to our values whilst choosing a realistic candidate who can make a successful run against what Americans have come to revere as the prototypical image of an underdog.
    At this point, I would like to make my own endorsement. I think our choice this time around is simple: Ron Paul. In saying I am for Ron Paul, however, I also acknowledge the uncertainty facing many Americans. Some may not care too much for Republican selection. Some may wish Donald Trump, Christopher Christie, Mark Rubio, or Sarah Palin were running. Some may not have had time to watch too many debates.
    If you are looking at our candidates and asking yourself ‘who should I endorse for the nomination with my vote?’, here’s a breakdown of some issues you should consider. These are issues that will figure greatly into the dynamic of the decision-making process in a presidential debate:

    – Rick Santorum: If I may be direct, this candidate does not have what it takes on a number of levels. Presidential elections attract a host of unsuitable candidates. Santorum’s parochialism, both in terms of moral issues and otherwise, proves how potential nominees can be out-of-touch on a national level while still managing to garner limited support from the more extreme members and subgroups of the party. Rick Santorum is unelectable. He cannot beat the incumbent – there are even large groups of republicans who dislike him immensely. I am thankful he will not be our nominee.

    – Rick Perry: This is the only remaining candidate with regional appeal (the other was Herman Cain): Southern/south-western republicans consider Perry the candidate who most accurately espouses their views on religion, states’ rights, the economy, taxes, and Washington politics. Despite being weak on illegal immigration and a couple of other conservative issues, Perry has been a good governor for the state of Texas. He is affable and good looking, but voters in the northwest and California are put off by what they see as his tendency for ‘Bush 2.0’ situations, and he is notoriously unpopular in New England, particularly in Vermont and Maine. He lacks originality, is poor at debates, and many commentators think he is not sharp enough to win presidential battles against the current incumbent, who, as we all know, is gifted in the art of sophistry and oration. In the post-Bush era, Perry’s style and demeanour do him favours and disfavours, but the buck stops at the fact that, this is a candidate who cannot beat the current president.

    – Michele Bachmann: A lot of republicans who espouse Bachmann don’t realize she has a record on social issues that, to my mind, will prove a deal-breaker on the national scale of a presidential contest. Besides holding views similar in their draconian tradition to those of Rick Santorum, democrats, in pushing for the president’s second term, will point out that while Bachmann is slightly more experienced than Sarah Palin, this experience does not extend to foreign policy. Furthermore, they will also argue that she has had a far less successful political life. Where the issue of her her bad record comes in, we have not believing in Darwinism, advocating that our planet is 10,000 years old, other comments that suggest she is scientifically illiterate, and promoting prayer as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality. Again, we have here a candidate who appeals to a narrow cross-section of the republican demographic. Bachmann’s record will fail her in her goal to reach The White House when it is subjected to the intense scrutiny that is part and parcel of the presidential debate process.

    – Jon Huntsman is an intelligent, cultured, and well-spoken moderate Republican who comes from a good family of billionaire industrialist job-creators. Although he ranks second on personal wealth amongst the candidates, behind Willard Mitt Romney, his family as a whole is about five times richer than the Romneys are. Huntsman’s other wealth includes international diplomatic experience, and a sound educative background that has informed his positions on issues such as the environment and the economy: Forbes magazine, which employs some of the best economists in the world, has endorsed his candidacy in this republican primary based on his economic stimulus program as well as proposed tax cuts. Huntsman is very popular in his home state of Utah, and the states of California and Oregon, but he has remained a low-status republican in the eastern hemisphere. He is not a very interesting speaker, and loses points on debate performance. Republicans true to the base have questioned his Mormonism. Like former contender Pawlenty, and current contender Gary Johnson, I believe Huntsman is a modern sort of republican who, in another, perhaps future scenario, could win a presidential election against the current president – the problem is winning the republican nomination in 2012. Like Pawlenty and Johnson, Huntsman is a young, attractive, active candidate whose departure from the traditional view of a republican nominee will mean he will have his day in the sun when the republican party evolves to personify the views of a younger, more dynamic demographic; eras of uncertainty as the current one make for weary voters, however, and the truth is that this candidate has failed to have an impact.

    – Newton Gingrich: Well, first of all… Joking aside, this candidate is an intelligent, well-educated, all-American character who excels at debates. He respects fellow republicans during debates and has won a staggering amount of respect and noteworthiness because of it. Gingrich is appealing to a number of independent and traditional republican voters, in a removed sort of way, but young women report finding him unappealing, untrustworthy, and he makes considerable losses on record and ideology where the base of the party is concerned. While many appreciate the depth of his knowledge in the fields of law, American political history, and foreign policy, he is known to lack charisma and what contemporary society considers ‘good looks’, and he seen as too professorial, too authoritative, and too theoretical. Furthermore, he has the worst record, both personal and political, of the candidates vying for the nomination. While Gingrich’s past behaviour and reputation as a flip-flopper means he will pick up a few democrat votes, his current position on issues means he is unlikely to capture the hearts and minds of enough democrat party-deserters to prove effective in the race to the White House. If Gingrich is the party’s choice, I suspect the current president need not pack his bags anytime soon.

    – Willard Mitt Romney: This moderate republican candidate has a lot going for him, and a lot going against him. His positive points include an exceptional, consistent performance throughout the debates; a moderately successful governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; a self-made personal fortune of two-hundred million dollars, which renders him 11 times richer than the second-richest nominee for the republican candidacy, Jon Huntsman; his long-lasting, successful marriage and beautiful family; and his origins in a family of political pedigree. His local eminence as a co-founder of Bain Capital and youngest son of George Romney helped get him elected in as governor in a 2:1 democrat state, but so did his support of a number of positions he no longer has: Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, the environment, the death penalty, TARP, states’ rights, global warming, and socialised medicine, which he signed into law in his state. Other negative issues include his poor performance during televised interviews, his bad temper, his tendency to ‘lawyer up’ and avoid answering direct questions, his on-stage his rivalry with other candidates in the republican primary debates. He has also been criticized for his slick physical appearance and some of his more animated mannerisms. Romney stands a good chance of being the party’s candidate, but I don’t see this as a good thing. First, many republicans and don’t trust him. Second, separate from the republicans who distrust him are another mixed group of republicans and independents who dislike the way he argues, his demeanour, his ‘used-car salesman’ hairstyle, to quote Joy Behar, and his grin. Third, there is another mixed group of republicans and independents who trust Romney and have no trouble with his appearance or attitude, but who refuse to vote for him: they see him as power-hungry, obsessed with his family and legacy, and willing to say anything to get ahead, and they won’t endorse it. If Romney is the party’s choice, he will likely pick up a more sizeable portion of the democrat vote than other republican candidates traditionally do, but in the long run, I think his record is too flimsy to stand scrutiny, I think he has the wrong temperament for the White House, and I think there is a lot about him that will alienate the undecided voter. A recent poll suggested he would fall 4% short of required votes to defeat the incumbent.

    I will not be providing a column on the policies of Ron Paul, particularly because I would like to encourage all readers to learn more about this very interesting veteran congressman who has been preaching the solutions to our problems in a consistent manner for three decades. Paul was identifying calamities before they were issues, and his foresight demands we elevate him to the presidency. Please inform yourselves. Learn more about conservative libertarian candidate Ron Paul and his aspirations for a better America.

    Thank you for your readership.

    Dr H Willamsburg
    New Hampshire
    12/12/2011

  20. I would like to take the time to thank the host of this site for supplying all the debates for us. I do not own cable, I made sacrifices several years back in the Bush era when I was not certain what was going to happen to the economy. I’m so glad I made the sacrifices, cause we went from bad to worst. I feel the smartest 2 candidates are Paul and Gingrich, but Gingrich will continue to dig into our pockets deep and can’t be trusted. Paul seems down to earth and strong, he does not back down. I don’t know about any of you but I can’t just look for a candidate to beat Obama, that’s irrational thinking. I want a candidate when president that’s going to look out for the American people restoring liberty, giving us tax payers mor money to spend so in term adding to boosting the economy, breaking down the Fed, smaller government, ridding of the crooks in Congress that Obama promised, ridding of bogus programs, eliminating unnecessary troops overseas which is costing so much.

  21. ABCNEWS Should be ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!! For now providing a link on their own WEB site for this debate. I’ve been looking for this debate all day. CBS, and ABC’s IT Department clearly Suc.k! NBC news websites are clearly more on top of the online news game.

    As for the debate.. too much GOP rhetoric! The economies engine is based on the middle class and if you squeeze them anymore.. you will stall the economy. The issue is NOT about the richest getting squeezed…. If the bottom 50% aren’t paying taxes Bachman? What do you expect to do? Tax them more? How about increase their wages and STOP the extreme profits corporations are getting.

  22. Listen, I think Ron Paul is a good man with great character as well but lets be realistic here, his views are a little narrow minded, a bit extreme, too risky, and he does not exhibit a very strong presence. Experience is what we need and Newt is our man.. The country gambled on something new and fresh the last go around with the “hope and change” idea and it bit us in the rear! Lets be smart and vote for someone/something that makes sense, has the experience, and that can actually beat Obama. I know Obama has royally screwed up but I can seriously see him humiliating candidates like Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Newt is smooth, direct, and precise with his responses and like I keep saying has the EXPERIENCE to actually make sensible change!!

  23. Americans have been “conditioned” to think that Ron Paul’s views are “extreme”, while what the Government and past/present Administrations does, is NOT extreme. Dr. Paul tries to point this out as he Campaigns around the country.

    Is it “extreme” to follow the Constitution when it comes to Declaring War? Or is “extreme” to bypass Congress and the Constitution to invade sovereign nations around the world without Declaring War?

    Is it “extreme” for Congress to dutifully debate legislation and come to an agreement on whether or not the law would benefit the American people? Or is it “extreme” to pass legislation in the middle of the night without even reading the bill?

    Is it “extreme” for the United States Military to be protecting our OWN Borders? Or is it “extreme” for the United States Military to be in over 130 countries, subsidizing the security and protecting the borders of other nations (friendly and non-friendly)?

    Is it “extreme” for Our Elected Statesmen (and women) to take seriously their Oath-of-Office and to protect the Rights and Civil Liberties of the American people to preserve a Free Society? Or is it “extreme” for Our Elected Statesmen (and women) to pass legislation that will allow the assassinations and imprisonment of American Citizens “without cause” and “without Due Process?

    Is it “extreme” to follow Free Market Principles and allow Private Corporations (Banks and Auto Industry) to go through a controlled Bankruptcy to preserve Capitalism, especially when the American people are in favor of it? Or is it “extreme” to “Bail-Out” these Private Corporations (Banks and Auto Industry) only to have them “pile” their Debts upon the “backs” of the American people when they weren’t in favor of it?

    Is it “extreme” for America to have a “sound” Monetary System backed by something tangible, like Gold or Silver? Or is it “extreme” to have a “Fiat” Monetary System backed by DEBT, which, when the Printing Presses are allowed to run non-stop, the prices of everything we need to live goes through the roof?

    I think you’ve been “conditioned” to what the Media “says” is “extreme”. Ron Paul wants to return America to “sanity” and to the “Rule of Law” in accordance to Free Market Principles in a Capitalist Society. Capitalism was “usurped” when the Bail-Outs occurred. It’s almost DEAD! It will DIE for sure, if anyone but Ron Paul is Elected to the Presidency. It may be even too late, but Ron Paul is our ONLY “Last Chance”.

  24. You’d rather risk everything on a man that has fail to address the collapsing housing market??! For peeps sake, Newt has taken over 1.5 million from Fannie and Freddie to turn the other cheek, lying to us about those payouts being advisory fees. If you believe that he’ll tell you another. Don’t forget about all the bum checks he wrote while he was in Congress, saying he made mistakes. Kind of a big mistake at our expense, don’t you think? He is not in our best interest. Paul said we should do something about this market before it even happened. Do your research, Paul has been fighting for us since the 80’s. I do not understand how anybody can say Paul has no experience. He called shots about the destruction of the housing market, the Fed corruption and our troop situation before they even happened. You know what? He was right on the money with all of it. Where were the others…? Yet everyone just ignored him calling him names, that just tells me all Political parties fear him because he will squash their easy ride to riches at our expense. I come to the conclusion that Newt is not in our best interest, but Paul… Anybody in their right mine can clearly understand that Paul makes a lot of since, if they take time to do the research and STOP listening to the bias media. Since this election is so important I decided to give each candidate a fair shake and after much research, I came to the conclusion that Paul has remain consistent and he will not back down to anybody. He has schooled Congress and the Fed often, please research this. He has educated many of his current opposition on what is actually going on with the Fed. The truth of the matter is everyone is a gamble, our job is to pick which president will be confident enough, strong enough and honest enough to stand behind his or her policies and issues go before Congress and defend our American liberty. One day I would love to see companies invest in the market and keep all of their investments. Can you imagine how confident companies and individuals would fill in turn boosting the economy. Companies would flourish if Big Brother would stop taking our money. The market is too risky as we speak now with the big government digging in hard working Americans pockets. It’s our money, we loan money to the Corporations and how are we rewarded by legalized thieves taking half of our profits, do they share in our loses? What if I were to rob some of these politicians houses off to prison. Ron Paul 2012 to try his hardest to abolish all this NONSENSE!! Wake up people, this government wants to regulate everything they can get their grubby paws on. Government is suppose to be there to create laws to protect us while still keeping our liberty intake.

    • George Stickney, You have been reading and listening to too many extreme left and right wing news articles. You need to check them out before repeating them. Newt has been accused of many things FALSELY, by the Democrats and people like you. If you would have kept up, you would know that all but one of the charges against Newt were unfounded. There was onlya minor one that may have substance, but it was dropped after the political damage was done. That shows that the charges were TOTALLY politically based. Newt has balance the US budget, even with a Democratic President. That is quite a feat. We need that today. Several times I have read about the FredieMac story. You seem to not know the difference between lobbying and advising. Both are legal. But who cares??? That does not mean he can not have a job of President. It’s kind of like this; If we have a gushing water leak in our house, and there is an expert in plumbing repairs that has had another customer that we hate, and who is married and divorced… would that keep us from having him fix the plumbing? I would get him to fix the pipe.
      Newt has experience getting bills passed in Congress. Ron Paul is abrasive, and would have little congressional support. He would not be able to get his ideas into law. I would like problems be addressed, rather than pushed down the road another four years.

  25. Everything you people are saying about Ron Paul sounds beautiful! But we live in a different world now.. Paul wants to just leave everyone alone while nuclear weapons are being produced and planes fly into buildings. His hands off \ mind our own business approach is extreme when we have so many issues going on right now.. We need a Balanced and firm approach to resolve the issues we face in this complicated world. I believe we need Newts experience and intellect to get that done!

  26. Disney does not want this debate re-viewed freely.

    It was reported that the “ratings” of the debate was the highest of all the debates so far. An astonishing 7 million views across the country.

    Out of 300+ million people in America, only 7 million viewers is actually microscopic.
    Even the comments on this website is by the same, small number of people.

    Realistically – no one cares about politics. They know it’s all a sham.
    And without Ron Paul, that number would be even less.

    The typical “voter” as exemplified here by posters “Michael” and “B Anderson” would much rather live in a failed economy as long as they get a leader who appears strong.

    These voters are the typical scared little kids who need a strong “father figure” in the house – even if he’s a drunk abuser.

    These voters cannot stand living in a healthy household with a “frail” father figure. (Ron Paul)

    These voters have been abused and are acclimated to the abuse to the point to where they cannot understand a society or economy that is healthy. They join the abuser mindset.

    Ron Paul is too independent for their psyches to handle. They would rather a Romney/Newt/Obama who exemplify the strong father leader who makes “everything (appear) okay” by shoveling more sh*t under the rug.

    It’s all perception as usual.
    The independent intellects perceive Ron Paul to be a good leader.
    The dependent children perceive Romney/Newt to be a good leader.

  27. By the way, at the beginning paragraph of the page it says “Jon Huntsman was unable to attend due to ABC’s polling requirements”

    Looks like Disney is not only able to remove the debate from millions of viewers, but they can actually prevent candidates from attending altogether.

    The “illusion of choice” that George Carlin pointed out.
    When it comes to ice cream and candy – The People get 250 flavors to choose from.
    But when it comes to politics.. The People are not allowed to see/hear/speak of Jon Huntsman.

    Nor are The People allowed more than 2 political parties.
    Nor are The People allowed free-markets.

    Land of the Cartels
    Home of the Enslaved

    • Michael – this is what I’m talking about. I raise key points about not only politics, but the psychology of it as well. You respond with only a “You have issues”. And you make a typo at that. Haste makes Waste mike.

      The key to debating (like everything in life) is patience and understanding. Your response clearly contained neither.

      But that’s my point – you would rather have a President with debate lines such as your own.

      Example (for the sake of humor):

      Ron Paul: “The American Economy cannot be fixed by Keynesian economics. Only Free-Markets allow an economy to work efficiently”
      Newt Gingrich: “RonPaul… You have issues”

      That’s an unwillingness to debate, or even discuss which sides have the right or wrong issues and opinions or facts why. How did I know my post would bring out your true colors? Because I understand human psychology and you’re an easy example. Now you can keep your out-dated mindset or you can try to work towards gaining an understanding of why your colors show easily, and why I can get you to show them.

      I have props for Rick Perry for doing just this. Instead of insulting Ron Paul, like you have me, Rick Perry now publically thanks and embraces Ron Paul’s “END THE FED” motto of economics. He stated it in this video (that Disney removed) It took Rick Perry years of attempting to gain this understanding, and he probably only got it from upset voters. Maybe that’s the only way you will get it. When the food riots come to your home. =(

      • James

        I agree that most voters will not wake up until there’s a catastrophic economic event or a crisis of some sort. You hit the nail on the head. I wouldn’t put it past Obuma to stage something to get himself “appointed” to another term. Just kidding…

        Off Topic….have you seen the Video Alex Jones put out interviewing the Demon of Jon Corzine of MF Global? Hilarious!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0HVLMioqKs

        • Too bad Disney doesn’t own the copyright to that Alex Jones video or they would remove it as well.
          Sorry Disney – there is still a middle class that produce & consume our own information, entertainment, food, products, etc.

          I am still watching this debate video again. I never closed my browser and the video is still loaded (Whoops, sorry Disney.. I can still watch it!) Somebody better call the police – because I am a citizen able to re-view the GOP Presidential Debates myself without Disney’s ABC confounding my judgment by only airing Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet.

          Who pulls out a $10,000 bet at a Presidential Debate? It’s fun & games to the candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. There’s a part in the video where the Host asks the candidates how they could possibly understand middle-street and low-street Americans when the candidates were all born into Wealth?

          Good question! How is Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich going to understand a broken Economy when they got much of their wealth because of riding the (insider knowledge?) booms of the poisonous inflationary bubbles introduced into the Economy by the Government’s Keynesian Economical Mal-Practice.

          The real question everyone must answer to ourselves: How do we fix The Great Recession of the Economy that was caused by Keynesian Economics of The Federal Reserve? Do we keep spending? Cut Spending? Print Money & try to balance The Market’s business cycle (growths and recessions) ourselves? Or do we let the Free-Market handle it? Which Federal Regulations harm the economy VS which ones help prevent Monopolies? How to minimize corruption in Washington DC? How to illegalize Corporate Lobbying? How to return the Freedom of Independence of both the Economy and Foreign Policy to the Individual and not some distant “central government” that is the universal link between The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Fascist America”?

  28. I support Ron Paul

    Ron Paul is a man of conviction with the guts to speak out and stand up for the protection of our civil liberties under the Constitution. He is highly educated, a military veteran, charitable, moral, honorable, experienced and knowledgeable in government, intelligent and well-informed about the policies he either supports or condemns as unconstitutional, harmful, government policies. He is a loyal Husband, married to his wife Carol Wells since 1957. A committed pro-life Christian who will not legislate in order to favor or impose his personal Christian religious beliefs on the people because it is unconstitutional. A Medical Doctor who refused to take Medicaid or Medicare but instead treated needy patients for free or low fees. Experienced in business operating a medical practice since 1968. Author of numerous articles and books about the economy. Congressman for 12-2yr. terms in the House of Representatives who still returned to his practice on Mondays and Saturdays. He turned down his Congressional pension that he would be entitled to in order to avoid receiving government money, saying it would be “hypocritical and immoral. and also declined to attend junkets. He believes in and proposed term-limit legislation multiple times. A Republican, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Libertarian and a man who has lived his life, worked and legislated staying true to his convictions.

    As a Constitutionalist he has “never voted for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution” and as such doggedly represents the interests, welfare, civil rights and liberty of the people, not the state or lobbyist beneficiaries of the state.

    Economics: Ron Paul alone diagnosed the cause of America’s economic problem, then he raised the peoples consciousness and blew the whistle on the Federal Reserve as the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. He is the only candidate to seek an Audit of the Fed which revealed 14 Trillion dollars in secret loans. He continues to press for a full audit and currently is the only candidate who predicted and warned against the economic crisis, who understood and explained the reasons for it, and who offers a viable solution. “Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business” Representative of Texas’s 14th congressional district he serves on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Financial Services, and on the Joint Economic Committee.
    He is the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
    and he is the only candidate who is serious about slashing spending. He consistently advocates for smaller government, lower taxes, fair trade and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracies. Paul argued against the $700 billion bailout proposal during the economic crisis of 2008. His vote was among the majority of “nay” votes cast to defeat the initial measure in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House passed a “sweetened” version of the bill, against which Paul voted a second time, later in the week.

    International organizations: Ron Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

    The World Trade Organization: Paul states that the WTO is a barrier to free trade and Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living.

    International trade: Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations”. He opposes many free trade agreements, like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, [corporations] not citizens. He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

    Borders and immigration: Ron Paul considers it a “boondoggle” for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries’ borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled; he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists. During the Cold War, he supported Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, intended to replace the “strategic offense” doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense. He believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget. Ron Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an “unfair advantage” under law. He has advocated for a “coherent immigration policy”, and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers, and subsidizes more illegal immigration. Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence. He believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens. Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship. He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and “end automatic birthright citizenship”, and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.

    Foreign Policy: Ron Paul is the only candidate who really means it when he says he wants to bring our troops home and scale down our unsustainable and unreasonable empire. His stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression, covert activities and entangling alliances with other nations.
    He advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others. He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending what he deems massive, unaccountable foreign aid.
    In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Ron Paul said, “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today… we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons.

    Ron Paul has the b***s, determination and weapons to protect our country if he needs to!

    Terrorism: Letters of marque and reprisal
    Calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of “air piracy”, Ron Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state. Paul reintroduced this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007. He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan. In April 2009, following the Maersk Alabama hijacking, he proposed issuing letters of marque to combat the problem of piracy in Somalia.

    Ron Paul has enough commonsense and knowledge to use the correct legal process to go after terrorists.

    Iran: Ron Paul rejects the “dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle”. He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran. In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.

    Ron Paul intelligently advocates to let the U.N. do the job we are paying it to do.

    Israel: Ron Paul argues that if the United States cares about Israel, the U.S. should allow them to be more independent. He states that “the surrounding Arab nations get seven times as much aid as Israel gets and also a recent study came out that showed that for every dollar you give to an Arab nation it prompts Israel to spend 1.4 dollars.” Paul would not stop Israel from defending its interests in any way it saw fit.

    Habeas corpus: In the first Republican debate (2007) in California, Paul stated that he would never violate habeas corpus, through which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in the American Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.

    Internet: He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality.

    Prayer: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.

    Airport security: Following the 9/11 attacks, Paul “opposed the federalization of airport security, the creation of the DHS and increased police state measures, but did propose legislation that would allow airline pilots to begin carrying firearms in cockpits”, on the theory that “it’s much harder for terrorists to commandeer an airplane when pilots can fight back.

    Gun Rights: The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America’s A+ rating, Paul has been a lead sponsor of legislation in Congress attempting to maintain individual Second Amendment rights. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.

    PATRIOT Act: Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment. He has said, “Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America.” He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.

    REAL ID Act: Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties.

    Domestic surveillance: Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens’ privacy, not violate it. He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans’ rights through domestic wiretapping and to renounce autonomous presidential signing statements, which rely on unitary executive theory. In December 2007, he stated his opposition to the US House Resolution 1955, arguing that it “focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against violent radicalization.”

    Conscription: Ron Paul is strongly opposed to reintroducing the draft. In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.

    Eminent domain: Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to “stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches”. He opposes “regulatory takings … Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties—all without paying ‘just compensation'”.

    Social Security: Ron Paul will protect Social Security for those who depend on it. He has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security. Paul says that Social Security is in “bad shape … The numbers aren’t there”; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget. He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system.

    Affirmative action: In 1997, Ron Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions. Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity: Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    Prostitution: In a South Carolina Republican Presidential Candidate debate in May 2011, Paul affirmed his belief that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do “controversial things” as long as they do not hurt or defame other people and that the federal government should not infringe on those right.

    Same-sex unions: Ron Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to “judicial activism”. He has stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn’t “impose” their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.

    Drug prohibition: Ron Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs. “Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime.” He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, “We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime.” The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. “Speaking specifically about Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, “They’re unconstitutional”, and went on to advocate states’ rights and personal choice: “You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS … People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this”.
    Ron Paul favors the right to use marijuana as a medical option. He was cosponsor of H.R. 2592, the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act. He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. Paul has joined prominent Progressive Democrats in urging that states be allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp, which currently is defined as a controlled substance. He contends that this would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.

    States’ rights: Ron Paul’s positions on civil liberties are often based on states’ rights, certain rights and political powers that U.S. states possess in relation to the federal government. He comments on the Tenth Amendment, “States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution.” For instance, the lack of federal murder statutes makes murder a state and local offense.

    Education: Ron Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective federal program. Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer’s choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America’s schools from a local level. Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.

    Health policy: Ron Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families: He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.
    H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.
    H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase “negative outcomes” insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
    H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
    H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

    Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

    Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973. He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals. He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a “corporatist-fascist” system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.

    Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to “prop up” the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.

    He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins.

    The Constitution is Ron Paul’s divining rod and he adheres to it more than any other candidate. The proper order for governmental authority he gave is; individual, community, state, federal, and last global….if at all. The Constitution is the American people’s only protection, Ron Paul knows it and he want’s us to know it and recognize, that we are participating in the end of our country if we continue to permit it’s circumvention for personal agenda’s. There is only one Ron Paul he is campaigning for America and us and there is only one candidate who can beat Obama this is why I and millions of Liberty loving individuals support Ron Paul and only Ron Paul’s nomination as the Republican Party nominee and President of The United States.

    Ron Paul 2012 America

  29. The link above does not seem to be working. Stupid Disney. I can’t watch it on the ABC website because I’m not presently in the US and they restrict all of the videos to US viewers only. Any other suggestions for how to watch the latest debate?

    Thanks

  30. James,

    What’s the point in debating with you? I stated my opinion and I’m sorry you don’t agree.. It’s obvious you’re goal is to be rude and push Ron Paul on everyone. Sorry, I’m just not sold on the guy and don’t have any interest in debating with closed minded nut jobs such as yourself. I’ve watched every debate and Paul is just not that impressive, especially in the Thanksgiving forum. Honestly, this is the most I’ve ever paid attention to the debates and it was because of Ron Paul at first. I really wanted to like him but he’s too extreme and obviously not the guy. Newt’s past does scare me and was at the bottom of my list when the debates started but I’m listening to what he has to say and so far he makes the most sense. He has a more logical approach when it comes to the issues we face today.. State your opinion and move on! You’re probably a conspiracy theorist who thinks 911 was an inside job and like I said before, people like you are a waste of time to talk to.

    • Michael

      I have friends and family, like you, who say the same things you do about Ron Paul. They are Gingrich supporters, but very luke-warm toward him. All I can tell you is what I tell them. Just give it some time. You’ll eventually see that Ron Paul is the only one “Qualified” to be President. When they think about it from the “Qualification Standpoint”, they wind up saying to me that they are “warming up” to Ron Paul because it’s True.

      All it takes is a little research, watching some speeches/youtube videos, watching debates and reading Ron’s website to discover that the “Establishment” Democrats and Republicans are ALL the SAME. Ron Paul has distinguished himself as the only Candidate who stands out from these Politicians and WILL NOT FOLLOW “The Party”, but he will follow the Constitution.

  31. Darryl,

    Excellent response! Like I said he had my attention at the beginning and lost it. I’ll take your advise and continue to pay attention to him.

  32. Hey, do you remember Newt saying that nobody should be involved with Fannie and Freddie? Do you recall Newt saying the politicians should be sought after before the corrupt Corporations? Do you recall Newt supposedly advising Fannie and Freddie and he quoted saying they didn’t even take his advise. They paid him all that money to not accept his advise, Please! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out he is clearly lying. He is a hypocrite. These are quotes he said and facts. After he left the House how convenient of him to get $30,000 a month to advise. If you are that gullible… Newt is full of himself and lies. You say who cares about lobbying and advising? We pay politicians to do the right thing and in our best interest. We are talking about the housing industry not some light weight issue. He said he can’t disclose any further information he was sworn into a confidentiality with Fannie and Freddie, oh interesting? Mr. $1.6 million ADVISOR!!? I’m sticking with Paul, he is not extreme!! Just because he is a Constitutionalist and follows rules and regulations. Our government is lacking guidelines, dude. Our founding fathers would be smacking us upside our heads right about now. You have the audacity to ridicule me, this country needs change, not the same old same liars. We do need to audit this Fed. Do you know the repercussions to just print more money? Look at all the predictions Paul has made, unfortunately the housing bubble the corrupt Fed happened,is happening.
    So you can stand behind a fraud just like Obama, I’ll stand behind the extremist. I know it won’t be easy for him, but at least he has a strong record of consistency including trying to audit the bogus Fed.

  33. The Federal Reserve directs the printing of our currency and charges interest on it as soon as it distributes it. Paying back the original amount doesn’t pay it back. To pay it back, the Fed has to print more money and lend it out. Hence the cycle endlessly repeats. This is the biggest and longest running Ponzi scheme of all time!! Ron Paul wrote a bill to abolish the Fed, unfortunately it got ZERO support in Congress. Then he wrote a bill the audit the Fed that garnered much support but then it got watered down as people were pressured by bankers, the Fed, and Obama as it passed hands. It’s at about it’s 3rd try now. Hopefully it will get passed. However, this cannot stop there. The Federal Reserve must be abolished and no other form of it must be resurrected. All the other issues need to take a back seat because this has been brewing since 1913 and this bubble is about to burst. All the other issues of foreign policy, job creation, individual liberties, etc. are all tied in to this bubble. America needs to wake up and pay attention to what the Dr. is telling them! He’s been around long enough to see how this country’s changed, while the rest were probably still in their diapers!

  34. The United States of America was established after the oppressed and over-taxed English colonist’s had enough, sent a letter to King George in England announcing a Declaration of Independence and their intention to break with English rule. Freedom from English rule was hard fought but won.

    To unite the communities of people and form a unified nation, the colonies sent representatives to a Constitutional Convention, these respected men were tasked to create a new model for a self-governing people, a model which would bind separate communities of people together for the greater good of the Republic while protecting the freedom and individual rights of all people to thrive in the way they chose. This was a delicate and difficult balance, so our founding fathers created a system, they called it “checks and balances.” A system that would automatically check itself so that government would not become oppressive to the people it was created to serve.

    The Constitution of The United States and the peoples Bill of Rights were ratified and a new Republic began. Our government then is society’s attempt to form a union and a rule of law that protects individual civil rights and restricts a group’s ability to use government’s might to oppress individual’s to the grave.

    But they also knew that if the people themselves did not monitor and work these “checks and balances”, eventually the elected and appointed representatives, could be corrupted and would use the checks and balances against the people. The checks and balances have worked to a certain extent on their own for over 200 years, but slowly the rich and powerful elite with the help of paid corrupted elected representatives, appointed officials, their paid mainstream news propagandists and power broker lobbyist’s, worked to turn the checks and balances against the people.

    Ben Franklin is supposed to have answered when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created: “A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.”
    The people must work to keep the republic and if the people don’t work at it, it will not last; we will not be able to keep it.

    Those who shift the balance of power for their own profit or push an agenda “for our own good”, or push a group’s right to special protection, eventually oppress the people. Government can be very useful, it has the force of law and the threat of punishment and is a very effective tool of oppression. And so if elected representatives are permitted to supersede the protections of the individual for any reason, government becomes a heavy boot that tramples all of us.

    We must pay attention and evaluate all good intentions, validate and judge it’s legitimacy by using the tool we were given to protect us, the rule of law outlined by the Constitution. Good intentions pushed by groups and made into law, erode and override the individual rights of all others, and eventually our rights are usurped by rich powerful groups and result in a tyrannical government.

    We must learn to be informed and vigilant, we must insist standards are upheld. FIRST, the candidate’s proposals should be judged to be legitimate and valid according to the rule of law, the Constitution. SECOND what are the candidates qualities,virtues capability, allegiances, experience, leadership, principles, integrity and honesty, etc. THIRD in importance are the proposals and the plan, a candidate who meets the first two criteria is most likely to have a good plan and be a good leader for the people and the country, after that it becomes a matter of peoples choice.

    Any elected representative who legislates in a manner that circumvents our constitution must be recognized and removed from office. Our government leaders must be held to those boundaries because if we don’t it will destroy us. Without adherence to the Constitution we will be in a constant struggle resisting those who will and seek to oppress us.

    What we have to do at such times is reign our leaders and the government in. This is a very difficult task because entrenched power is difficult to resist and remove. When we have leadership that compromises our freedom, then we are subject to the oppression of the strongest among us and when the most oppressive among us becomes our government, we will suffer oppression beyond endurance. When government becomes oppressive, we must resist our government itself in order to be free.

    So what happens when government becomes the source of oppression? We all know very well indeed, we are experiencing the very oppression that government is supposed to restrict, from government itself. We are seeing that struggle happening right now. The ruling class are in control, directing this Republic against us and they have usurped our constitution and our civil liberties for profit and power.

    Horrific acts of murder, committed by terrorists, was used to justify the government to launch and engage in never ending acts of war in the middle-east oil-producing countries, paid for with our taxes, our future debt, and our young peoples lives, whether we want to or not. We and our lives and our children’s future have been made the pawns of big business. The media is paid and controlled by rich corporate-sponsors, so the media taking heads must stifle honest unbiased reporting.

    The current Presidential candidates offer tokens and adjustments to make government domination and oppression of our rights tolerable, and using fear tactics they tell us that we have no other choice but to continue this way indefinitely, they claim the adjustments they offer will make it doable and someday we will know success. They say we will spread democracy to these countries even though our freedoms and prosperity and happiness and our future are the price we pay, disappearing daily for the good of all, all but the American citizen. We’ve seen it before, Republican, Democrat. Republican, Democrat. Regardless of party the goals of the entrenched elite never change and will continue to move forward with the election of any of these candidates.

    Only one Presidential candidate offers change. He is the one candidate who is already qualified to act in the terms I described, First it must be constitutional, Second he has the qualities and experience and Third he has the plan to take America back from the power brokers. He is the one who identified and brought the source of our problems to our consciousness, he told us what would happen and the loss of freedom we faced and he is the one and only candidate who single-handedly brought the dialogue to the debates. Ron Paul knows what needs to be done and how to correct it. Ron Paul is determined to stop the shift of power to the rich and powerful elite and return America and our civil rights to the people.

    If the people want to keep a Republic, we must work, we must sacrifice self and agendas to keep and protect it. That takes a lot of effort as well as and more importantly it takes self-denial. And so we have to decide.

    • Wow!! Good one Wind. Boy, our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves right about now. I hope America is smart and chooses the only president that will even attempt to go after the corruption within Congress and the Fed, Ron Paul. Something fishy is going on over in Capital hill, every president ignores this and we don’t like it! What I fear is that Ron Paul is our only last hope for DRASTIC change for a long to come. This is why he needs to win. I know people are against his foreign policy, but there is a lot more at stake than the enemy, innocent Iranian lives are at stake, rebuilding land after we destroy it. We need to communicate with these countries, we should be using war tactics as a last resort. Should more people get shot and killed by police officers, because they look suspicious and are suspected to have guns and weapons? We better make damn sure there are no weapons be for we go in bombing. Look at Bush going in and Saddam had no weapons, this kind of rationality just creates a more hostile environment around the world. As China and Russia kick back and become stronger and stronger within their own walls. These are two countries we should fear, while we are pussyfooting around the world instead of concentrating on national security and defense if anything. All these lives lost were due to an insignificant agenda…What is this, because it sure ain’t war, it’s more like a dog chasing it’s tail. I can’t believe all this training and aid we have given these countries all to turn around and stab us in the back. Israel is not a burden on our pockets,the president and Congress is a burden, because they have their own agenda, it is pathetic. I’m all for Democracy, but some of their human rights demonstrations over in Israel are so violent makes me sick. We are spoiling Israel by aiding and fighting some of their battles, come on, Israel is very well capable of defending themselves. America is so gullible to believe all this nonsense why we are stationed all over the world, I do not trust anything the media or these politicians tell us. Ron Paul has told the truth and history backs him up since the 80’s, I back him. At first I was skeptical about his foreign policy, but I researched into Israel becoming so depended on the US that if this continues we will be the part of making them weaker and failing. We are bullying Israel with our own agenda, Israel would like to run things differently than the United States for a change, but being the dogs we are we will not allow this. The US gives them two options; you run it our way or you can run it our way. Israel is a rich country with a strong military they are very well capable of fending for themselves.

  35. I find it extraordinarily surprising how much support Ron Paul has gotten within the public and yet the news claims that Newt and Romney are in the lead! I have already seen multiple Ron Paul bumper stickers, shirts, skateboards, and even a large banner nearby a local Walmart. It is quite evident that Paul has the public’s support. One of the things that scares me though is that he seems a little TOO radical at times. Sometimes subtle changes work best and I have a feeling he will make multiple huge changes very quickly if he wins (but I guess in this case, Congress will prevent that from occurring). Another issue I have a hard time accepting is the abolishing of medical and medicare. I understand not giving out free checks to the lazy people who don’t work and just sit around with twenty kids but this is not that kind of issue. I am one of the people who would like to have medical coverage but cannot qualify for it (so I just don’t have any). Many citizens rely on these programs not because they are lazy or have grown dependent but because their incomes simply can not cover such expensive medical bills. Other than this topic, Ron Paul seems to be the most rational man in this campaign so it is pretty shocking that Romney and Gingrich are getting the spotlight!

    • The idea behind removing medicare is that other things are going to be put in place to help. Or, better put, things may be removed that will help everyone progress.

      Although States will still tax you, the Feds will take exceptionally less. That means more for everyone and while you may think “ya but it never trickles down” – you’re right – that’s because all our little regulations, restrictions, and controls absorb it all.

      Remove it, more hits the bottom. More money for you = more money for investment in your life = insurance for yourself = happiness.

      The idea is the Government should merely make you sure can do all this stuff but that’s it. Beyond that they can stay away but they don’t.

  36. I agree, like I said before I don’t believe in all his policies either but Paul has shown his honesty, consistency, trustworthiness over and over again throughout the last couple decades.
    If medicare were abolished I thought I saw somewhere there would still be some type of program for senior citizens. Wouldn’t it be nice if the government were a smaller non-corrupt government and we were to get more money in our paychecks and finally be able to buy things again and not only that but to save and keep all of our interest earned. How bout the confidence to invest in Corporations knowing all profits earned would be our own and not the governments. We people take a change and invest in Corporation in turn boosting the economy with the expectation of Corporation expansion. Some are against lowering taxes on Corporations, but look how many companies we have lost over seas due to all these tax burdens. And the Federal Reserve, enough said just but mentioning the name.
    All these changes happening at once is a pipe dream anyway, but cutting back a trillion dollars from the deficit is a persuasive strategy that must be brought before Congress soon. Unlike Obama, Paul will veto all nonsense bills. He is a strong believer of the Constitution and he believes laws should be made to protect and not burden the people with excessive tax increases or other crazy ideas. Paul puts fear in the eyes of a lot of politicians, because they know he will interfere with their free ride on our(American People) dime. Everybody knows it will be a long time in h*ll before a candidate of this nature comes around again.

  37. I have watched the last few debates. Each time it gets worse. My opinion I don’t want to see finger pointing I want to see what they intend on doing to straighten things up! One thing I have noticed has been that Rick, Newt, and Mitt all change what they say in various ways at each debate, but Ron Paul has stayed consistant with what he says.

    I am not an Obama fan but everyone had made a big deal about his birth certificate and him not being a US citizen, Mitt had said at the last debate his father came from mexico. Is he an american citizen? Where is his birth certificate?

Comments are closed.