CNBC/Wall Street Journal debates at 4 & 9 PM ET

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i have never, not once stated that the link to the gold standard caused the depression. i was joking in the post above since gonebroke2 specifically said that it was the fed's tightening of the money supply that directly caused the great depression (which is obviously a silly assertion).

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we already concluded this debate in the finance forum. You agreed that the Fed caused the great depression. Even Ben Bernanke, the "expert" on the Great Depression, came to the same conclusion:

Ben Bernanke, admits that the Federal Reserve was responsible for the Great Depression. "We did it," Bernanke said, adding, "We're very sorry."

[/ QUOTE ]

i forgot the fed tightened in 1929 before the double bottom causing tightening in 1930/1931 (i forget which). that inital tightening may have initiated the great depression but it was the excesses in the previous decade (arguably caused by the fed) that led up to the cause of the depression.

the fed just made it happen sooner than it otherwise would have.

and i was referring to your assertion as silly since i thought you meant that the 1931 tightening caused the depression, which it obviously didn't. it just made it worse.

thanks,
Barron

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
somehow Ron Pauls numbers were far higher than they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're right where they should be when you consider that Ron Paul's supporters actually support him. The average Giuliani supporter doesn't pay much attention to the issues and doesn't really a care a ton and just wants their team to win and "likes" Giuliani the best. They're not really all that motivated to get off their asses and help him out though. The average Ron Paul supporter is an entirely different animal. If you had to take a test on understanding and caring about the issues to vote (assuming it was magically unbiased, a real world impossibility), Ron Paul would win this in a landslide.

[Bedreviter]

Ron Paul is currently getting at best 3% in scientificly approved polls, while here he scored 25 times that. The poll ended up being ridicolusly behind one candidate, and while these internet polls are famous for being pretty skewed already this was just outright ridiculous. Whats the point in having a poll where the results are nowhere near representing the true feeling among people? Maybe someone gets a hard on seeing Ron Paul with 75% support among republicans, but as long as everyone knows it is far from the truth why keep the poll there?

For reference the vote.com poll on who won the debate has Thompson at 31%, Paul at 20%, Giulliana at 18%, and Romney and Huckabee both at 12% each.

Why so obsessed about keeping a poll that you know doesnt represent anything besides that Paul-supporters are those most interrested in voting for their candidate in a unimportant CNBC-poll?

[Ron Burgundy]

"Scientifically approved polls"

lol

[john voight]

Tom Tancredo looks like he really knows what he is talking about, where as alot of the other guys kind of give empty responses.

I'm prolly gunna vote for him just b/c of this. He is really honest and has alot to say.

Any other guy is like "I think america is ready for _______. But we cant do this alone, we need to ___________ in order to __________, imo.

[Ron Burgundy]

Tancredo has an interesting debate strategy. He basically answers every question by playing the "Kevin Bacon Game" except Kevin Bacon is replaced with illegal immigration and every other actor in the world is replaced with every other problem in the world.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
"Scientifically approved polls"

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the valuable additional information you gave, greatly appreciated.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
somehow Ron Pauls numbers were far higher than they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're right where they should be when you consider that Ron Paul's supporters actually support him. The average Giuliani supporter doesn't pay much attention to the issues and doesn't really a care a ton and just wants their team to win and "likes" Giuliani the best. They're not really all that motivated to get off their asses and help him out though. The average Ron Paul supporter is an entirely different animal. If you had to take a test on understanding and caring about the issues to vote (assuming it was magically unbiased, a real world impossibility), Ron Paul would win this in a landslide.

[/ QUOTE ]



It is very easy to have very loyal supporters when they are so few in number. I guarantee that the front runners (in terms of actual number of people) have as many hard-core fans as Ron Paul. The difference is that because Paul is so far behind, Paul supporters find it necessary to do things like post a new message when Dr. Paul farts and it doesn't smell because they NEED to get the word out. Fans of the front-runners don't feel the need to get the word out, because their candidate is effectively doing it without their help.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
I guarantee that the front runners (in terms of actual number of people) have as many hard-core fans as Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you explain the difference in internet traffic between websites? I think Ron Paul gets much more traffic than other candidates

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you explain the difference in internet traffic between websites? I think Ron Paul gets much more traffic than other candidates

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul supporters are more likely to use the internet? Paul supporters are more likely to visit the site often? Paul supporters are more likely to "push" the content to others (i.e. on message boards.) Don't really know.

Anybody know if the claim is actually true? Are there studies of the web traffic for the various sites?