***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm not really a mod here, feel free to view me as just another shmuck [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I lump all you mods together. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[shockdaworld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no TV, cliffs of the strong end from Paul?

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it I missed it. what was the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Taso]

It was one of his supporters, asking a question that went something like

"Ron Paul, we all know the republican party won't give you the nomination. Are you going to let the country down, and not run as an independent?" And Ron Paul said something like "I've won 10 times as a republican, i'm a republican. Support? [censored], we made 4 million in one DAY" <something to that extent.

[Kedu]

Post debate speech

[phillydilly]

Did anyone else come away from this debate thinking that the republicans are just going to get absolutely slaughtered in the general?

I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception. It's not that I don't think it is entirely possible for him to get slaughtered, I just think the dynamics of a Paul vs Hillary campaign would turn this entire election cycle upside down. Again, not saying Hillary wouldn't slaughter him, just saying I have no idea what would happen.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This forum is a Ron Paul love-fest, stating that you think Ron Paul could have a shot against Hillary or any other Democrat is the last thing that will get you flamed.

But I think its hard to say how the election will play out when the parties have chosen their candidate and all get behind him. How the Democrats choose to attack the candidate and whatever negative they have on him is difficult to tell so soon, and I think its really hard to tell how it will play out when its down to 1 Republican vs. 1 Democrat. Right now Hillary is a clear favorite imo, but I dont think it will be impossible for a Republican candidate to win, but it sure wont be easy.

A Paul vs. Hillary race would definatly be fun, as they are quite different and the debates would be far better than ever before.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This forum is a Ron Paul love-fest, stating that you think Ron Paul could have a shot against Hillary or any other Democrat is the last thing that will get you flamed.

But I think its hard to say how the election will play out when the parties have chosen their candidate and all get behind him. How the Democrats choose to attack the candidate and whatever negative they have on him is difficult to tell so soon, and I think its really hard to tell how it will play out when its down to 1 Republican vs. 1 Democrat. Right now Hillary is a clear favorite imo, but I dont think it will be impossible for a Republican candidate to win, but it sure wont be easy.

A Paul vs. Hillary race would definatly be fun, as they are quite different and the debates would be far better than ever before.

[/ QUOTE ]


I listened to Hannity's show a bit on my way home from work yesterday out of morbid curiosity, and a caller said (paraphrased), "I listen to Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson, and as a republican I don't believe that any of these guys have what it takes to make a good showing against the democrats. Yet, we have one guy running who is quickly becoming a rock star (he mentioned no names), and you (Hannity) won't give him the time of day. Neither does the Main stream press or most conservative groups. When are you guys going to admit that this guy's got the momentum, and might be our best bet?"

And to my astonishment, Hannity did not go off on this caller. He said (paraphrased), "Ok, look. There's still a good bit of time until the primaries, and we don't know what's going to happen. We'll wait and see how things go in New Hampshire and other states and who knows..."

I couldn't believe my ears. Not that Hannity specifically gave him credit....hell, I don't think he even named names. But to even acknowledge that 'anything could happen' within the next couple of months, and to allude to the fact that Paul might actually climb to the top and get some media backing (however unlikely this might be) was surprising to me.

It was the very first time I've heard something besides disdain when the subject of Ron Paul came up on his show.

[BluffTHIS!]

See drudge report for links to stories on democratic questioners being planted and CNN professing ignorance of same.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Jeez these debates suck.
The question by the gay general was pathetic. Homosexuality is nor even on the radar screen when it comes to what is most important in this country. Then we find out this catamite is a Hillary campaign plant. Don't tell me CNN couldn't do a google search on this guy before the debate to find out his background. Jeezus....he gave out his name. CNN is a craphole of a news organization.

Since the moderators can not choose intelligent questions, then I say let the candidates ask each other questions....and have a REAL debate. The other candidates will go for the jugular and ask questions to expose their opponents weaknesses. Then the mods could referee and make sure the candidates don't weasel out of the questions. Like Tim Russert did to Hillary on her illegals getting driver's license question.

[KneeCo]

Only skimmed thread, so sorry if this is off.

Re: My Ron Paul comments.

Like I said, I'm happy he's running, mainly because he gets people alienated by their party interested in the process, bring up some good points, is well spoken and (tries to) keep the process about politics/policy.

The fact that I can say that much about a gun loving, woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate speaks highly of him.

I do stand by my comment that his current popularity (compared to his limited profile, non-existent really, on the same platform over the course of the last couple of decades) is happening because of the cynicism fostered by the incompetence of the Bush administration.

I don't think he's going to get the nomination, I do think his popularity is in large part an illusion created by the fervor of his internet following (and good for them for creating this ground swell, but when the votes actually count, they'll only get one each like everybody else).

I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close.

Finally, I think that if he did get the White House he would undertake to dismantle all these programs and foreign ties and immediately find out that the President isn't all powerful, and he wont be able to. So what happens next? he has to preside over them for 4 years, and you've elected someone to run the system who doesn't believe in it.

To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter.