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

[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.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]


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.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's that word again.



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it doesn't disqualify you.

[vulturesrow]

I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack this debate about homosexuality, but since this is the debate thread, I thought I'd give more info on some of the questioners. It wasn't only the gay General who endorsed Hillary, we are finding out that a bunch of the YouTube questioners have endorsed Democratic candidates or currently or formerly worked for Democrats.

1. The Gay General Kerr endorsed Hillary
2. The guy who asked the qustion about blacks and the GOP supports Edwards.
3. Adam Florzak asked a question about social security. He works for Democratic Senator Durbin of Illinois.
4. Mark Strauss who asked if Ron Paul would run as an independent has endorsed Democrat Bill Richardson
5. Ted Faturos who asked about corn subsidies used to work for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
6. The woman who asked the abortion question has endorsed John Edwards (she has several YouTube videos proclaiming her support of Edwards).
7. David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republican question has endorsed Obama.
8. The woman who asked about lead in Chinese toys supports Edwards.

When CNN re-aired the debate, they edited out the General Kerr question because they were apparently embarrassed that a Democratic plant was allowed to ask a question. If they continue that policy, they will have to edit out 1/3 of the debate.

All CNN had to do was watch some of these questioners other YouTube videos (where they declared there political allegiance), or done a quick google search to discover this info. I'm not saying that these questions weren't legit, but don't you think that the audience deserved to be told that a bunch of the people asking the questions are Democrats? After all, this is a Republican debate. While we're at it, did CNN allow a host of questioners who have endorsed Republicans to ask questions on the Democratic YouTube debate?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack this debate about homosexuality, but since this is the debate thread, I thought I'd give more info on some of the questioners. It wasn't only the gay General who endorsed Hillary, we are finding out that a bunch of the YouTube questioners have endorsed Democratic candidates or currently or formerly worked for Democrats.

1. The Gay General Kerr endorsed Hillary
2. The guy who asked the qustion about blacks and the GOP supports Edwards.
3. Adam Florzak asked a question about social security. He works for Democratic Senator Durbin of Illinois.
4. Mark Strauss who asked if Ron Paul would run as an independent has endorsed Democrat Bill Richardson
5. Ted Faturos who asked about corn subsidies used to work for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
6. The woman who asked the abortion question has endorsed John Edwards (she has several YouTube videos proclaiming her support of Edwards).
7. David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republican question has endorsed Obama.
8. The woman who asked about lead in Chinese toys supports Edwards.

When CNN re-aired the debate, they edited out the General Kerr question because they were apparently embarrassed that a Democratic plant was allowed to ask a question. If they continue that policy, they will have to edit out 1/3 of the debate.

All CNN had to do was watch some of these questioners other YouTube videos (where they declared there political allegiance), or done a quick google search to discover this info. I'm not saying that these questions weren't legit, but don't you think that the audience deserved to be told that a bunch of the people asking the questions are Democrats? After all, this is a Republican debate. While we're at it, did CNN allow a host of questioners who have endorsed Republicans to ask questions on the Democratic YouTube debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asymmetry in media coverage is the rule. THis is mostly ignored since those best positioned to report on the asymmetry commit the most egregious offenses. That leaves secondary media dropping the dime on CNN bias. AM radio was all over it. Hugh Hewitt eats it up with a spoon.

But the sad truth is that there are so many sheep.

[iggymcfly]

How come "OMG, having a gay roommate" is such a big deal in the military when it's not a big deal in colleges at all? The freshmen in the dorms are the same age as the young recruits and no one would even consider telling gays they have to live off-campus. I think if they allowed openly gay soldiers in the military, some homophobes would whine for a year or two, and then no one would really care.

[MidGe]

I am not getting the part of this thread about gays in the army!

Would you not expect to have more gays in the army than in the rest of the population, percentage wise?

It seems obvious to me that it would be so. But so what, those a valiant soldiers defending their country!?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]


Re: My Ron Paul comments.

(snipped for focus on the following)

...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...

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...

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you object if the USA were to implement a foreign policy similar to, oh, say, Canada's foreign policy?

My impression is that Canada, while retaining membership in the U.NH., does little or nothing in the way of interventionism in its foreign policy (non-intervention is a policy and stance Ron Paul favors). Maybe Canada does a token amount overseas in terms of intervening if and when the U.N. says it should, I don't know.

I'd like to know if you would support the USA doing about as little intervening overseas as does Canada. Oh yes, and if you would support the USA having about as many military bases overseas as does Canada.

I'm asking because I think those would be the approximate real-world effects if the USA were to implement something akin to Ron Paul's foreign policy. Except for retaining membership in the U.N. (which you favor), the real-world effects would be that the USA would get out of the rest of the world's internal affairs for the most part, just like Canada. Or do you think that that would somehow be unfeasible or that it would be making a mockery of the advances of the 20th century?

So, what do you think about this? And thanks for reading, by the way.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just the President, it's the incompetence of politicians in general. The Dems took over congress and the senate on promises that they would hold the Bush administration accountable and they have done jack [censored]. A lot of people are sick of politician's empty rhetoric and unprinicpled behavior. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted political landscape.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really just a big *sigh* I don't think you have looked very closely at his policies if you think he is an isolationist.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another *sigh* Ron Paul understands how our government works better than most people. He has stated that he knows he can't do most of the stuff he wants to right away. He can pull our forces home though and that would save billions of dollars. He is the only Republican candidate that seems to understand that you can't just cut taxes, you have to cut spending as well.

[ QUOTE ]
woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level.