11-28 CNN\YouTube Republican Debate Tonight

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Wow.
What a fair debate.
NOT.

do YOU believe in a conspiracy to make a new union?

Uh.

Ooo OOooo dollar problems from insane overspending...time for the NAU to form...big suprise... :rolleyes:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4876

Ledbetterus

It's so sad that in today's society people would boo over having to take a test to own a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvBeJHBL8DY&feature=user

EDIT: In watching more, it seems Romney has no clue what time we're in. In at least two out of the 4 or 5 questions I watched he says something like "I would do this or that, but it's not the time we're in, so no, I won't do it". Maybe he just needs to get up to 88 MPH before he makes a straight answer on something.

810wmb

how about "that woman" getting yet another plant to ask a question?

oh yeah, bill's crap about iraq in the last couple of days....they be flipping and flopping all over the place

chopitdown

810wmb wrote:

how about "that woman" getting yet another plant to ask a question?

oh yeah, bill's crap about iraq in the last couple of days....they be flipping and flopping all over the place

the thing that i found funny is that Bill Bennet received emails about Gen kerr during the debate; i find it highly unlikely that CNN couldn't find out his connections. It's not like CNN has an agenda and would want to make republicans look bad or anything :rolleyes: I mean it's not like Ted Turner has friends in the democratic party that he wants to win. So either CNN is very sneaky and hoping they wouldn't get exposed in this or they are piss poor journalists. You would think that you would at least check out the 3 or 4 people you invite to the debate, whos questions would be asked. Well, you'd think a good news organization would.

Thecure

so is Mitt the front runner, because he looked liek a fool yesterday. how can you disagree with McCain on torture. that guy was held captive in vietnam for how many years. I have to say that that Mccain was very good yesterday.

DriftingByTheStorm

Thecure wrote:

I have to say that that Mccain was very good yesterday.

You mean,
other than the bit where he outright blamed the American public for forcing the troops out of Vietnam

and then went on later to
ambush Ron Paul and accuse him of isolationism while blaming America for Hitler?

UH.
misguided to say the least.

Besides,
his droopy cheeks really bother me.


[not to mention looking right at the camera and saying he doesn't support something like a fair tax or outright irs elimination and no tax, clearly implying that he is a big government clone that wants to keep big tax up your ass and in your wallet\purse for ever]

[and i think Mitt is the GOPs fallback in case Giuliani comes off to severe. Romney would be their "peoples" candidate. It wont work]

El_Kabong

I thought the little i saw was bullshit! they didn't answer the questions!!! LIke the one for the "compassionate conservatives" asking about the death penalty and "what would Jesus do?" instead of answering what Jesus would do they said stuff like they would pray to Jesus for the right answer and shit like that...then when pressed by Anderson Cooper that the question is "what would JESUS do?" the reply was "Jesus was too smart to run in politics." how the fuck did that answer the question?? Then when asked if they believed "every word in the bible" they gave little half answers about the bible being important to them and how they read the bible and believe in the teachings of Christ...!!!

Then Fred Thompson saying the repeal of Roe V Wade was the biggest priority in America??? and others like Mitt Romney saying he would love to repeal it....insane

Thecure

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You mean,
other than the bit where he outright blamed the American public for forcing the troops out of Vietnam

and then went on later to
ambush Ron Paul and accuse him of isolationism while blaming America for Hitler?

UH.
misguided to say the least.

Besides,
his droopy cheeks really bother me.


[not to mention looking right at the camera and saying he doesn't support something like a fair tax or outright irs elimination and no tax, clearly implying that he is a big government clone that wants to keep big tax up your ass and in your wallet\purse for ever]

[and i think Mitt is the GOPs fallback in case Giuliani comes off to severe. Romney would be their "peoples" candidate. It wont work]

first off what he said was that the american people gave up on the war and the government was forced to get out. secondly, he did not blame teh american people for Hitler, what he said was that the idea of just minding your business allows someone like Hitler to do what he wanted to do (which is kinda true) and also it is a debate, if Ron paul was thinking i can say what i want and no one i sgoing to say anything then he is a fool. (by the way i don't think Ron paul is a fool, i suspect that he rather liked being fought agaisnt by Mccain, because it means that he is worth listenning to and fighting against.)

ledvedderman

Mestophar wrote:

what reason do you have to trust what they say?

History. Give me one example where a poll has been so wrong that a guy with 8-10% of the poll numbers actually comes through and wins an election.

Thecure

here is a questions. if there were no income tax and just sales tax how many people do you think would go to Canada to buy stuff? i know i would.

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

History. Give me one example where a poll has been so wrong that a guy with 8-10% of the poll numbers actually comes through and wins an election.

4% isn’t a number a winning campaign can be built upon? Learn some history, young padawan. Some pretty damn RECENT history.

Who were the most significant players in the last open primary we had in this country, Democrats in 2004?

John Kerry and John Edwards, by a lot.

Know what they were polling in mid-September 2003?

Try this. ABC poll on September 13th, 2003.

Lieberman 21
Dean 15
Kerry 14
Gephardt 14
Clark 6
Sharpton 5
Carol Mosley-Brown 4
Edwards 3

Gallup poll, same time

Lieberman 18
Gephardt 15
Dean 15
Kerry 12
Bob Graham 5
Edwards 5

CBS/NYT, a little later, Sept 28th:

Clark 14
Dean 9
Gephardt 5
Lieberman 5
Kerry 4
Edwards 1

By November, Kerry was polling at about 7, Edwards at about 3.

Edwards never got above single digits until the day of Iowa voting.
-source

---

WHO WAS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN 2004 !?!?!

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

4% isn’t a number a winning campaign can be built upon? Learn some history, young padawan. Some pretty damn RECENT history.

Who were the most significant players in the last open primary we had in this country, Democrats in 2004?

John Kerry and John Edwards, by a lot.

Know what they were polling in mid-September 2003?

Try this. ABC poll on September 13th, 2003.

Lieberman 21
Dean 15
Kerry 14
Gephardt 14
Clark 6
Sharpton 5
Carol Mosley-Brown 4
Edwards 3

Gallup poll, same time

Lieberman 18
Gephardt 15
Dean 15
Kerry 12
Bob Graham 5
Edwards 5

CBS/NYT, a little later, Sept 28th:

Clark 14
Dean 9
Gephardt 5
Lieberman 5
Kerry 4
Edwards 1

By November, Kerry was polling at about 7, Edwards at about 3.

Edwards never got above single digits until the day of Iowa voting.
-source

---

WHO WAS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN 2004 !?!?!

There's a big difference between September 2003 and December of 2007. My point has been all along that it's too late. Go back a couple of posts and you'll see where I point out the "35 days before an election". Let's not forget that the primaries have been moved up, so September 2003 would be more like August of 2007.

The thing that got Kerry those bumps were the debates. There weren't a million debates in 03 like there have been this year, so he could use those to his advantage. At this point of the game Paul is still trailing by a significant number, with only a couple of debates to go before the Iowa caucus.

One thing that will help Paul is when he announces his fund raising, he'll get a slight bump, but it will be no where near enough.

chopitdown

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You mean,
other than the bit where he outright blamed the American public for forcing the troops out of Vietnam

and then went on later to
ambush Ron Paul and accuse him of isolationism while blaming America for Hitler?

UH.
misguided to say the least.

Besides,
his droopy cheeks really bother me.


[not to mention looking right at the camera and saying he doesn't support something like a fair tax or outright irs elimination and no tax, clearly implying that he is a big government clone that wants to keep big tax up your ass and in your wallet\purse for ever]

[and i think Mitt is the GOPs fallback in case Giuliani comes off to severe. Romney would be their "peoples" candidate. It wont work]

did you see the end of the debate on the keeping them honest portion? the only thing they found "wrong" with what paul said, was that he said he had 5K supporters, it was more like 2K (i think). They didn't have a problem (at least with honesty) with what he said re: the issues and his statements.

Yoyoyo

ledvedderman wrote:

There's a big difference between September 2003 and December of 2007. My point has been all along that it's too late. Go back a couple of posts and you'll see where I point out the "35 days before an election". Let's not forget that the primaries have been moved up, so September 2003 would be more like August of 2007.

Yeah there is a big difference, the GOP have NO CLUE how many Ron Paul supporters are out there. In past races the base of the party went out to vote and the number of people voting was predictable.

ledvedderman

Mestophar wrote:

Yeah there is a big difference, the GOP have NO CLUE how many Ron Paul supporters are out there. In past races the base of the party went out to vote and the number of people voting was predictable.

You're right, I'm sure the GOP has no clue about Ron Paul's supporters. Are you serious? He's on their radar believe me. He's huge in college towns and has raised a shit load of money. They're paying close attention to him and his supporters. To think that this is some shift in culture for the Republican side of things and that Paul is going to rise from nowhere like a phoenix is frankly naive.

Yoyoyo

ledvedderman wrote:

You're right, I'm sure the GOP has no clue about Ron Paul's supporters. Are you serious? He's on their radar believe me. He's huge in college towns and has raised a shit load of money. They're paying close attention to him and his supporters. To think that this is some shift in culture for the Republican side of things and that Paul is going to rise from nowhere like a phoenix is frankly naive.

Of course he's on the radar, but they are unable to poll his supporters like they are able to poll the old guard.

We will know who is naive in a few months.

ledvedderman

Mestophar wrote:

Of course he's on the radar, but they are unable to poll his supporters like they are able to poll the old guard.

We will know who is naive in a few months.

Of course they know how many supporters he has. GOP strategists have been doing this for over a year. They know what's going on.

I'm not being naive, I'm being a realist. I eat, sleep, and breathe political campaigns. You think the major parties are clueless as to what is going on, but they know very well. If Ron Paul finishes in the top three (not just in one primary) of the overall Republican primary season I will be amazed beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd be happy because it shows hope in a failed political system, but the realistic side is that he, like Biden, Kucinich, Tancredo, Dodd, and Gravel have no shot at winning.

Sorry.

Ebizzie

ledvedderman wrote:

Of course they know how many supporters he has. GOP strategists have been doing this for over a year. They know what's going on.

I'm not being naive, I'm being a realist. I eat, sleep, and breathe political campaigns. You think the major parties are clueless as to what is going on, but they know very well. If Ron Paul finishes in the top three (not just in one primary) of the overall Republican primary season I will be amazed beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd be happy because it shows hope in a failed political system, but the realistic side is that he, like Biden, Kucinich, Tancredo, Dodd, and Gravel have no shot at winning.

Sorry.

The GOP will do everything in their power to keep Ron Paul from capturing the nomination.

ledvedderman

Ebizzie wrote:

The GOP will do everything in their power to keep Ron Paul from capturing the nomination.

If they had to they would. At this point they don't have to do anything, but if they had to I am sure they would try to stop him.

Yoyoyo

ledvedderman wrote:

Of course they know how many supporters he has. GOP strategists have been doing this for over a year. They know what's going on.

A majority of Ron Paul's support is not even a year old. There is no pattern to it other than a steep incline and to be able to gauge this incline would be impossible because it is unique and is not being steered by conventional campaign tools(ie the media).

Imagine all the newly registered Republicans demanding their party follow the principles of conservatism. The party is being taken over.