Republican Debate 09/05/07

So Ron Paul won the text message debate last night... AGAIN. He won the Maryland Straw Poll yesterday, and has placed in the top 3 in 20 out of 22 other straw polls. He is the ONLY antiwar republican and recieved tremendous applause after each of his answers. He's done all this with only spending 650,000 of his 3.5 million dollar camaign budget.

Still 2nd Teir?

So... Why is he getting loaded questions? Why do i hear strange creepy laughing while he answers his questions? Why does it seem like he's being attacked by the moderators? Why does he still get the least airtime of each candidate? Why?

I know... the poll was spammed, right? Because some how, a bunch of kids in their basement found away to clone phone numbers and text twice as much as all the candidates combined.

I ask this question... if these polls ar so prone to corruption, why host them? Why have a poll at all? I think they should stick with "scientific polls", the ones where each voter that matters scientifically owns a landline phone, or they dont get counted scientifically.

This party and its media arm are disgusting.

 

Ron Paul isn't a serious contender because of other views he has. What he has to say now is popular and sane, but his positions on a lot of non-mainstream issues are consider crazy or not serious.

And I'm pretty sure the Republican Party doesn't control the media. The Democrats and the media would have a field day if Ron Paul was their competition come next year. His views are just out there.

Personally, I'm all about Obama though. If he doesn't win the Democratic ticket, I'll probably vote for Giuliani or Thompson.

 

I listened to some of it on the way home last night...

Ron Paul actually NEVER answered either of the two questions i heard put to him. And since they were the same questions the others answered, are you saying that they are 'loaded' to make the others look better and him look like an idiot? Seems to be working great, then.

And dont please, make me laugh about 'texting winners'. I have NEVER fallen off a turnip truck.

Sorry Smokin' but the man's a disaster and his politics are totally isolationist/anarchist in effect if not in theory.

 

I live in Maryland, so the only Presidential voting opportunity that matters to me is the Democratic Primary; were Bruce Wayne running as the Republican candidate, he couldn't win the state.

 

What about Batman's chances? I would vote for Batman regardless of his party affiliation.

These party-line debates started way too early in the election cycle for me to generate any meaningful interest in their outcomes. That being said, Ron Paul enjoys significant support around the SF Bay Area - and therein, for better or worse, exists a nugget of truth as to why he won't receive the Republican nomination.

 

Paul got beat around senseless last night. I'm glad he's out there putting out an alternative view. The others on the stage are not very distinguishable from the one another as far as positions go. I respect him for getting up there and giving it a go, and I hope he continues to. That said he did not win that debate, he got schooled.

 

I think some clarification is in order.
The ONE thing Paul describes praise for is that his ideas are presented without a view to how the voter will receive them.

This is something that most of the other candidates in either party have a problem with. I was dismayed however that the sample audience blasted Giuliani for constantly referring to New York and his successes, there.

If we want a candidate with a proven record of accomplishment, ESPECIALLY working with a government infrastructure opposed to his basic precepts, rather than just talk*... which is all most of them have to offer... what's wrong with that?! In my opinion, Rudy's problem was in how he said it, not what he said.

* Compare that with Paul.. should he get elected.... what are the chances of ANY of his ideas getting done? Answer: NO CHANCE!

 

The only thing that pisses off a Dem or a liberal more than a Republican actually trying to DO something about a problem, is if they're at any rate successful at it.

Perhaps Don would like to point out that Dinkins was in fact the one who changed New York's image.

And You KNOW you've made a point when they trot out something to do with GAYNESS!

The last bastion of the lefties.... GAYNESS!

 

I would be a strong proponent of a Constitutional Amendment that aportions out Electoral College votes based upon the percentage of votes that candidate received. A few states do this already, but most do the "winner take all."

No more would FL and OH be the key battleground states as Elec College votes could switch over in every state. Most importantly, EVERY vote would count as you would be voting to gain a majority of 1 EC vote, not the entire state.

This would also mean that 3rd parties could gain some ground. Heck, Perot's Reform party would have gotten 20 or so Elec College votes that year.

 

What real difference would that have made, Andy? As it was, he was the difference between GHW Bush or Clinton getting elected.
I'm not really that opposed to the concept, but it really doesnt matter all that much in the end.
If we had Parliamentary Democracy, it would have carried over into congress in which case something might have been done with it.

 

If I was registered to vote in Texas I would have voted for the Jew. And remember the late Ann Richards, a woman and a Democrat!!!

 

Hatter,

That book is really a hit piece on Giuliani. The man is not perfect, but he has lived with a gay couple before. So he can't be that bad. I do hate that he attacked the artists who put elephant dung on Mary (or was it Christ). Shrewd political move on G's part though.

The most important crime number (murder) actually went down during Giuliani's administration. That's the only thing people really care about.

 

The big difference is that currently, in all but about 12 states, your vote doesn't really matter. Your state is blue or red and nothing you can do will change that. With voters in all states able to influence whether an electoral college vote goes one way or the other, we should see a 20+% increase in voter participation, which is, all-in-all, a good thing for democracy.

For the 3rd party thing, at most, we could have a 3rd party be the deciding factor because neither major party has the required number of EC votes. They'll bargain and will get a cabinet office or two out of the deal. As the 3rd party gets stronger, though, you are looking at more comprimise and cooperation by the parties, which I also see as a good thing for democracy.

 

Democrats need to act like Kinky to win. The standard national Democrat party line won't do it.

 

I actually think a Clinton/Obama ticket will be very, very tough to beat, given our current political climate.

As a Conservative Democrat, I am far from thrilled with the possibility, but I haven't seen a GOP candidate step up sufficiently to pull in the Independent/Moderate voters.