CNN/Youtube Republican debate discussion

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's disgusting how much time was given to Romney considering he refused to give an answer to half the question. I haven't seen tap-dancing like that since Fred Astaire. Just answer the damn question, loser. I can see no reason that Romney has any place in the running other than his good looks.

Obviously I'd like to hear more from Paul, but even the other low polling candidates like Hunter and Tancredo have interesting things to say when they're given the opportunity. Instead we get jackasses like Giuliani and Romney getting all the camera time.

Utter bullshit.

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

I guess that's what happens when the debate is more about ratings then it is about ideas. I like how the news networks do everything they can except for actually address the problem.

In this debate, you can see the 3 front runners evade and provide non-answers to questions that YOU provide!!!#!&$!!

I know their response is that these people are polling the highest and so people have the most interest in hearing what they have to say. That's a horrible reason now that I think about it. Even though an election is a popularity contest, a debate isn't. Every person up there should have an equal chance to win the debate, and the way its structured now half the candidates don't even have a chance. How pissed must Tom Tancredo be? Why did he even show up?

 

[Pabster]

Tancredo hasn't been given a fair shake ever, and Hunter doesn't get much play either. It's really a shame as they both have some good points, even if they'll never get the nomination. (Which they won't.)

 

[Fern]

Come on RP people. He got way more time than Tancredo or Hunter. He wasn't even a bookend this time. Clearly, he's getting more time than before etc. My impression was that he got as much as Thompson and McCain.

IMO, too much Rudy & Romney.

If I had any say (like Chairman of the RNC etc), we'd just drop the audience and "you tube" questions. By now it's obvious to me the networks can't help but pollute the thing with plants.

The so-called undecided Repubs were a joke. The first lady to speak said she was gonna vote for John Edwards? WTF??? The second guy didn't know the candidates names? WTH??

Anderson Cooper was really on Romney about his flip flop on gays in the service. I'd guess the Romney campaign is a bit angry.

Huckabee is very smooth, with a lot of wit and charm. Yet he seemed to get only softball questions.

I smell an agenda on CNN's part.

Romney has trouble with responding to his flip flops on abortion & gays etc. You'd think by now he'd address that beter. Yet he still pwnd Rudy at the start.

Thompson was as smooth as broken glass. Looks like he didn't really know what to say..

Mostly I just wish the newtworks would go back to a panel of journalists asking questions, of everyone, and drop the charade of "Joe Public" participation.

Fern

 

[alchemize]

Seems to fit where they are in their pollings. RP will get more time as folks drop out, he has enough cash to stay in the race for a long time.

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Here are our counts for how long each candidate spoke during the first part of the debate
Romney -- 7:03, during 9 times
McCain -- 5:09, during 4 times
Giuliani -- 5:08, during 9 times
Thompson -- 4:38, during 4 times
Huckabee -- 4:14, during 5 times
Paul -- 3:27, during 4 times
Tancredo -- 2:20, during 4 times
Hunter -- 2:16, during 3 times

One note -- Huckabee did not get a chance to speak until 26 minutes into the debate, and Paul did not get his chance until more than a half hour into the debate.

Source

 

[schdaddy]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Looks like this was shot with a cellphone so the audio is muddy...but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8oJAm-06oQ

Incredible speech.
From the context of the speech, to the delivery, to the crowd's reaction.:thumbsup:


edit:
As for the debate:thumbsdown:

With the ease of information in our times THIS is how we meet and decided upon our next president - what a joke.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: schdaddy

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Looks like this was shot with a cellphone so the audio is muddy...but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8oJAm-06oQ

Incredible speech.
From the context of the speech, to the delivery, to the crowd's reaction.:thumbsup:

The entire speech was great, but I thought 17:00-18:10 was priceless

 

[AAjax]

a better copy (though the sound still is so so)

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: daveymark
lol they played the clip of mccain owning ron paul, and then ron paul getting booed multiple times as a result

Paul has been booed and laughed at every debate I've seen...which I believe is all of them thus far.

Can you really be surprised, given his positions?

McCain was booed more than Paul when he attacked him, so I don't know where you are getting the idea he "owned" him. Ghouliani was booed a lot as well, and even Romney was booed more than Paul.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: daveymark
lol they played the clip of mccain owning ron paul, and then ron paul getting booed multiple times as a result

Paul has been booed and laughed at every debate I've seen...which I believe is all of them thus far.

Can you really be surprised, given his positions?

McCain was booed more than Paul when he attacked him, so I don't know where you are getting the idea he "owned" him. Ghouliani was booed a lot as well, and even Romney was booed more than Paul.

It's a mixed reaction...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkbiVamzv8

But McCain is dead wrong here. There's a HUGE difference between Saddam and Hitler. Going into the war, Saddam's military had been all but destroyed, and he was no longer a threat to anyone, much less the US.

I wish Paul had more than 30 seconds to answer such a question, and been able to give a better response.

 

[Capitalizt]

What RP should have said to Mccain:


"No Senator, Isolationism did not cause WW2. If you insist on using Hitler in an analogy, the proper analogy is that Hitler and the Neocons have followed the same doctrine, "pre-emptive, preventative, aggressive war". As I recall, the pretext for Hitler's invasion of Poland was that Poland was a threat and had aggressed against Germany. Sound familiar?"

"Senator, if you are going to use history in a debate it helps if you have actually studied it."

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: daveymark
lol they played the clip of mccain owning ron paul, and then ron paul getting booed multiple times as a result

Paul has been booed and laughed at every debate I've seen...which I believe is all of them thus far.

Can you really be surprised, given his positions?

McCain was booed more than Paul when he attacked him, so I don't know where you are getting the idea he "owned" him. Ghouliani was booed a lot as well, and even Romney was booed more than Paul.

It's a mixed reaction...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkbiVamzv8

But McCain is dead wrong here. There's a HUGE difference between Saddam and Hitler. Going into the war, Saddam's military had been all but destroyed, and he was no longer a threat to anyone, much less the US.

I wish Paul had more than 30 seconds to answer such a question, and been able to give a better response.

Isn't it just amazing? The guy had no navy or airforce and couldn't even shoot down our planes yet they still talk about how dangerous he was. The really amazing thing is that people still buy it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just wondering how many Hitlers we have running around the world these days. From the dawn of time up until April of 1945 we only had one. Seems like lately though Hitlers are crawling out of the woodwork. Saddam is the next Hitler, Milosevic was the next Hitler, Chavez is the next Hitler, etc... etc.

Just saying that for all his white supremacist rhetoric, apparently Hitler really got around to sire so many replacements.