It was obvious that they were deliberately trying to avoid letting Paul speak, because they let participate just enough that they couldn’t be accused of sensoring him. Of coures, when he finally did get his 30 seconds, he blew everbody away.
Otherwise it was the single most shallow and pointless debate we’ve seen yet.
He should not be included at all. He has not come close to winning a primary. Rudy got 5 times the votes Paul got in the biggest state thus far and Rudy bowed out because he knows he has no chance.
I am convinced Paul is doing this to raise money and feed his ego. He knows he has no chance and he has presented his positions in such an extreme manner that they are easily dismissed.
He had an opportunity to actually pull the Republican party back to where it should be instead he spent his efforts appealing to the lunatic fringe with his blame America rants and his gold standard nonsense. He sure has raised a lot of money from a small group of people. Kind of the opposite of democracy.
It is past time for him to go away.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He sure has raised a lot of money from a small group of people. [/quote]
Honest question: What other candidates got more individual donations than Paul? And what were the figures.
I am assuming that your “small group of people” doesn’t refer to lobbies and corporations. Am I right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He sure has raised a lot of money from a small group of people.
Honest question: What other candidates got more individual donations than Paul? And what were the figures.
I am assuming that your “small group of people” doesn’t refer to lobbies and corporations. Am I right?[/quote]
I am referring to the small group of individuals that have donated money to the guy as well as the corporations (businessmen) that have. He has not built his war chest with only $ 100 donations.
He has not attracted very many voters and he has even fewer people that donate to him.
No one is giving Rudy money and he still has 5 times the votes of Paul in Florida. I consider that very telling that the American people don’t want Paul. It is only a small group of people. It doesn’t matter how much they give. It matters that no one else wants him. This is a democracy. The presidency should not be bought by a large corporation or a small group of individuals. We vote on it. Paul is not getting the votes. We don’t want him. Time to go away.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He sure has raised a lot of money from a small group of people.
Honest question: What other candidates got more individual donations than Paul? And what were the figures.
I am assuming that your “small group of people” doesn’t refer to lobbies and corporations. Am I right?
I am referring to the small group of individuals that have donated money to the guy as well as the corporations (businessmen) that have. He has not built his war chest with only $ 100 donations.
He has not attracted very many voters and he has even fewer people that donate to him.
No one is giving Rudy money and he still has 5 times the votes of Paul in Florida. I consider that very telling that the American people don’t want Paul. It is only a small group of people. It doesn’t matter how much they give. It matters that no one else wants him. This is a democracy. The presidency should not be bought by a large corporation or a small group of individuals. We vote on it. Paul is not getting the votes. We don’t want him. Time to go away.[/quote]
You didn’t really answer the question, now did you?
Since you aren’t willing to compare individual donations of candidates in general (let alone Republicans), I’ll ask you what particular corporate lobby has given money to the Paul campaign? Somehow, I doubt he got a penny from Lockheed-Martin…
Why would corporations give money to Paul?
He doesn’t take PAC money nor does he take money from businesses or special interest groups. He has stated numerous times he only takes individual donations. BTW, the average is less than $50. He has more than 200K individual contributions from original sources.
I personally don’t give a flying shit where Ron Paul gets his money from at this point – I just want him to go away and stop muddling up, and taking up precious time in, the debates when he has ZERO chance of winning anything whatsoever. We’re trying to decide who our next president will be here, and he is not a viable possibility, so his ego should no longer be massaged by allowing him to be onstage there.
In the very early debates, ok, MAYBE one could make an argument for why the more fringe candidates should be included so as to try to treat everyone fairly (though I would personally prefer that those with no shot still be excluded, as having 7 people onstage and giving them all equal time means they each get to speak for a grand total of about 15 seconds, so the whole fucking thing is completely useless).
The Republican nominee will be either Romney or McCain. MAYBE one could argue that Huckabee has half a snowball’s chance in Hell, so MAYBE he can stick around for one more debate, but ideally not.
And on the Democratic side the nominee will be either Obama or Clinton.
THAT’S IT. That’s all that’s relevant. We want to hear ONLY from those 4 in the their respective debates, because NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I personally don’t give a flying shit where Ron Paul gets his money from at this point – I just want him to go away and stop muddling up, and taking up precious time in, the debates when he has ZERO chance of winning anything whatsoever. We’re trying to decide who our next president will be here, and he is not a viable possibility, so his ego should no longer be massaged by allowing him to be onstage there.
In the very early debates, ok, MAYBE one could make an argument for why the more fringe candidates should be included so as to try to treat everyone fairly (though I would personally prefer that those with no shot still be excluded, as having 7 people onstage and giving them all equal time means they each get to speak for a grand total of about 15 seconds, so the whole fucking thing is completely useless).
The Republican nominee will be either Romney or McCain. MAYBE one could argue that Huckabee has half a snowball’s chance in Hell, so MAYBE he can stick around for one more debate, but ideally not.
And on the Democratic side the nominee will be either Obama or Clinton.
THAT’S IT. That’s all that’s relevant. We want to hear ONLY from those 4 in the their respective debates, because NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.
[/quote]
If Paul was given a fair amount of coverage this might be a different story. He’s the only one you SHOULD be listening to and the only one saying anything.
If you vote for any of the other jokers you’re voting for the same thing with a different name.
You should just vote for whomever CNN or FOX tells you to since they control the elections anyway.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He sure has raised a lot of money from a small group of people.
Honest question: What other candidates got more individual donations than Paul? And what were the figures.
I am assuming that your “small group of people” doesn’t refer to lobbies and corporations. Am I right?
I am referring to the small group of individuals that have donated money to the guy as well as the corporations (businessmen) that have. He has not built his war chest with only $ 100 donations.
He has not attracted very many voters and he has even fewer people that donate to him.
No one is giving Rudy money and he still has 5 times the votes of Paul in Florida. I consider that very telling that the American people don’t want Paul. It is only a small group of people. It doesn’t matter how much they give. It matters that no one else wants him. This is a democracy. The presidency should not be bought by a large corporation or a small group of individuals. We vote on it. Paul is not getting the votes. We don’t want him. Time to go away.
You didn’t really answer the question, now did you?
Since you aren’t willing to compare individual donations of candidates in general (let alone Republicans), I’ll ask you what particular corporate lobby has given money to the Paul campaign? Somehow, I doubt he got a penny from Lockheed-Martin…[/quote]
I am not sure why you guys think he should be a relevant candidate based on donations instead of votes. You seem to be cherry picking this issue. Quite funny.
He can’t come close to winning a primary. The American people have spoken. We do not want Ron Paul!!!
a.) He’s been given FAR MORE than a “fair” amount of coverage, seeing that he’s someone who never had a ghost of a chance of winning anything. He was given LOTS of speaking time in most of the earlier debates, and to give him even two milliseconds of speaking time at this point is just wasting what is valuable debating time that should be spent on the relevant candidates only. Ron Paul has no more chance of becoming president than Rowdy Roddy Piper, yet he’s been heavily covered by all the major news media and included in all the Republican presidential debates. It’s unfair to US, the viewers, that we’ve had to have our time wasted by that inclusion when we’re trying to decide on a freaking’ president here.
b.) Don’t you presume to tell me to whom I “should” be listening, thank you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Damici wrote:
I personally don’t give a flying shit where Ron Paul gets his money from at this point – I just want him to go away and stop muddling up, and taking up precious time in, the debates when he has ZERO chance of winning anything whatsoever. We’re trying to decide who our next president will be here, and he is not a viable possibility, so his ego should no longer be massaged by allowing him to be onstage there.
In the very early debates, ok, MAYBE one could make an argument for why the more fringe candidates should be included so as to try to treat everyone fairly (though I would personally prefer that those with no shot still be excluded, as having 7 people onstage and giving them all equal time means they each get to speak for a grand total of about 15 seconds, so the whole fucking thing is completely useless).
The Republican nominee will be either Romney or McCain. MAYBE one could argue that Huckabee has half a snowball’s chance in Hell, so MAYBE he can stick around for one more debate, but ideally not.
And on the Democratic side the nominee will be either Obama or Clinton.
THAT’S IT. That’s all that’s relevant. We want to hear ONLY from those 4 in the their respective debates, because NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.
If Paul was given a fair amount of coverage this might be a different story. He’s the only one you SHOULD be listening to and the only one saying anything.
If you vote for any of the other jokers you’re voting for the same thing with a different name.
You should just vote for whomever CNN or FOX tells you to since they control the elections anyway.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not sure why you guys think he should be a relevant candidate based on donations instead of votes. You seem to be cherry picking this issue. Quite funny.
He can’t come close to winning a primary. The American people have spoken. We do not want Ron Paul!!![/quote]
Hey, you’re the one who brought up money in the first place. I challenged a particular claim in your post. You are yet to respond to it in any direct manner.
I didn’t say that “he should be a relevant candidate based on donations”. I challenged the idea that Paul “raised a lot of money from a small group of people”. You tried to portray him as somebody who gets the bulk of his money from fat cats which isn’t entirely true.
What’s more, you dare to call it “cherry picking”.
[quote]Damici wrote:
a.) He’s been given FAR MORE than a “fair” amount of coverage, seeing that he’s someone who never had a ghost of a chance of winning anything. He was given LOTS of speaking time in most of the earlier debate, and to give him even two milliseconds of speaking time at this point is just wasting what is valuable debating time that should be spent on the relevant candidates only. Ron Paul has no more chance of becoming president than Rowdy Roddy Piper, yet he’s been heavily covered by all the major news media and included in all the Republican presidential debates. It’s unfair to US, the viewers, that we’ve had to have our time wasted by that inclusion when we’re trying to decide on a freaking’ president here.
b.) Don’t you presume to tell me to whom I “should” be listening, thank you.
[/quote]
While I will concede that the defintion of fair amount of time is up for debate. If you think that Paul has received equal coverage in the media you are completely out of touch.
Oh and your point b is hilarious. “Don’t you presume to tell me to whom I “should” be listening, thank you.” Even though that is exactly what you did in your post. Hippocrates?
I didn’t say Ron Paul had received an amount of coverage equal to that of Romney, McCain, etc. I said that (1.) he was given just as much speaking time as the others in the earlier debates and (2.) he was given far, far, FAR more media coverage than Rowdy Roddy Piper, who is the most appropriate comparison in his case, as Roddy has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as Ron Paul does. He is not as relevant as, and therefore does not warrant as much coverage as, McCain, Romney, Clinton and Obama.
I would never presume to tell you, or anyone, to whom they should and should not LISTEN. You can listen to Ron Paul all day every day on C-Span, his website, the regular news channels that show clips of his speeches, the political talk shows like Meet the Press that have him on, etc. Listen away! BUT the debate organizers should not include him in the presidential debates, as he has no more right to be there than . . . Rowdy Roddy Piper. If they include Roddy, THEN, ok, maybe they can include Ron.
But not until then. 
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Damici wrote:
a.) He’s been given FAR MORE than a “fair” amount of coverage, seeing that he’s someone who never had a ghost of a chance of winning anything. He was given LOTS of speaking time in most of the earlier debate, and to give him even two milliseconds of speaking time at this point is just wasting what is valuable debating time that should be spent on the relevant candidates only. Ron Paul has no more chance of becoming president than Rowdy Roddy Piper, yet he’s been heavily covered by all the major news media and included in all the Republican presidential debates. It’s unfair to US, the viewers, that we’ve had to have our time wasted by that inclusion when we’re trying to decide on a freaking’ president here.
b.) Don’t you presume to tell me to whom I “should” be listening, thank you.
While I will concede that the defintion of fair amount of time is up for debate. If you think that Paul has received equal coverage in the media you are completely out of touch.
Oh and your point b is hilarious. “Don’t you presume to tell me to whom I “should” be listening, thank you.” Even though that is exactly what you did in your post. Hippocrates?
[/quote]
Yeah, Ron Paul needs to go! We only want them big spending, big mandating, pro war Republicans around these here parts.
Rowdy Roddy Piper was the man, but he’s gotten a bit of a belly in his old age (he just made a special guest appearance at the Royal Rumble, along with Superfly Snuka) - but he did get his 5 minutes of airtime along with the other minor contestants who were not going to win the Royal Rumble.
Same with Ron Paul - he actually got more coverage than the other candidates in the race who didn’t have a chance in hell of winning the nomination. He got more coverage than Tancredo, more than Duncan Hunter, more than Bill Richardson, more than Dennis Kucinich. His problem wasn’t that he didn’t get the coverage his candidacy warranted - his problem was that he had no chance of winning for a few reasons, among which were, in no particular order: supporters who annoyed everyone else and looked crazy while doing so; goldbuggery; and advocating large-scale changes that scare grandma and grandpa.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why would corporations give money to Paul?
[/quote]
So he will legalize prostitution or they can pollute more or any number of reasons.
[quote]
He doesn’t take PAC money nor does he take money from businesses or special interest groups. He has stated numerous times he only takes individual donations. BTW, the average is less than $50. He has more than 200K individual contributions from original sources.[/quote]
His forums are full of discussion on how to get around the $ 2,300 donation limit.
You seem to think democracy means electing people with the loudest supporters and people with the most money.
I think it is about electing the president based on how the people in the states vote for him (or her).
The people have risen up. They have voted against Ron Paul, his loud mouth supporters and his money making machine.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not sure why you guys think he should be a relevant candidate based on donations instead of votes. You seem to be cherry picking this issue. Quite funny.
He can’t come close to winning a primary. The American people have spoken. We do not want Ron Paul!!!
Hey, you’re the one who brought up money in the first place. I challenged a particular claim in your post. You are yet to respond to it in any direct manner.
I didn’t say that “he should be a relevant candidate based on donations”. I challenged the idea that Paul “raised a lot of money from a small group of people”. You tried to portray him as somebody who gets the bulk of his money from fat cats which isn’t entirely true.
What’s more, you dare to call it “cherry picking”.[/quote]
He has a small group of supporters. The voting proves that. The fact that his forum is full of people trying to donate more that the allowable amount and showing how they donate oithers names proves that.
Goldbuggery?!
How awesome would it be to have a dollar that was actually worth something that didn’t lose its value but actually became worth more? How awesome would it be to keep government from spending into oblivion?
What you call goldbuggery I call common sense. There is a reason why real commodities were used for exchange – because people actually want them, because their value is stable, because its quantity is fixed and thus its value cannot be deflated, because there could actually be market competition.
The centralized banking cartel called the Federal Reserve has destroyed our money and yet no one cares because they think its necessary to maintain the economy. Isn’t a stable currency is more important?
How much money a candidate raised is an indicia of support, but it’s only important as a proxy for votes ahead of actual votes. Once the votes come down you don’t need proxies anymore.
In Paul’s case, his supporters were looking to game a lot of the early proxies for voting support - straw polls, online polls,etc - why would one suppose they weren’t trying to do the same with money, particularly when, as Zap indicated, it appears that they were doing so…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Goldbuggery?!
How awesome would it be to have a dollar that was actually worth something that didn’t lose its value but actually became worth more? How awesome would it be to keep government from spending into oblivion?
What you call goldbuggery I call common sense. There is a reason why real commodities were used for exchange – because people actually want them, because their value is stable, because its quantity is fixed and thus its value cannot be deflated, because there could actually be market competition.
The centralized banking cartel called the Federal Reserve has destroyed our money and yet no one cares because they think its necessary to maintain the economy. Isn’t a stable currency is more important?[/quote]
Robert Novak had an article in which he quotes Ronald Reagan talking positively about the Gold Standard. I was unaware of Reagan’s stance on this until just recently.