Ok, I'm voting for Ron Paul, you got me!

[Hugo Chavez]

I think I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone other than Ron Paul, he seems so clearly the only worthy candidate in a field of scum, liars or just flat out uninspiring candidates... I'm going to have to be highly impressed by someone else to change my mind.  I just hope he goes Independent.

That is all

[Eyeball Chambers]

Did you notice he was the only candidate to walk out into the audience at the end?

 

[240 is Back]

ya know... in my jaded, frustrated moments i believe the globalists will inevitably win... and I giv eup hope.

but yeah, how can one NOT vote for Paul?  He's honest.  He's about not interfering with the rights of other nations.  Everything he says just makes sense.  

[240 is Back]

Did you notice he was the only candidate to walk out into the audience at the end?

 

he was interviewed by my local news who had a crew there haha!

He's a chirpy, silly little guy.  ROmney and Rudy looked like dueling douchebags tonight.

[Eyeball Chambers]

ROmney and Rudy looked like dueling douchebags tonight.

Yep, it was sickening. 

I would vote for Bush over Rudy.

[240 is Back]

yeah, i think both their stock dropped.  CNN let Mitt and Rudy just act like middle school drama queens, accusing each other, acting offended, and above all...

not acting presidential.


Even thompson was more dignified than these 2 men tonight.

[Hugo Chavez]

check this out, the scorecard, Ron Paul wins on all but 1.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate.112807/results.html

[Eyeball Chambers]

Ron Paul wins on all but 1.

HAHA

[Straw Man]

ron paul is entertaining and important to listen to but he will not win the nomination and if he runs as an independent he will, more than anything, be a spoiler for the republican candidate

[benchmstr]

plus he lives in my hometown

bench

[MB_722]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16685996

something interesting to read

...
Carlson calls Paul the most genuine, unpretentious candidate he has ever covered. Carlson says he's also the most radical candidate in a long time. "Ron Paul really doesn't think the government should be in charge of your life in any way," he says. "He thinks every person ought to be free from government surveillance."

By extension, the writer continues, that means Paul thinks there should be no "government-sponsored safety net" — a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. "I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul's side," Carlson says.

Many people won't be able to agree with a no government safety net.

Here is another reason he should run as an independent.

taken from, http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/7bec946b-bc0e-4a5f-a73f-5eef4f7913dd

Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.

[Straw Man]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate.112807/

CNN debate scorecard has Ron Paul winning almost every category

I was out of sync with the majority on 6 out of 7 questions

the seventh question was something about who had the best campaign video and I picked RP for that one

[gcb]

I'm not conservative and even I would vote for him, but alas I live in the wrong country.

[Hugo Chavez]

ron paul is entertaining and important to listen to but he will not win the nomination and if he runs as an independent he will, more than anything, be a spoiler for the republican candidate

This might not actually be the case.  I listen to a lot of progressive/liberal radio shows and quite a few on the left are calling in about Ron Paul, sometimes with the host trying to talk them out of it, but still giving Ron props.  On more middle of the road shows they like him even more.  This is why I think he stands a chance to grab a big part of the vote as an independent.  With the disguntlement rate of both parties being at an all time high, Ron Paul would be a whirlwind Independent candidate.  Here's a guy that's grabbing people with what he's saying across the board.

Now just listen to the way he's treated on a progressive/liberal radio show:
With Praise!!!
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulEdSchultzShowinterview2.mp3

This is why he stands a good chance, people from all walks like him...

[Straw Man]

This might not actually be the case.  I listen to a lot of progressive/liberal radio shows and quite a few on the left are calling in about Ron Paul, sometimes with the host trying to talk them out of it, but still giving Ron props.  On more middle of the road shows they like him even more.  This is why I think he stands a chance to grab a big part of the vote as an independent.  With the disguntlement rate of both parties being at an all time high, Ron Paul would be a whirlwind Independent candidate.  Here's a guy that's grabbing people with what he's saying across the board.

Now just listen to the way he's treated on a progressive/liberal radio show:
With Praise!!!
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulEdSchultzShowinterview2.mp3

This is why he stands a good chance, people from all walks like him...

he definitely won't get the republican nomination

whether he runs as an independent is another question

personally I don't think he will do it although I wouldn't mind seeing it and he's one of only two Republicans I would vote for if he were up against Hilary

[JBGRAY]

These little "you have 30 seconds" statements are not debates.  What you see on CNN are not debates.  What you see are a group of presidential hopefuls vying over a war of words, whoever can make the most profound(or outrageous) statements so the media can run with it.  30 seconds is not nearly enough to give a satisfying answer to any of these questions, but the short-sightedness of the stupid US audience just soaks it up and actually calls it a debate. 

A real debate would force people to actually pay attention, break out their notes, take comparative analysis, and would probably last the entire day and then some.  CNN, FOX, MSNBC and their ilk are not news.  They are entertainment and only good for traffic reports and sports scores.  They do not want to feature a real debate as it would obviously cut into their other programming and wouldn't draw the viewership it wants.  Profit driven news is not news and should not be taken seriously by any intelligent person.

What we saw last night, again, was not a debate....and the CNN analysis that you posted was one of the more ridiculous and stupid things I've seen.  I mean, c'mon..the one Democratic Strategist had McCain winning this thing because "he looked like an adult."  WTF?

[Straw Man]

I agree with you that this was no debate so the first question on the CNN poll about who won was pointless.  The only "value" of the CNN poll, if any, is that it shows the strength of the RP supporters, although I suspect that they skew much younger than supporters of the other candidtates, more computer savvy etc..   

[240 is Back]

I agree with you that this was no debate so the first question on the CNN poll about who won was pointless.  The only "value" of the CNN poll, if any, is that it shows the strength of the RP supporters, although I suspect that they skew much younger than supporters of the other candidtates, more computer savvy etc..   

Let's say you know 50 people who are between the ages of 20 and 30.
Let's say you know 50 people who are between the ages of 50 and 60.

I'd wager a LOT more folks from age 50 to 60 were watching the debate than those between 20 and 30 (family, partying, work, primetime BS tv, etc taking precedence).

The fact that Ron Paul wins most of these means that a lot of older folks like him too.  They're the ones watching.  Gonna be really interesting if/when RP scores well in Iowa. A lot of voters from both parties would love to put him into office instead of settling for rudy or hilary.

[Straw Man]

Let's say you know 50 people who are between the ages of 20 and 30.
Let's say you know 50 people who are between the ages of 50 and 60.

I'd wager a LOT more folks from age 50 to 60 were watching the debate than those between 20 and 30 (family, partying, work, primetime BS tv, etc taking precedence).

The fact that Ron Paul wins most of these means that a lot of older folks like him too.  They're the ones watching.  Gonna be really interesting if/when RP scores well in Iowa. A lot of voters from both parties would love to put him into office instead of settling for rudy or hilary.

I don't know the demographic of the viewers but I would guess that after the debate most of those btw 50-60 did not go to the internet and take the CNN poll where as (again with no actual evidence) I would guess that a larger percentage of the 20/30 yr old did go to the internet, maybe opined on a message board or two and perhaps took the CNN poll.

[Deicide]

He's my man! Warms my Libertarian(America)/Liberal(Europe) heart!

[Dos Equis]

These little "you have 30 seconds" statements are not debates.  What you see on CNN are not debates.  What you see are a group of presidential hopefuls vying over a war of words, whoever can make the most profound(or outrageous) statements so the media can run with it.  30 seconds is not nearly enough to give a satisfying answer to any of these questions, but the short-sightedness of the stupid US audience just soaks it up and actually calls it a debate. 

A real debate would force people to actually pay attention, break out their notes, take comparative analysis, and would probably last the entire day and then some.  CNN, FOX, MSNBC and their ilk are not news.  They are entertainment and only good for traffic reports and sports scores.  They do not want to feature a real debate as it would obviously cut into their other programming and wouldn't draw the viewership it wants.  Profit driven news is not news and should not be taken seriously by any intelligent person.

What we saw last night, again, was not a debate....and the CNN analysis that you posted was one of the more ridiculous and stupid things I've seen.  I mean, c'mon..the one Democratic Strategist had McCain winning this thing because "he looked like an adult."  WTF?

I pretty much agree.  On the other hand, is it really practical to do these any other way?  Too many candidates.  It would be three hours long and nobody would watch. 

[MB_722]

I pretty much agree.  On the other hand, is it really practical to do these any other way?  Too many candidates.  It would be three hours long and nobody would watch. 

thats pretty sad actually. Even if it is boring. Candidates, viewers and broadcasters shouldn't even be thinking about entertainment. Maybe that is just the mentality and how peoples minds have been shaped. To avoid looking or talking about the problems and hoping someone or something along the way will come to solve these problems. These candidates should be scrutinized till the nth degree. This man is going to be leading america, after bush you would think there would be more interest and participation on the voters part. I think people would appreciate thorough answers than what they are getting. It's insulting.

[Dos Equis]

thats pretty sad actually. Even if it is boring. Candidates, viewers and broadcasters shouldn't even be thinking about entertainment. Maybe that is just the mentality and how peoples minds have been shaped. To avoid looking or talking about the problems and hoping someone or something along the way will come to solve these problems. These candidates should be scrutinized till the nth degree. This man is going to be leading america, after bush you would think there would be more interest and participation on the voters part. I think people would appreciate thorough answers than what they are getting. It's insulting.

It is sad, but that's how we have conditioned ourselves.  TV is all about sound bites.  Just look at how long shows switch scenes. 

It gets better in the general when you only have two candidates, but I'd like to see more interaction between the candidates too. 

[Hugo Chavez]

bump from 2007