|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 17, 2007 3:57:19 GMT -5
I read this earlier on OTL and became very depressed. I can only hope that Ron Paul still gets heard. It certainly can't be a lack of money.
Fine, Kucinich and Gravel don't have a chance. But if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, I honestly don't see this country as having a chance. With all the multiple things happening right now--a looming economic crises, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, relations with China--unless we have someone in a high position who has a plan on how to do things differently than we've been, we're done for.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Nov 17, 2007 4:13:23 GMT -5
Sounds like they are trying to control what is debated. they seem to be afraid to give Paul and fighting chance, because he is saying what most conservs are thinkoing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 17, 2007 4:31:11 GMT -5
More than just conservatives too. A lot of what he says is what most people are thinking. I just hope it translates into eventual votes even if he doesn't make it to all the debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 17, 2007 7:30:24 GMT -5
I think its time to narrow the field - on both sides.
Democrats: HIllary, Edwards, and Obama.
GoP: Thompson, Huckabee, Rudy, Romney - maybe McCain
We are roughly 5 weeks from Iowa - 6 from New Hampshire. These debates are over crowded and
create an environment where the leaders can just sit back and answer a few questions as possible.
I don't know what the fairest way to narrow the field is - but its time to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 17, 2007 13:50:30 GMT -5
I know you're right about the democrats, that's certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 17, 2007 14:23:53 GMT -5
I disagree with this. I think every candidate deserves to be heard. The more choices we have the better. The sad part is most of the candidates out there are really just carbon copies of each other. They all spew the party line with not a lot of variance.
I find it odd (and more than a little sad) that those who DON'T spew the party line: Gravel, Kucinich and, yes, Ron Paul are being continuously silenced. The freakin' media is deciding who we're NOT going to be voting for.....and that's bullshit, imo. Just out of principal, I believe we need to keep all these guys in the spotlight.
|
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 17, 2007 15:06:27 GMT -5
I disagree with this. I think every candidate deserves to be heard. The more choices we have the better. The sad part is most of the candidates out there are really just carbon copies of each other. They all spew the party line with not a lot of variance. I find it odd (and more than a little sad) that those who DON'T spew the party line: Gravel, Kucinich and, yes, Ron Paul are being continuously silenced. The freakin' media is deciding who we're NOT going to be voting for.....and that's bullshit, imo. Just out of principal, I believe we need to keep all these guys in the spotlight. Agreed. The media is deciding for us who we are going to vote for. The worst part is, who owns the media? Oh, that's right, pharmacuticals, oil companies, car manufactures-- the funding television gets (the commercials that pay for the broadcasting) is coming from huge corporate conglomerates. So, lets, for the sake of eliminating redundancies, just refer to the media as "corporate conglomerates." The corporate conglomerates are deciding who we vote for: sounds like a corporatracry to me! |
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 17, 2007 15:10:01 GMT -5
I think its time to narrow the field - on both sides. Democrats: HIllary, Edwards, and Obama. GoP: Thompson, Huckabee, Rudy, Romney - maybe McCain We are roughly 5 weeks from Iowa - 6 from New Hampshire. These debates are over crowded and create an environment where the leaders can just sit back and answer a few questions as possible. I don't know what the fairest way to narrow the field is - but its time to do it. Duly noted. I will agree these debates haven't felt very "real." However, while the democrats have consistently had the same leaders, the leaders of the GOP are constantly fluctuating. Ron Paul just had his best quarter yet for fundraising. So why, if he is improving in the polls and in the numbers, is he all of a sudden getting eliminated? How about we have a compromise somewhere in the middle where if people consistently get only 1% of the votes, they are eliminated for the last debate. But if they are improving, or their fundraising is consistenly improving turn out, don't cut them off! Ron Paul was definitely my favorite person on the right. And his improved turnout made me hopeful. Now I am deeply disappointed. I may write his vote in come election season just to make a point. |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 18, 2007 2:19:04 GMT -5
Well, it's just seeming like he has been omitted from the debates--I don't believe it is affecting his ability to be on the ballot. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Nov 18, 2007 3:52:11 GMT -5
I disagree with this. I think every candidate deserves to be heard. The more choices we have the better. The sad part is most of the candidates out there are really just carbon copies of each other. They all spew the party line with not a lot of variance. I find it odd (and more than a little sad) that those who DON'T spew the party line: Gravel, Kucinich and, yes, Ron Paul are being continuously silenced. The freakin' media is deciding who we're NOT going to be voting for.....and that's bullshit, imo. Just out of principal, I believe we need to keep all these guys in the spotlight. I have to agree. Anytime they eliminate or try to eliminate someone it diminishes the entire process. ALL need to be heard. I also agree that the media is picking your candidates for you. The sad part is that we are letting them doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 18, 2007 4:15:29 GMT -5
But what can we do about it? Media doesn't have OUR interests at heart in any way. Media is doing whatever they can to support whatever they think will eventually make them more money.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 18, 2007 6:47:51 GMT -5
The media shouldn't be limiting the field. The respective parties should - and I suppose poll numbers are the fairest way to do that.
As much as you all like Kucinich - and I have some respect for the guy too - but he's been at 3% for a year and will not be the democratic nominee.
I do concur that we don't want to silence anyone - but these debates are worthless. By the time these guys drop out - after Iowa, New Hampshire and perhaps as late as S. Carolina -
it's too late. The nominees are set without having to answer serious questions.
A lot can still change though - think back - 4 years ago at this time, Howard Dean was sitting on a 20+ point lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 18, 2007 12:32:09 GMT -5
A lot can still change though - think back - 4 years ago at this time, Howard Dean was sitting on a 20+ point lead. That is something I cannot let myself forget---things can change radically in a year.... |
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 18, 2007 20:13:12 GMT -5
If Obama can win Iowa - it might get interesting. I really think its a must win for Obama, or its all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 1:16:31 GMT -5
If Obama doesn't get it, then we're stuck with Hillary Clinton, and, well, that's just plain depressing. If Edwards gets it, he'll lose to a republican because he seems as genuine as a $3 bill--he gives lawyer-safe answers for everything, and his body language tells some of the same stories as Kerry did, which I don't think will translate into votes very well. People look at body language a lot more than people think. When people can't tell anything about what someone is thinking with their body language, it makes someone seem untrustworthy. The same goes when someone's body language shows that they are apathetic to an awful situation.
Obama is a great communicator--whether that will translate into doing a good job at the presidential post, who knows. I like him more than Hillary.
|
|
