Ron Paul, does he stand a chance? - Page 100

darksensei · 01-17-2008, 02:04 PM

Certainly no media bias going on...
Breaking Politics News, Headlines, Stories and Video - CBSNews.com

Check out the right side of the page, it has him as dropped out. Unbelievable.

Sunder · 01-17-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksensei

Certainly no media bias going on...
Breaking Politics News, Headlines, Stories and Video - CBSNews.com

Check out the right side of the page, it has him as dropped out. Unbelievable.

It also shows Kucinich as dropped out, and he hasn't either. CBS News at it's finest ladies and gentlemen.

This is why I usually just stick with CNN. At least they don't throw people out of the race on a whim.
Politics - News, Opinion and Analysis from CNN.com

GrobbeeTrull2.0 · 01-17-2008, 02:53 PM

An asterik is not a square block - I had to look close, but they aren't showing them as dropped out.

Sunder · 01-17-2008, 02:57 PM

Good catch. It's still confusing as hell tho. CNN's is much easier to read at a glance.

Jabberwhacky · 01-17-2008, 03:18 PM

I still don't understand why Fred Thompson is getting more mention than Ron Paul. Paul has come out ahead of him in every vote I've seen and yet the talk is always Romney/Huckabee/Giulianni lead with Thompson in the back!

In one of my crazier moments, I had this crazy notion that they were using Thompson to sabotage Paul. For instance, in one of those gay worthless "Guy on Fox News has a focus group of 30 people in a room watching the debate," he did that shit where he says "How many of you came in here supporting Thompson" to which 3 people raise their hand, and then "How many thought he won the debate" to which EVERYONE raised their hand. Follow this by a lot of yammering, and then "Who thinks Ron Paul lost the debate?" to which EVERYONE raised their hand, and no more talking was done.

The paranoia is that they can use Thompson as a sheep to try to give their "focus groups" legitimacy by giving unexpected results while simultaneously using that "legitimacy" to take a swing at Ron Paul. In other words, they'll raise up Thompson, knowing he has no chance at winning, but using that little leverage to take out Paul, leaving us with the "real" choices of R/H/G. Crazy, right?

The Walking Gentleman · 01-17-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

I still don't understand why Fred Thompson is getting more mention than Ron Paul. Paul has come out ahead of him in every vote I've seen and yet the talk is always Romney/Huckabee/Giulianni lead with Thompson in the back!

He was in Law and Order, so I think more people recognize him.

I'm not surprised people thought he "won" if he's continuing his campaign of "sweet burns" rather than talking ideas. Winning is more a function of beating the other guy than being right.

Zhaun's_Shade · 01-17-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

I still don't understand why Fred Thompson is getting more mention than Ron Paul. Paul has come out ahead of him in every vote I've seen and yet the talk is always Romney/Huckabee/Giulianni lead with Thompson in the back!

Interesting, because most of the numbers I see place Thompson ahead of Paul, even if Thompson is still a good ways behind Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain.

Jabberwhacky · 01-17-2008, 04:07 PM

Hmm, I guess I had selective memory. However, according to the wiki, Paul has come out ahead of Thompson in the latest 2 primaries and lost the first 2. Wyoming seems strange; Huckabee, Giulianni, Paul and McCain all got 0 votes? Hunter got 8%?

Zhaun's_Shade · 01-17-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

Hmm, I guess I had selective memory. However, according to the wiki, Paul has come out ahead of Thompson in the latest 2 primaries and lost the first 2. Wyoming seems strange; Huckabee, Giulianni, Paul and McCain all got 0 votes? Hunter got 8%?

Wyoming is wierd, I have no idea how those numbers came out like that.

Anyways, right now Thompson has 6 Delegates to Paul's 2 (Guiliani has 1). Thompson hovers around 10% in the polls, to Paul's 5%. It still early yet though.

Sharmai · 01-17-2008, 05:45 PM

IMO the reason the media is dumbing down everything Ron Paul so much is he repersents a large chuck of republicans which want out of this war and change. These are the same republicans who don't want to vote democrat but sure as hell don't want this war to continue. Given the current atmosphere of the US there are a large amount of people who if given audience to Ron Paul would vote for him. (Espically among the white population thought not limited to....)

This is a HUGE problem for republicans since any splitting of the base is just another huge problem for them if they are to have any chance at the white house.

Soriak · 01-18-2008, 01:22 AM

I just saw McCain on CNN's 360, he copied Paul's "let's not print more money" pretty much verbatim

Though it's a little sad how many Republican candidates think tax cuts will provide the needed short term stimulus... (or how McCain said that government spending should be cut - that in the lead up to a recession)

farlin · 01-18-2008, 02:23 AM

my theory is war and conflict = ratings for media, why would the media hype a guy who would try and end those?

Arbitrary · 01-18-2008, 02:49 AM

Cutting waste would be fine, but slashing the budget on an economic downturn is a shitty idea.

Tolanin · 01-18-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soriak

I just saw McCain on CNN's 360, he copied Paul's "let's not print more money" pretty much verbatim

Though it's a little sad how many Republican candidates think tax cuts will provide the needed short term stimulus... (or how McCain said that government spending should be cut - that in the lead up to a recession)

It sorta depends on what spending he was gonna cut, either way this economy is likely either to be in a recession with policies already in place or have avoided the near term recession by the time any of these guys take office.

Presidents economic powers are so extremely limited anyway tax cuts on the rich is prolly their biggest way to boost the economy as much as everyone hates that.

Soriak · 01-19-2008, 12:12 AM

Best way to boost short term spending is to give money to low-income people, or to increase first year write-offs for companies. The first will be branded as just more welfare, the latter is either corporate welfare or takes more than a sound-byte to explain - hence neither is likely to happen.

But ultimately, who doesn't want to give money to voters in an election year? I guess we'll see tax rebates just for political reasons, despite the lack of immediate effect they have.

If there is a recession, the next President will be right in the middle of it. One can only hope (s)he has capable economic advisers and listens to them...

01-17-2008, 02:57 PM	#1489 (permalink)
Sunder Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,761	Good catch. It's still confusing as hell tho. CNN's is much easier to read at a glance. __________________ "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." --Mark Twain

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

01-17-2008, 02:04 PM	#1486 (permalink)
darksensei Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,063	Certainly no media bias going on... Breaking Politics News, Headlines, Stories and Video - CBSNews.com Check out the right side of the page, it has him as dropped out. Unbelievable.

01-17-2008, 02:53 PM	#1488 (permalink)
GrobbeeTrull2.0 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 4,172	An asterik is not a square block - I had to look close, but they aren't showing them as dropped out.

01-17-2008, 03:18 PM	#1490 (permalink)
Jabberwhacky Walker told me I have AIDS Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Busan Posts: 3,333	I still don't understand why Fred Thompson is getting more mention than Ron Paul. Paul has come out ahead of him in every vote I've seen and yet the talk is always Romney/Huckabee/Giulianni lead with Thompson in the back! In one of my crazier moments, I had this crazy notion that they were using Thompson to sabotage Paul. For instance, in one of those gay worthless "Guy on Fox News has a focus group of 30 people in a room watching the debate," he did that shit where he says "How many of you came in here supporting Thompson" to which 3 people raise their hand, and then "How many thought he won the debate" to which EVERYONE raised their hand. Follow this by a lot of yammering, and then "Who thinks Ron Paul lost the debate?" to which EVERYONE raised their hand, and no more talking was done. The paranoia is that they can use Thompson as a sheep to try to give their "focus groups" legitimacy by giving unexpected results while simultaneously using that "legitimacy" to take a swing at Ron Paul. In other words, they'll raise up Thompson, knowing he has no chance at winning, but using that little leverage to take out Paul, leaving us with the "real" choices of R/H/G. Crazy, right?

01-17-2008, 04:07 PM	#1493 (permalink)
Jabberwhacky Walker told me I have AIDS Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Busan Posts: 3,333	Hmm, I guess I had selective memory. However, according to the wiki, Paul has come out ahead of Thompson in the latest 2 primaries and lost the first 2. Wyoming seems strange; Huckabee, Giulianni, Paul and McCain all got 0 votes? Hunter got 8%?

01-18-2008, 01:22 AM	#1496 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 5,830 +54 Internets	I just saw McCain on CNN's 360, he copied Paul's "let's not print more money" pretty much verbatim Though it's a little sad how many Republican candidates think tax cuts will provide the needed short term stimulus... (or how McCain said that government spending should be cut - that in the lead up to a recession)

01-18-2008, 02:23 AM	#1497 (permalink)
farlin Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 270	my theory is war and conflict = ratings for media, why would the media hype a guy who would try and end those?

01-19-2008, 12:12 AM	#1500 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 5,830 +54 Internets	Best way to boost short term spending is to give money to low-income people, or to increase first year write-offs for companies. The first will be branded as just more welfare, the latter is either corporate welfare or takes more than a sound-byte to explain - hence neither is likely to happen. But ultimately, who doesn't want to give money to voters in an election year? I guess we'll see tax rebates just for political reasons, despite the lack of immediate effect they have. If there is a recession, the next President will be right in the middle of it. One can only hope (s)he has capable economic advisers and listens to them...