Romney Wins

Quote from Maverick74: Do this for me. Call up all your friends and family and asked them how many of them watched the debate. Nobody I know watched it, and i live in Chicago, a pretty politically active town. The ratings for these things are atrocious!!!! Look it up, I'm dead serious. You are definitely in the minority.
More...

Are you asking me to prove your point for you?

Quote from Maverick74: The debate was fair. A fair debate is not asking every candidate the same questions over and over again. Who would want to watch that. Debates are suppose to be lively and dynamic. I don't want to hear Gary Johnson speak. I like Gary. Love Gary. But I know where he stands on every issue. Now, let's say Gary said something this week in the news that was controversial. Then I would want to hear the moderators ask him to address those comments. I would also want to get comments from the other candidates regarding those remarks. Other then that, I don't care.
More...

Since we seem to be sticking with your specific preferences are you saying you know less about Romney than you do about Johnson...really?

Quote from Maverick74: And the reason why Romney is getting the lion share of the talk time is because he is deemed the front runner or in 2nd place. Come on man, don't be obtuse. In the 2004 democratic primary race, I didn't need to hear from Al Sharpton that much when he is polling at 1%. I wanted to hear from Hilary and Obama! You may not think that is "fair", but these debates can't last 10 hours.
More...

I see, so you selectively apply polling criteria to afford talk time. Romney is one or two so he gets the most but the number three guy gets second to least? Not sure I can refer to that as logic.

Quote from Maverick74: Anyone that has access to the internet can Google their favorite candidates and watch all their youtube videos. It's not that hard man.
More...

I agree. However, the debates give the candidates a national stage. Not everyone Google's candidates but most people will turn their tv on. These affairs are already restricted to those who poll high enough nationally. Therefore, selectively restricting talk time further, based on undefinable criteria is unfair in the extreme.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Herman Cain? LOL. No need to reply.
More...

Yep...Herman Cain. Although, I'm certain he isn't nearly as intelligent as you, Mavie. LMFAO
 
Quote from DAS Trader:

Are you asking me to prove your point for you?



Since we seem to be sticking with your specific preferences are you saying you know less about Romney than you do about Johnson...really?



I see, so you selectively apply polling criteria to afford talk time. Romney is one or two so he gets the most but the number three guy gets second to least? Not sure I can refer to that as logic.



I agree. However, the debates give the candidates a national stage. Not everyone Google's candidates but most people will turn their tv on. These affairs are already restricted to those who poll high enough nationally. Therefore, selectively restricting talk time further, based on undefinable criteria is unfair in the extreme.
More...

Dude, I know NOTHING about Romney! I know that is not very complimentary of the guy, but I seriously don't know where he stands on really anything. The guy has been on both sides of pretty much every issue. So what I want to see from the guy is some conviction on issues. I want him to commit to something. that's what these debates are for. Almost all candidates waffle around, but the debates back them into a corner and tell them to take a stand somewhere.

To Johnson's credit, and Paul as well, they are consistent, very consistent. Because of that, I don't need to hear them repeat themselves over and over again. Do you understand now?

Again, nobody watches these things on TV. Most people get their political fix on the internet. As far as why number 3 gets little talk time, it's not just 3. It's 3 through 9! Look, it's like the NFL, only two teams play in the Superbowl OK? There are two front runners in this race. Those are the two I want to hear the most from.

That is not to say I want to hear "nothing" from the other 7, I just want to hear "more" from the top 2. I honestly don't understand why our system of debate is so hard for you to grasp. Debates have worked this way for 50 years.
 
Quote from Maverick74:Dude, I know NOTHING about Romney! I know that is not very complimentary of the guy, but I seriously don't know where he stands on really anything. The guy has been on both sides of pretty much every issue. So what I want to see from the guy is some conviction on issues. I want him to commit to something. that's what these debates are for. Almost all candidates waffle around, but the debates back them into a corner and tell them to take a stand somewhere.

To Johnson's credit, and Paul as well, they are consistent, very consistent. Because of that, I don't need to hear them repeat themselves over and over again. Do you understand now?
More...

Thank you for taking the time to explain it further and yes, your personal proclivities are now more clear; however, you do realize your views are not necessarily representative of the entire electorate...right?

Quote from Maverick74:Again, nobody watches these things on TV. Most people get their political fix on the internet. As far as why number 3 gets little talk time, it's not just 3. It's 3 through 9! Look, it's like the NFL, only two teams play in the Superbowl OK? There are two front runners in this race. Those are the two I want to hear the most from.
More...

Then why do we bother to tune in during the regular season? Also, 3-9 did get less talk time, but 4,5,6,7, and 8 got more time than 3 did. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense.

Quote from Maverick74:That is not to say I want to hear "nothing" from the other 7, I just want to hear "more" from the top 2. I honestly don't understand why our system of debate is so hard for you to grasp. Debates have worked this way for 50 years.
More...

First, because it is not a debate, it is a dog and pony show. Also, I was unaware Youtube had been around for 50 years. Second, our debates have, in fact, changed over the years. As an example:

Between 1988 and 2000, the formats have been governed in detail by secret memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the two major candidates; an MOU for 2004 was also negotiated, but unlike the earlier agreements it was jointly released by the two candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

Also, up until 1988, the League of Woman voters sponsored the Presidential debates. It was at that point the two major parties fought to take them over, allowing them to more easily exclude third parties.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/u...-form-panel-to-hold-presidential-debates.html

So, there have been some changes over time. Further, if not for his strong performance against Carter in 1980, Reagan might not have won the presidency....because the GOP sure as hell didn't want him. So, in my estimation the debates play an important role in the process and the unfairness with which they are administered is a travesty we the people should work to address.
 
Quote from DAS Trader:

Thank you for taking the time to explain it further and yes, your personal proclivities are now more clear; however, you do realize your views are not necessarily representative of the entire electorate...right?

This might come as a shock to you, but less then 50% of the people in this country even vote. Less then 25% of the people in this country even care. And less then 3% of the people in this country watch these debates.

Then why do we bother to tune in during the regular season? Also, 3-9 did get less talk time, but 4,5,6,7, and 8 got more time than 3 did. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense.

Fantasy football.

First, because it is not a debate, it is a dog and pony show. Second, our debates have, in fact, changed over the years.

Jesus man, why are you making my points for me? If it's a dog and pony show then now you know why nobody watches!!!!!

So, there have been some changes over time. Further, if not for his strong performance against Carter in 1980, Reagan might not have won the presidency....because the GOP sure as hell didn't want him. So, in my estimation the debates play an important role in the process and the unfairness with which they are administered is a travesty we the people should work to address.

Sure, at one time people use to listen to the debates on the radio!!!
I wasn't aware the internet was around in 1980, but again, you are making my point. In 1980, most people DID get their news from TV. Before 1940, most people got their news from the RADIO! Today, people get it from the internet. Yes, things change, I get that. I really do. LOL.
More...
 
Quote from Maverick74:This might come as a shock to you, but less then 50% of the people in this country even vote. Less then 25% of the people in this country even care. And less then 3% of the people in this country watch these debates.
More...

I am aware of the fact that less than 50% actually votes but how does that bring you to only 25% caring? Doesn't voting indicate some level of caring? I think a lot of people tune in expecting a debate and tune out when they realize it is anything but.

Quote from Maverick74:Fantasy football.
More...

Point is, you don't actually know who is going to the Superbowl in week one or even week 10. You can guess and you can place a wager but only time will prove you right. However, much like ESPN, that does not stop the media from making prognostications. The difference however, is when the media tells us someone can or can't win, people believe it and it has a direct effect on the process. That has to stop imho.

Quote from Maverick74:Jesus man, why are you making my points for me? If it's a dog and pony show then now you know why nobody watches!!!!!
More...

It is a dog and pony show pretending to be a debate. It allows the media to handpick our pre approved candidates for us. Your point stands but my point is that this issue should be addressed. If a network wants to play host, they must agree to be neutral. Anything less than that gives Fox News, CNN, MSNBC et al far too much power over our political process. We can easily see how that has played out for us.
 
Quote from DAS Trader:

I am aware of the fact that less than 50% actually votes but how does that bring you to only 25% caring? Doesn't voting indicate some level of caring? I think a lot of people tune in expecting a debate and tune out when they realize it is anything but.

Meant to say 25% care about the debates. That number might be a little high.

Point is, you don't actually know who is going to the Superbowl in week one or even week 10. You can guess and you can place a wager but only time will prove you right.

These candidates have close to 18 months to go across the country and get their message out. At some point, the electorate has some responsibility either to tune in or not. We can't MAKE anyone do anything. The debates are a small part of the process.

It is a dog and pony show pretending to be a debate. It allows the media to handpick our pre approved candidates for us. Your point stands but my point is that this issue should be addressed. If a network wants to play host, they must agree to be neutral. Anything less than that gives Fox News, CNN, MSNBC et al far too much power over our political process. We can easily see how that has played out for us.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I think the debates are fair. I think the networks care far more about RATINGS, then they do in "selecting" our candidate for us. I think FOX News is fair when they host democratic debates and I think MSNBC and CNN are fair when they host republican debates.

There is no conspiracy here. they ask exactly the same questions I would ask if i was them. They run the debates exactly how I would run them. I really don't see the problem. And I'm being serious here. You insinuate there is some sinister process but you never say "exactly" what that process is. I mean what exactly are you accusing the media of?

My biggest beef with the debates is not with the media but the candidates. They get asked a question about X and then respond with talking points about Y. It's very frustrating and the moderators do a decent job of trying to get them back on point. So I do have that gripe, but I seriously don't understand what your objection is except your original post that Paul did not get enough air time. I thought he had plenty but I guess that is just a difference of opinion. Is there anything beyond that you are trying to say?
More...
 
Quote from Maverick74:There is no conspiracy here. they ask exactly the same questions I would ask if i was them. They run the debates exactly how I would run them. I really don't see the problem. And I'm being serious here. You insinuate there is some sinister process but you never say "exactly" what that process is. I mean what exactly are you accusing the media of?
More...

Sorry to have to disagree with you, yet again, but there is, in fact, an open media conspiracy to marginalize Ron Paul. They've pretty much admitted it. Please listen to the media describe that process in it's own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRuy0m7IjA&feature=player_embedded

http://futuredispatch.com/2011/08/14/media-admits-to-ignoring-ron-paul/

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgno...admits-media-conspiracy-to-stop-ron-paul.html

http://www.examiner.com/conservativ...-is-the-serious-threat-to-obama#ixzz1VEs4rU5G

When we juxtapose those admissions with the amount of talk time each candidate receives, we can clearly see the debates are part of the marginalization attempt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top