-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official NH Primary Results Thread
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
Souldriver
Member
Damn, why doesn't Paul have a chance to get the GOP nomination. He arguably has the best points of view when it comes to foreign policy. Albeit a bit simplistic "get out of there" idea, but still, he's pointing out pretty well what's going wrong with American foreign policy today. And as he says, he really is the most fiscally conservative of the bunch, so the traditional republicans (not the neocons) should be all over him.
And FOX is such a whore, not only egg throwing at anything un-republican, but also at the republicans they don't like. "Fair and balanced" has to be the most ironic slogans in the history of slogans.
And FOX is such a whore, not only egg throwing at anything un-republican, but also at the republicans they don't like. "Fair and balanced" has to be the most ironic slogans in the history of slogans.
I can't believe how a channel like fox news is still in the air.
A pure propaganda channel if you ask me. And to think that many americans actually watch this daily, that's how people are brainwashed by their media.
They are evil and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
A pure propaganda channel if you ask me. And to think that many americans actually watch this daily, that's how people are brainwashed by their media.
They are evil and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
BobbyRobby said:
double penetration?
Stoney Mason
Banned
The bizzare thing is none of what Fox is doing is even necessary. The are just so invested in promoting a certain version of right orientated orthodoxy they just can't even help themselves. The not too well hidden contempt of Brit Hume is hilarious.
I think Ron Paul owned himself in his response to the 9/11 "truther" question; the moderator was giving him a good opportunity to denounce that entire disgusting movement and make himself look just a slight bit more mainstream than he's perceived to be, and instead he again went on the defensive, making himself look like a whiny bitch. Fair enough point on, "hey could I get back to the real questions here?" But every candidate goes through the same type of process whenever they're associated with something so incredibly awful, and the answer is not to say, "hey guys I guess since I'm on the spot you should be a little more quiet about it if you want me to do well."
APF said:
Eh, I think he has a point. He said he doesn't believe that bullshit so what difference does it make what his supporters believe? They support him because they believe in his message not because he believes in theirs
He previously denounced the movement on Glen Beck's show btw
Hey if a good portion of my most-vocal supporters were unrepentant rapists, I might find it within myself to say I think rape is absolutely disgusting and they could go to hell for all I care. I wouldn't be like, "hey guys could you please rape quieter if you want me to do better?" These questions give him an opportunity to come off as more of a mainstream figure, and instead he whines on stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
Souldriver
Member
Good comparisonAPF said:
CharlieDigital
Banned
APF said:
No, he did exactly what he should have done: stuck by his principles and belief that it's their constitutional right to believe and say whatever the fuck they want to believe so long as it doesn't impinge on his rights as a citizen of the US.
I applaud the man for standing by his principles, even when given the bait to flip-flop.
APF said:
But the question whose response you are criticizing was "Would you ask them to cease that rhetoric on your behalf?" Not whether the movement is disgusting. So I think his answer that they aren't helping him and should cease that rhetoric if they want him to win was on target.
You have to understand that it would go against the core principles that Ron Paul is running on for him to dictate what individuals should be allowed to say or think
GeneralKird
Member
Cerrius said:
I don't know where you get off saying such blatant bullshit. I slept through the first three quarters of the debate and had to watch the replay later that night. I specifically remember seeing that volley between McCain and Paul. That scene, and to my knowledge, absolutely nothing was edited out. It's one thing to not like Fox News, its another thing to make up lies just because you don't like what you hear and see. Ron Paul is so lost on making international policy we'd have Iranian speedboats on our shores.
CharlieDigital
Banned
How can McCain get away with that statement?
The more I think about it, the stronger I am in the conviction that it's a completely ignorant, bigoted, and racially charged statement to make. I mean...holy shit at the statement.
The more I think about it, the stronger I am in the conviction that it's a completely ignorant, bigoted, and racially charged statement to make. I mean...holy shit at the statement.
No; the point is, it's not going against his principles to say, "you guys are absolutely wrong; you're disgusting; you're shitting on the memories of the dead, and it's people like you who ensure I don't get taken seriously in debates like these." But then again, maybe I'm asking too much out of the guy--I expect him to man-up, to have balls, to be able to stand-up to his own constituents, to display some sense of right-or-wrong when it comes to outrageous fabrications associated with his campaign, to project some small sense of inspiration rather than whine about not being taken seriously when he's given a chance to be taken seriously and he has a tantrum. I know how it is though: you Ronulans would spin him biting the head off a puppy into some sort of principled stand that totally owned that puppy and omg that puppy was such a Republican tool omg teh bias of that puppy.
perryfarrell
Member
CharlieDigital said:
What statement?
And I agree with APF in that Paul should have said: these guys are wing-nuts and I distance myself from them.
Fox News said:
To those in this thread: why is the question about Ron Paul's electability ridiculous? Isn't it the point of a primary to decide who will be the party's candidate? As far as I'm concerned this is the fundamental question of his "campaign".
His current poll standings are laughable:
National: 4%
Michigan: 4%
South Carolina: 5%
Florida 3.7%
I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but why would I ever support a "candidate" that is totally unelectable and totally unconcerned with his electability. I was personally very interested to hear him answer this question when it was posed to him, but he totally ignored actually answering it. How did he own anyone with his response? He gave a nice speech about his principles and his current dissatisfaction with the republican party. As true as a lot of the things that he said are, he did absolutely nothing to defend his electability.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Tom_Cody said:
What would you prefer that he do? Take the Clinton approach and well up with tears? Claim that beneath his strict constitutionalist rhetoric he's a great and wonderful human being who believes in God and just wants the best for America? He doesn't give a shit and he demonstrated that in his answer last night. He's not going to bend or reshape himself or get a $400 haircut just to make himself more electable. Fox News and the Republican party hates him because he refuses to play their game. This will continue to isolate him from the party and from most Americans who have come to accept an idea of what it means to be a Republican which has little foundation in history. Besides, he raised more money last quarter than any candidate on that stage. He can keep going and saying what he believes and never giving in as long as he likes.
mambadragon
Banned
Tom_Cody said:
I'm a practical guy and see where you're coming from, but one thing that makes him an option is that he's the only fiscal conservative against the war. If you feel strongly about both of those two issues, he's your only option. These are the two major issues for me, and I'm not sure if I feel comfortable voting for someone who's going to spend a lot just for their foreign policy and vice versa.
Plus, the next president will actually have an effect on how the war proceeds. For example, I feel comfortable when I vote Republican even though I'm pro gay marriage and also comfortable when I vote Democrat even though I'm pro-life because there's little chance the president can do anything on these issues. But the number of troops in Iraq will surely change if a Democrat or Ron Paul is elected.
Tamanon said:
No argument there; it was a stupid thing to say.
Karma Kramer said:
1. Yes, I like other Republicans more than Paul.
2. Fox looks absolutely ridiculous most of the time anyway and, regardless of that, Paul didn't affect that view last night one way or the other.
3. God has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
4. You're in a discussion forum; if you want an echo chamber, go to Ron Paul's message boards or to your local tea party ceremony.
CharlieDigital said:
Which statement?
MassiveAttack said:
Edwards' $400 haircut had nothing to do with electability; arguably, it has the opposite effect for some.
TheKingsCrown
Banned
Recount started:
Kucinich calls for New Hampshire recount
Posted: 11:55 AM ET
Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted.
The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."
Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.
Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.
Kucinich calls for New Hampshire recount
Posted: 11:55 AM ET
Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted.
The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."
Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.
Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Macam said:
Ask Mitt Romney about his hair.
Stoney Mason
Banned
To the person who asked the problem isn't the question. It is legit to ask Paul about his electability or even that newsletter. What isn't appopriate is the tone. You don't smirk. You don't grin. You don't ask the question in a flippant manner. And you don't reserve certain types of questions for only certain candidates or treat them in an overly hostile manner when following up.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
And then refuse to interview said candidate following the debate.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
APF said:
It wasn't an attempt to save his campaign, it was an attempt to hurt it by making him alienate a portion of his supporters. The other poster is right, they support him because they agree with his ideals, he doesn't have to agree with theirs.
There's no reason for him to throw them under the bus just because he disagrees with them. They're not hurting anyone, they're just wrong about something, so there's no need for a stiff condemnation. In fact, their critical attitude towards the activities of government is exactly what this country needs, and exactly what Ron Paul encourages in people.
It was just a bizarre non sequitur.Macam said:
Guys, do you realize there's something inherently pathetic about whining over Fox News not liking your candidate because he "won't play their game" when your candidate is running for the very party that Fox News is allegedly the media arm of?
AdmiralViscen: I don't know what's worse, the idea that 9/11 "truthers" are such an important part of his campaign that he can't afford to alienate them, or the idea that Paul trying to make himself appear more mainstream would be damaging to his credibility.
MassiveAttack
Banned
avaya said:
That's interesting because I watched the entire Q&A session after the debate (including the staged focus group) and not once did Hannity ever mention his name except to laugh at the text poll results.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
TheKingsCrown said:
wow. sounds like he's doing it for obama. interesting.
MassiveAttack
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
Maybe (just maybe), we'll see some real Hillary tears come of this.
MassiveAttack
Banned
avaya said:
Well, stayed up well past the last interview and never heard it. I guess I missed the last 30 seconds of the show.
Stoney Mason said:
Okay, I guess that makes sense. I didn't realize where you all were coming from. It is certainly arguable that Cameron was out of line when he asked the question. I still consider it a completely reasonable question though, one that I would like answered. I don't think that Ron Paul should change anything in regard to his behavior or ideas, but if he is not concerned with getting elected he should not be in the race. It is simply frustrating to me that he is so unconcerned with getting elected while supposedly running for president. The specific purpose of the primary is to select a presidential candidate.
edit: while, not will
MassiveAttack
Banned
Tom_Cody said:
Seems Fred Thompson and Ron Paul have something in common then.
Read the comments on this article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/11/kucinich-calls-for-new-hampshire-recount/
Was YouTube down or what? :lol
Was YouTube down or what? :lol
APF said:
What? He clearly said that he did not believe nor support the 9/11 truthers, but that he wasn't going to tell them to shut up because, GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? It's their right to believe whatever ape-shit stupid idiotic thing they want to.
But I guess a fascist wouldn't understand such a concept.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tom_Cody said:
I can't speak to most of that. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a libertarian (although I'm libertarian on a few issues). I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul nor do I agree with him on almost any issues and even the issue we agree the most on, I don't take an isolationism stance as he does.
With all those caveats I've always said he's run a consistent campaign that his supporters should be proud of. He was never going to win the nomination for a myriad of reasons. I doubt he is a fool and didn't realize that himself. I've always viewed his campaign as an attempt to pull the party away from the stances where he views it has strayed and while that's not any fight I have a rooting interest in per se I still don't like a hypocritical stance from a network that not only is biased toward the right but a specific interpretation of the right. In a world where somebody like John Mccain is considered a "straight shooting straight talking express" personally I find Paul refreshing whether I agree with him or not.
Tamanon said:
It is certainly true that running a presidential campaign is a great way to get publicity. I would argue that Ron Paul's campaign is being run at the expense of the productivity of republican party's primary without substantively altering the tone or message of the electable candidates' campaigns.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked