|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 7, 2007 0:30:27 GMT -6
Ron Paul won the CNN viewers poll by a landslide. In a field of 10 candidates, he received 57% of the votes on the question "Who do you think won the debate?", 56% of the votes on the question "Who seemed to know the most about the issues?", 52% on the question "whose campaign got the biggest boost from the debate?", and 39% of the votes on "Who had the best one-liner or comeback?" Rudy Ghouliani won on the question "Who was the biggest disappointement?", and Mitt Romney won on "Who was the best dresser?" Below is a copy of the 4 categories won by Ron Paul. It's interesting that Paul won an actual majority in the top 2 categories, despite having 9 other candidates competing for votes. Below is a link to the poll" CNN Republican Debate #3 Poll Results. Not surprising, the Corporate media analysts did not favor Paul in any category. They voted for their favorite Republican plutocrat (i.e., Ghouliani, Romney, or McCain).
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 7, 2007 8:18:03 GMT -6
What was Paul's opinion on a pardon for that traitor, Scooter Libby? Sorry, I don't have the time or stomach to watch the debate.
GB
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jun 7, 2007 8:48:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 7, 2007 20:45:17 GMT -6
Paul won in every debate where they polled viewers, instead of commentators and Corporate media shills.
On MSNBC, Paul won with 67% of the votes.
On the last link (above), Paul took 95% of the total vote.
Despite this, the media still ignores him. His election as President must be anticipated to be bad for their profit margins.
I think it says a lot when a candidate is clearly popular with TV viewers, and not with the rich commentators. Maybe that means he'll represent those viewers (and the public), and not the rich Corporate media.
That's how I'd interpret it, at least.
|
|
|
Post by primative1 on Jun 9, 2007 20:53:32 GMT -6
graybeard: To the pardon Libby question: Pauls answer was a simple no ... one word answer as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 9, 2007 22:17:30 GMT -6
Primative1,
Thanks for dropping in and answering that question. Though I watched the debate, I didn't hear how Paul answered the question. Maybe it was because his simple "no" didn't take enough time to even be noticed, so the cameras moved away from him.
To bad we can't "vote" on media commentators. I'd vote all of them out of office, except for Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 10, 2007 2:14:27 GMT -6
Primative1, Were you "purged" from Democratic Underground?? I noticed the note from "Magistrate" that you were "no longer with us," in addition to seeing the tombstone sign on you profile. Were you a disruptor? 25 DU'ers (that I know of) who opposed illegal immigration have been purged by DU. I don't know 0for certain what any of the specific reasons were, but it seems like more than coincidence that so many anti-illegal immigration members have been purged. Of course, you also committed the "heinous" crime of sticking up for Ron Paul. That probably sealed your fate. I know the feeling. I've been banned from 20-25 sites myself. Most were Right-Wing. But I've also been banned from Democrats.com and from Mike Malloy's Forum. For all I know, I might be next on the DU purge list.
|
|
|
Post by primative1 on Jun 10, 2007 6:11:25 GMT -6
Yeah ... "disruptor"; guilty as charged. Its hard to say exactly what viewpoint required my silencing. I support Paul, I oppose amnesty, but what got me is that the thread I was on that got me locked and booted was one where I was POLITELY questioning the global warming by carbon emission theory (al gores puppy). You want to hit the magistrates soft spot then that must be it. www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3308758I mean if questioning weak unproven science is a taboo subject then I can hardly wait to see what dream world the pending Clinton admin that those guys are bubbling about will be like. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ... or so it seems As to Paul and his one word answer .... that has been a gripe I hear a lot of people airing, he is so to the point, so direct, that he misses the chance to get attention by just answering the question instead of hogging the time by blabbering on and on like the rest of them. Dont get me wrong, I like a straight answer but in some ways it hurts. Pardon Libby? No! ....
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 10, 2007 7:32:53 GMT -6
Indeed. Hillary is no "liberal", she is the establishment choice for the Democratic ticket. Her positions on trade, immigration and the war does not differ much from the neo-CONS. I can't see any scenario where I could vote for her. Health care just isn't enough to overcome her "free" trade and war vote.
If long time "lefties" are now getting banned for taking the correct position on issues - I think that is a furhter sign of the disgust and contempt people have for the two parties. There should be a realignment of the true conservatives and labor democrats over the trade immigration, fiscal responsibility, and avoidance of foreign entanglements issues.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 10, 2007 14:29:54 GMT -6
Indeed. Hillary is no "liberal", she is the establishment choice for the Democratic ticket. Her positions on trade, immigration and the war does not differ much from the neo-CONS. I can't see any scenario where I could vote for her. Health care just isn't enough to overcome her "free" trade and war vote. Amen to that. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be the closest thing we could do to re-electing Bush. She's pro-amnesty/open borders, pro-globalization/free trade, and she's pro-Iraq war, despite her claims to the contrary. And her claims that "we're safer now" come right out of the NeoCon-Artist playbook. She'e the best friend Wal-Mart ever had, and probably the most Corporate-friendly candidate from either party. If long time "lefties" are now getting banned for taking the correct position on issues - I think that is a furhter sign of the disgust and contempt people have for the two parties. There should be a realignment of the true conservatives and labor democrats over the trade immigration, fiscal responsibility, and avoidance of foreign entanglements issues. DU has been purging for unstated reasons since I've been there. It's interesting that no less than 25 (and maybe more) of those on my "buddy list", who I put there due to their opposition to illegal immigration, have been purged. Meanwhile many of the open border/"amnestiacs" have gotten away with extremely rude behavior, including telling other members to "f*** off". (And I'm one of those who's been told to "f*** off.") People are expressing disgust and contempt for both parties now because both parties are becoming more similar. Both represent the interests of Corporations and big business. Anything that reduces short-term profits for business is opposed by both parties. The only presidential candidates in either party that oppose unrestricted free trade are Kucinich, Paul, Hunter, & Tancredo. (I had hope for Edwards, but he's said nothing on the issue as of yet.) The people are simply not being represented. And, as on DU, every attempt possible is made to silence or ignore the voice of the people. (Note the conspicuous lack of coverage of Ron Paul, despite his winning almost every post-debate poll, and most of those he won by a landslide.) We need a true "populist" party- one that represents the views of the majority of people, not big money interests or Corporations.
|
|