Why all the negativity on the SC debate?
- Thread starter Hook
- Start date
RockEnds
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,622
This type of reaction is the reason I didn't even check on this forum before the vote in my state was over. As nice as it is to network, the negativity here is really over the top. It's Dr Paul. You were expecting, "KILL THE RAGHEAD!" for an answer? I wasn't, and I wouldn't be supporting him if that's what he said.
No, Paul's not perfect, but neither are people who boo the Golden Rule and refuse to consider the risk Obama took when he approved this mission. It could have turned out much, much differently. Obama took a risk, and it could have blown up in his face. We could have lost bin Laden, lost SEAL team 6, and been at war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
I don't get the negativity.
No, Paul's not perfect, but neither are people who boo the Golden Rule and refuse to consider the risk Obama took when he approved this mission. It could have turned out much, much differently. Obama took a risk, and it could have blown up in his face. We could have lost bin Laden, lost SEAL team 6, and been at war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
I don't get the negativity.
alex_florida
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 142
Good points.
Haven't logged in since the 2008 campaign but thought I would check in for the reaction to the debate. The reason? Although the message is sound as always, the delivery was very poor last night (sorry but he seemed to ramble without making a clear point. I knew what he was saying but I don't think much of the public did).
But....he just needs to do better at the next one.
I'd like to see him address (again) the fact that so much of the debt is from our overseas intervention and that since we can't pay as we go the FED has to print to pay for it which causes inflation etc. ....which he has done a great job of very recently, just not last night. Also explain better that bringing our troops home won't make us weak or hurt the economy (and explain why further).
I'd also like to see more of an emphasis in general convincing older voters that their SS and Medicare is safe with President Paul, esp for FL....I think they are worried about it since they get most of their info from the MSM....like my parents.
Just some random comments.....
But....he just needs to do better at the next one.
I'd like to see him address (again) the fact that so much of the debt is from our overseas intervention and that since we can't pay as we go the FED has to print to pay for it which causes inflation etc. ....which he has done a great job of very recently, just not last night. Also explain better that bringing our troops home won't make us weak or hurt the economy (and explain why further).
I'd also like to see more of an emphasis in general convincing older voters that their SS and Medicare is safe with President Paul, esp for FL....I think they are worried about it since they get most of their info from the MSM....like my parents.
Just some random comments.....
WilliamC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,682
/thread
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
Idiots that wouldn't shut up with the negative crap while he was talking got outnumbered and out-decibel-ed by the rest of the crowd at the end of his answer. He took the boo-ers to task for their warmongering for sure.
Rev9
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
Who else thinks Jon Stewart is going to crush this golden faux pas?
Me. With aplomb and pure sarcasm followed by parody.
Rev9
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
alex_florida
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 142
Simple. The way how Doug Weed would have answered.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,537
They truly believe that God himself has touched the United States and appointed her to kick the world's ass for Israel.
EBounding
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,296
I didn't watch the debate last night, but I was looking at the debate thread. It sounded like Paul's candidacy was over. The angst on the forum was palpable and it depressed me. And I wasn't even watching the debate!
So I reluctantly decided to watch the Paul highlight reel this morning. Guess what? It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be and I felt a whole lot better.
Could he have been more concise and articulate about bin Laden? Uh, of course. Was the tort reform comment way over the heads of most viewers? Probably. But there is no way these things are going to sink him.
I know most people won't want to do this, but try not to watch the debates live. The media's goal is to depress you and make everyone fight to generate "drama". Boycott the media. And don't get caught up in the negativity of others. Just do something else and watch it later.
So I reluctantly decided to watch the Paul highlight reel this morning. Guess what? It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be and I felt a whole lot better.
Could he have been more concise and articulate about bin Laden? Uh, of course. Was the tort reform comment way over the heads of most viewers? Probably. But there is no way these things are going to sink him.
I know most people won't want to do this, but try not to watch the debates live. The media's goal is to depress you and make everyone fight to generate "drama". Boycott the media. And don't get caught up in the negativity of others. Just do something else and watch it later.
airborne373
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 953
The S.C. audience was stack with "PROGRESSIVES" who believe in govt. intervening in other nations and our lives. It would be unwise to let the reaction of this affect your resolve.
(The Republican Party is a least 25% Progressives IMO.)
(The Republican Party is a least 25% Progressives IMO.)
wgadget
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,946
I get the idea that the whole debate thing is to LEAVE AN IMPRESSION.
Which is why they are so dangerous. When the producers have access to the laugh track, so to speak, they can leave whatever impression they want.
I wonder how many of those BOOS Ron himself heard.
Which is why they are so dangerous. When the producers have access to the laugh track, so to speak, they can leave whatever impression they want.
I wonder how many of those BOOS Ron himself heard.
cartemj06
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Messages
- 159
I was one of the people watching the debate last night, and I am new around here but I also couldn't contain my rantings. Remember when this was new to you too? I was taught since childhood that the best man wins, that good always triumphs etc. The problem is that while that may sound naive I am not the only one, they may be cliche to the jaded however for the rest of us the good man is supposed to come out on top.
To see American people at these debates who haven't even the ability to muster enough self control to let someone finish a sentence is disheartening to say the least. As a Philosophy double major debate and social forum were always encouraged ideas were explored and merit was either found or not but the ability to reasonably hear someone out and then formulate a reasonably thought out response seems like second nature, but I saw four men who couldn't wait to snap one liners and steal limelight. I saw four men, adult, educated, respected men who the American people look up to act like bigots and frat boys. I saw four men who in a vie for attention and approval threw reason out the window to be heard, heard saying anything whether it was credible or nonsensical made not one bit of difference. I saw the worst in the American people. The summation of the debate was a thirst for blood, indiscriminate and prowling. What I witnessed were sociopaths, encouraged by a mob and unrestrained in "debate" that was supposed to resemble civil discourse. The moderators might as well not even been there. It was like watching a peice of meat being thrown to juvenile dogs, except the "meat" was public consent. The crowd was like a gazelle cheering for lions who were simply awaiting their consumption. Dogs however are not smug in their feeding rituals.
Then I saw the podium on the end, rarely visited albeit understandably because the man at that podium was not "entertaining". He was outside of the foray. Dr. Paul was mostly ignored in the jumble of empty words and posturing. When he was invited to participate the crowd reacted to him like a commercial break in the cinematic climax of a an action movie. The gazelles couldn't be botthered with their own defense as they rushed to their slaughter rather than away from it. While Dr. Paul made outstanding points they were lost on the crowd, he was arguing with his opponents while the opponents competed for the crowd, did they somehow feel as though he was not pandering or patronizing them enough? was that their desire? Dr. paul fumbled the osoma bin laden question perhaps but if were using football to make a point here then I must point out that the referee should be credited with the tackle. Afterall it was the moderator who interupted his response four times in the name of conserving time and order, previously he allowed three minute diatribes from other candidates and would subsequently as well. Amidst the booing crowd and the moderator interjections I find it difficult to believe that anyone could have thought clearly enough to provide a thought out response that wasn't prepackaged for audience consumption.
Dr. Paul had to do three things with the answer and had enough time to do one. I find it quite polite of dr. Paul to take the time to educate the audience on the issues before he addresses them, this way they can participate intelligently in elections and policy formation. The crowd however must be beyond jaded as they don't welcome the oppurtunity to learn and participate, they would rather have their policies handed down to them and hear of the implications later in the news perhaps. I guess when that is considered, Dr. Paul's involvement witht he debate at all is understandably conteptable, he truly is a new paradigm in their eyes. When trying to educate them didn't work he simply moved to addressing the topic and tried to put it in words perhaps that could be recognized by self described religious people, the golden rule. But didn't religious people crucify Christ? I guess not much has changed since his message was met with contempt almost two thousand years later as well. There was no time for audience approval remaining so Dr. paul had to succinctly respond to the question in the remaining time, but when his answer included bringing the troops home suddenly he was cheered.
My faith in Dr. Paul, the only voice of reason I saw last night, went unshaken. My faith in the American public however was shaken to the core. I guess Churchill was right. Furthermore, I guess that what I learned last night from South Carolina was that Neo-cons and Religious fanatics are alike. I can only assume that since the crowd desired to wage war, shoot people in the head, urinate upon their corpses, act preemptively, increase militarized spending and bring the troops home simultaneouly that there are limited options to describe them. Either the crowd was split, and the voices were of two different sides of the crowd or more frightening the alternative... The only way that one can wage war without overseas bases, deployed troops, preemptively and with a budget as substantial as the current budget would be to lob bombs across the big wet expanses that seperate us from our enemy, I guess the comprimise is that we don't shoot them in the head or urinate on them but you can't have everything all the time I guess. tell me I am wrong, I hope I am but that was the message I got.
Sorry for the long post, but I did the best I could to describe the negative reaction as I saw it.
To see American people at these debates who haven't even the ability to muster enough self control to let someone finish a sentence is disheartening to say the least. As a Philosophy double major debate and social forum were always encouraged ideas were explored and merit was either found or not but the ability to reasonably hear someone out and then formulate a reasonably thought out response seems like second nature, but I saw four men who couldn't wait to snap one liners and steal limelight. I saw four men, adult, educated, respected men who the American people look up to act like bigots and frat boys. I saw four men who in a vie for attention and approval threw reason out the window to be heard, heard saying anything whether it was credible or nonsensical made not one bit of difference. I saw the worst in the American people. The summation of the debate was a thirst for blood, indiscriminate and prowling. What I witnessed were sociopaths, encouraged by a mob and unrestrained in "debate" that was supposed to resemble civil discourse. The moderators might as well not even been there. It was like watching a peice of meat being thrown to juvenile dogs, except the "meat" was public consent. The crowd was like a gazelle cheering for lions who were simply awaiting their consumption. Dogs however are not smug in their feeding rituals.
Then I saw the podium on the end, rarely visited albeit understandably because the man at that podium was not "entertaining". He was outside of the foray. Dr. Paul was mostly ignored in the jumble of empty words and posturing. When he was invited to participate the crowd reacted to him like a commercial break in the cinematic climax of a an action movie. The gazelles couldn't be botthered with their own defense as they rushed to their slaughter rather than away from it. While Dr. Paul made outstanding points they were lost on the crowd, he was arguing with his opponents while the opponents competed for the crowd, did they somehow feel as though he was not pandering or patronizing them enough? was that their desire? Dr. paul fumbled the osoma bin laden question perhaps but if were using football to make a point here then I must point out that the referee should be credited with the tackle. Afterall it was the moderator who interupted his response four times in the name of conserving time and order, previously he allowed three minute diatribes from other candidates and would subsequently as well. Amidst the booing crowd and the moderator interjections I find it difficult to believe that anyone could have thought clearly enough to provide a thought out response that wasn't prepackaged for audience consumption.
Dr. Paul had to do three things with the answer and had enough time to do one. I find it quite polite of dr. Paul to take the time to educate the audience on the issues before he addresses them, this way they can participate intelligently in elections and policy formation. The crowd however must be beyond jaded as they don't welcome the oppurtunity to learn and participate, they would rather have their policies handed down to them and hear of the implications later in the news perhaps. I guess when that is considered, Dr. Paul's involvement witht he debate at all is understandably conteptable, he truly is a new paradigm in their eyes. When trying to educate them didn't work he simply moved to addressing the topic and tried to put it in words perhaps that could be recognized by self described religious people, the golden rule. But didn't religious people crucify Christ? I guess not much has changed since his message was met with contempt almost two thousand years later as well. There was no time for audience approval remaining so Dr. paul had to succinctly respond to the question in the remaining time, but when his answer included bringing the troops home suddenly he was cheered.
My faith in Dr. Paul, the only voice of reason I saw last night, went unshaken. My faith in the American public however was shaken to the core. I guess Churchill was right. Furthermore, I guess that what I learned last night from South Carolina was that Neo-cons and Religious fanatics are alike. I can only assume that since the crowd desired to wage war, shoot people in the head, urinate upon their corpses, act preemptively, increase militarized spending and bring the troops home simultaneouly that there are limited options to describe them. Either the crowd was split, and the voices were of two different sides of the crowd or more frightening the alternative... The only way that one can wage war without overseas bases, deployed troops, preemptively and with a budget as substantial as the current budget would be to lob bombs across the big wet expanses that seperate us from our enemy, I guess the comprimise is that we don't shoot them in the head or urinate on them but you can't have everything all the time I guess. tell me I am wrong, I hope I am but that was the message I got.
Sorry for the long post, but I did the best I could to describe the negative reaction as I saw it.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
One factor that would throw anybody off their game at the debates are the awkward delay in questions, and what questions get asked of Paul. Continually, no matter what his progress in the polls or primaries, Paul is nearly the last one asked anything, or is asked a one-off question that is not part of a big exchange. The debates have started with Romney or questions that lead to exchanges with Romney, and since Paul has been avoiding direct attacks on him he gets left out. Then he waits a long while until the next round of Mitt-centric questions and exchanges are over.
Notice the girl reporter for WSJ was relentless in asking only Romney questions almost the entire evening. This puts more natural pressure on Paul to pack lots of info into the short span of time he is given to answer something. No one could master staying on point under these circumstances, which is why Paul's performances have widely varied throughout the debates.
Notice the girl reporter for WSJ was relentless in asking only Romney questions almost the entire evening. This puts more natural pressure on Paul to pack lots of info into the short span of time he is given to answer something. No one could master staying on point under these circumstances, which is why Paul's performances have widely varied throughout the debates.
FrancisMarion
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 807
Perhaps concise answers garner to much agreement without thought, and the stumbling answers make people say to themselves, "What is he trying to say?". I see something very powerful in that.
FritzforPaul
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 19
If you were a Paul supporter..last night changed nothing.
Supporters can be harder on candidates than their opponents
. If you were a Ron Paul supporter BEFORE the debate..there is absolutely nothing that should have changed.
I find him refreshing and bold. We know what he stands for and he has only a moment to try and explain his side to the world. I think he had a moment that was not great..but then I think that makes him human and not "rehearsed" like the other candidates seem.
I loved the fact that he made such a distinction between military spending and spending on defense. That was a BIG win and I don't think last night is going to hurt Paul one bit.
Supporters can be harder on candidates than their opponents
. If you were a Ron Paul supporter BEFORE the debate..there is absolutely nothing that should have changed.I find him refreshing and bold. We know what he stands for and he has only a moment to try and explain his side to the world. I think he had a moment that was not great..but then I think that makes him human and not "rehearsed" like the other candidates seem.
I loved the fact that he made such a distinction between military spending and spending on defense. That was a BIG win and I don't think last night is going to hurt Paul one bit.
Similar threads
