I don't care how well you have risen through the ranks of the process, IF YOU ARE NOT CONNECTED, YOU WON'T BE ELECTed(ORAL).....it matters not if Paul would have raised, 100 million in 4 hrs online, he won't win, because the popular vote, means, "Fuck All!"
Clinton, if she was rumored to have masturbated on the throttle of Air Force One, would not miss a goddamn beat, nor would she drop from the race....Why is it, after 50 plus years of watching election results, does anyone believe their vote matters????

sheesh, can win give an award to Mr. Choggs for overacting and overstating his humble opinion or what?

way to contribute, dude.

anyway nobody who can raise millions from so many people should be excluded from the debates, and they should all be given equal airtime. why not? err i think choggie answered that question.

actually, choggie's right to be pessimist: they choose who will be elected and do what they want...

I think Choggie needs to understand that it's not right to use such sexist and degrading language. One wonders if he hates women that much, or if he merely loathes Hillary Clinton, (as do I), and unconsciously assumes that that makes everything fair game.

Re Ron Paul: Look at the numbers of these polls. Maybe they reveal why Ron Paul might be excluded.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

No, those polls combined with Ron Paul's fundraising show that these polls are a stupid way to measure a political race. They don't measure people's feelings properly.

They use the polls precisely in the way choggie rants about... to exclude candidates. If your name isn't Bush or Clinton you have a name recognition problem and they have an excuse to exclude you.

Polls should be illegal, I have no idea why it is legal to announce the winner before the election. Totally distorts the result.

You could be right. But I'm not entirely convinced that these polls are not indicative of the bigger picture offline. For example, in New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state, and where you'd sort of expect him to have much popular support, Ron Paul is at like 1%. I think that's telling.

After he's turfed Ron Paul can be president of Second Life.

(I do agree with you about the broadcasting of polling numbers while ballots are still being cast. I'm surprised there isn't an election law in the US forbidding this--if that's the case. In Canada, because we have such a large country, there are strict broadcast regulations to accomodate for the fact that voting boothes are closed in the east while they're still open on the west coast -- where I live.)

"Ron Paul is at 1%"

1% of what?

he seems to be raising a lot of money for someone who doesn't have support. I would count real people submitting real money as more important than a flawed poll result.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with him, and even if he has 1%, if you're gonna have a democracy what you have to do is put people with supporters on TV. Then you have to treat them all with equal respect. If that isn't happening, it's a disgrace, and it devalues the victory of whoever wins.

If Saddam excludes the freedom candidate from TV debates it's used as a reason to invade and depose him.

Fundamentaly, polls attmept to measure no. of Votes.

no. of Votes == Electablity.

Funds Raised == Strength of Opinion.

Funds Raised can be used to gain votes through campaigning but are not themselves an indication of Electability and far from a garuntee of success from campaigning.

For these reasons, Polls get give way more value than cash alone. Both are needed TBH.

I expect, that in the eyes of the avg journalist, internet polls are potentially unreliable at accurately measuring specific localized areas of America with an open demographic to all Americans.

The reasons should be obvious. If a poll is an internet poll, then its available to those who have internet. Thats not "everyone in a specific region" which is how the votes are needed to be to be viable (Bush didnt get the majority of the poular vote, and still won, as its done by first past the post by sub region, not the country as a whole).

Also, internet polls are things you vote on because YOU go THERE to VOTE because you are motivated. Not the avg joe. Ron Poll has a lot of motivated followers, eager to demonstrates that they support him. Thus, their voting only demonstrates that, not public opinion.

Normal opinion polls, attempt to take a cross section of the demographic of a region, go to them, either by phone polling or on the street, and ask their opinion there. its far form 100% reliable, but is way more reliable a tool for a journalist than some internet poll, which possibly got voted on by non americans who like him (I dont know that they did or didnt, so why should the journalists be sure).

Thus, the media acknowledges that hes liked on the internet, but keeps dismissing him, and until an independent demographic on the street/phone poll shows he has grass roots support of 20%+ he'll get ignored as irrelevant.

^so.... how about making polls illegal, and presenting the candidates equally to the public, and waiting until election day to find out the result, instead of clamouring to make self fulfilling prophecies and skewing the results in favour of those who have name recognition and wealthy lobbyists?

1% of those polled.

I'm suggesting that although he has many supporters online, and even though he's raising a lot of money, this might just paint an inaccurate picture of his true level of support in terms of numbers of potential voters. At that site I linked to, because there's such a large number of polls, and the results are consistantly very low for Ron Paul across all regions of the USofA, this seems to support my hunch.

Did you look at that site? There's more polls than you can shake a stick at...hehe.

You're begging the question when you suggest the polls are flawed, btw.

Pleeeease don't use phrases like "freedom candidate". It's Orwellian and creepy.

i use "freedom candidate" tongue in cheek. But i didn't think the USA was the kind of place where they only allow 2 candidates to be on TV, constantly proclaimed as the only 2 that are "likely to win".

Can't you see the psychology here? Perhaps "fringe" candidates poll low because the TV says they are polling low. It's a feedback loop designed to keep out crazy constitutionalists with their "ideas" and "principles".

btw, asking me not to use certain words is... well.. orwellian and creepy.

"btw, asking me not to use certain words is... well.. orwellian and creepy."

Ya think so? Not when the phrase is "freedom candidate". With that one I'm doing public frikkin service. Want some freedom fries with that? (Ron Paul: the freedom from Social Security candidate?)

Re the binary nature of "democracy" in the USofA: Well there's never a lot of space between the Rupugnocrats and Demagoglicans. Definitely this is not accidental.

so, your censorship request is not orwellian because you say so?

Because Orwell says so.

"I think Choggie needs to understand that it's not right to use such sexist and degrading language. One wonders if he hates women that much, or if he merely loathes Hillary Clinton, (as do I), and unconsciously assumes that that makes everything fair game."

No qualm, far from hating women, but I do hate when folks take an opportunity with some ancillary issue, attached to a subject of discussion, in order to turn the mob. I suggest I am not as you portray. Skillary Clitless is a public figure, whose wick drips with the blood, sweat, and tears, of real people. She is not a real person. She has mutated into a beast, and is fair fucking game- just as her sex-addicted, "kept" husband is, whose past impeachable debacles, you would have no problem, joking or musing about, with your pals.
Believe this: If the seven deadly words, were allowed by the FCC in the U.S. on TV, you would soon have Jon Stewart's, and Bill Maher's writers, cranking out expletives, for their sophomore fans.....

Accurate is MINK, with the analogous "feedback loop", advertisers are well-versed in the phenom, and monkeys will see and do-meatbots

Lemme give it a whirl - *election08

Or is it *politics?
What? No confirmation from Sifty?
Lazy-ass toaster.

^it's the same feedback loop that keeps predictably shitty music at the top of the charts, that's why they invented the charts. League tables for schools... same thing. It's one of my biggest disagreements with free market economics... that these things distort the free market rather than informing the consumer.

so i would ban advertising and statistics. but that's just me. in the meantime, i work in marketing lol.

i think working in market (especially the PR aspect) probably gives one insight to how much things like this are manipulated

@choggie

"I do hate when folks take an opportunity with some ancillary issue, attached to a subject of discussion, in order to turn the mob."

You're imparting a motivation to me that I don't have. You can't read my mind or guess my intentions or actions. So I'll tell you what they are: when you say "killary Clitless is a public figure, whose wick drips with the blood, sweat, and tears, of real people. She is not a real person." I am objecting to your use of sexist and degrading language, which is completely irrelevant to Hillary Clinton's politics. When you use that sort of language it is degrading to all women.

Choggie wrote: "just as her sex-addicted, "kept" husband is, whose past impeachable debacles, you would have no problem, joking or musing about, with your pals."

You're trying to read my mind again.

Choggie wrote: "Believe this: If the seven deadly words, were allowed by the FCC in the U.S. on TV, you would soon have Jon Stewart's, and Bill Maher's writers, cranking out expletives, for their sophomore fans..."

No I wouldn't. And I don't like Jon Stewart at all. And Bill Maher is regularly sexist and seldom funny. And you're trying to read my mind again.

"When you use that sort of language it is degrading to all women."

bullshit. it's just vulgar. it doesn't degrade everyone with a clitoris, that's just your excuse for attempted censorship.

And choggie's comments might be in response to yours, but they are published out loud on a public forum, not directed solely at you, you're not that special to him i guess. don't take it personal.

"bullshit. it's just vulgar."

You're wrong. Just as the 'n word' degrades all black people or the __word degrades all ____, etc. Choggie's language was sexist language. Sexist language degrades women, just as racist language degrades its target.

Oh I'm not taking it personally. Don't you worry about that. My opinion is that it's the duty of anyone to speak out when there's sexist, racist, homophobic (etc) language. I think it's very necessary to attempt to convince bigots or sexists to not broadcast bigotry or sexism in the future. That's not censorship; it's the free-market of ideas.

Bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., must be challenged where it occurs.

"Bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., must be challenged where it occurs."

*check mirror

Assumed or otherwise, i know the type of speech that ruffles feathers and inflames, it can be found in degrees of tone and duration...shit like this..
"ust as the 'n word' degrades all black people, yadda yadda, the language used was to transmit a sentiment, rather than what many number of those reading decided to filter it with...

what is sexist, homophobic, or rascist, is not contained, in semantics, it is perceived as it will be-

"The enn word", as it is so recently driven into the minds of media sponges, is cowardly newspeak, designed to assist in race baiting giving those sensitive to words for the sake of words, some form of superiority, or a reason to move forward with some premeditated bullshit agenda, or a sense of false sensibilities never really developed healthily during childhood and adolescence. If the word nigger, printed in context, as it is here, to explain or make a certain point, "offends the sensibilities of all black people", then perhaps that that's simply a retarded proposition, based in emotion and ego.

Is there a manual somewhere describing sexist language, cause I love reference books??? Ask a brit what he is thinking, when he calls some woman a cunt, or her brother....Man get a grip, if I wanna call Angelina Jolie, a crazy bitch, she has only to look at the face she shows the world, or respond to some of my letters.....was that a "sexist" comment???

Hillary Clinton is so far out of touch with what people in America think they want, and so much more than a normal human being.....follow her snail-trail, and find the thing behind the thing....or join her goddamn bandwagon, it won't matter either way-what started my input, was the sentiment of the post-That there may be some nefarious energy, being used against Ron Paul-Like they will let him be president??!! Get Real! He's not in the "In" crowd.....

Cannot parse.

there is a difference between using a word for a female body part in a pun on Hillary's name, and saying she can't be president because she's a woman.

"Hillary Clinton is a woman" is not a sexist statement.

If I call Dick Cheyney a dick, it does not degrade all men. I am not implying that all people with dicks are lesser human beings.

If you want to try to argue that what Choggie wrote wasn't blatantly sexist and degrading to women go ahead. You don't need my respect.

*waiting for a woman to come here and agree with you.

There are even some women out there who don't actually mind being refered to as 'clit' and 'whore' and 'cunt'. This doesn't change anything. By the way, Choggie has edited his post. You can't use silence from women here to support your vacuous position.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you. I have no interest in discussing anything with you in the future.

oh noes!

You, especially as a male, don't speak for all women and what degrades them, that really is a vacuous position.

You're only defending her because she's female, which is in itself sexist (maybe she doesn't need your shining armour) and offensive to feminists who want to stand on their own as equals.

ktx!

thylan wrote:

Normal opinion polls, attempt to take a cross section of the demographic of a region, go to them, either by phone polling or on the street, and ask their opinion there. its far form 100% reliable, but is way more reliable a tool for a journalist than some internet poll...

The problem is...that's what people think these polls are. They think they just randomly poll your average Joe and ask them who they are going to vote for. That is not the case. These are polls of "Republicans most likely to vote in the primaries". How do they decide who this select group is? By polling ONLY Republicans that voted in the last (2004) primary election. Because Bush ran virtually unopposed in 2004 Republican voter turn out was at a record low of 6.6%. Nearly 94% of Republicans didn't bother to vote in the 2004 primary. Is it any surprise that the 6.6% that showed up to give Bush their symbolic vote are mostly voting for another pro-war candidate? These polls tell us nothing of the Republicans not happy with the Bush administration, nothing about the Republicans that want us out of this war and abbsolutly nothing about any possible independents, democrats, or libertarians that are planning to vote for Ron Paul.

I think THAT is why we are seeing such a huge gap here. He has all this support on line, he wins all the internet polls, he is almost always in the top of the straw polls, all the text your vote polls after the debates, he collects more money and gets it from individuals that are donating on average $100. It only makes sense that he doesn't poll well in the other polls when you look at the big picture.

BTW...the other day I came across some major news media poll online. The question was "Who would win in a Presidential race, Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?" Do you see how they are trying to control the results of that poll? Instead of asking a known "Who wold you vote for?" which would answer the question of who would win. They instead ask you to "guess who would win"...what the F' is that about?

You know, your comments are just too dim to pass up.

Mink: "You, especially as a male, don't speak for all women and what degrades them, that really is a vacuous position."

You're quite off the mark. I'm not speaking FOR any women. I'm speaking about language which is sexist. That's a pretty simple distinction for most people, which you fail to achieve.

Mink: "You're only defending her because she's female, which is in itself sexist (maybe she doesn't need your shining armour) and offensive to feminists who want to stand on their own as equals."

Jaysus, you're really something. I'm not defending HER specifically, Einstein. I'm objecting to sexist language. Pretty difficult concept, I guess. To say that I'm defending her because she's female and that's a form of sexism is so utterly ridiculous. It's exactly equivalent to if you said I was being racist for denouncing you for your use of a harsh racial epithet.

The truth is quite the contrary; people help perpetuate sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. when THEY DON'T speak up in objection to demeaning and degrading language. (I can't believe I'm explaining this.)

inside your head, you make perfect sense. your argument is coherent within itself.

outside your head there's a million other ways of looking at it.

Nice little poem. lol

A million! Oh man... (I suppose you have no idea just how ridiculous you seem.)

It is ridiculous to say that my mother, and all women everywhere in the world, are being "degraded" by choggie insulting Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a disgusting bitch. If she was male I would call her a bastard. The fact that I recognise her gender when insulting her does not make me sexist. I might be being low and degrading myself by resorting to insults, but i don't think anyone ever said Hillary is automatically disgusting just because she's a woman.

sexism

• noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=sexism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

so, is hillary's gender the BASIS of choggie's criticism? No.
Also, note that choggie's criticism was not prejudiced, it was postjudiced

ktx.

But that's not what Choggie said. The language he used was blatantly sexist. If you don't like Hillary Clinton there's all sorts of non-sexist language a person can use. Same goes with Obama -- if you don't like Barack Obama that doesn't make it okay to call him a ni__er. That racist language demeans and degrades all black people. It's the same thing with sexism. (I still have a hard time believing I have to explain this.)

*hijacked

Yes. That was my whole intention. /sarcasm

Use it or lose it, ditto-head.

the language he used was blatantly gender specific. i am saying that is not automatically sexist, sexism is treating one gender differently to the way you treat another, purely on the basis of gender. i think choggie would have been insulting to hillary regardless of her gender. the words he used might have been feminine but it doesn't make any sense to call a woman a masculine insult does it?

insulting, unnecessary, disgusting, yes.
but not sexist. he did it because she deserves negative criticism, not because she's a woman.

if you can't believe i am saying this, quote the insult you think is sexist, maybe i missed something.

Grimm you wanna debate ron paul's exclusion instead or just throw asterisks?

mink wrote:

Grimm you wanna debate ron paul's exclusion instead or just throw asterisks?

I thought that's what I did...but I don't think people interested in this topic are willing to filter through the off-topic discussion that has taken over...thus the *hijacked invocation.

Choggie has edited out the worst of the sexist language from his post before I could copy/paste it. And I disagree with your reasoning and your narrow definiton of sexism. Once again I ask you, would you claim that it was NOT racist - merely ethnic-specific - for someone to attack, say Louis Farrakhan, not for his IDEAS, but for his racially-specific features? Come on. Your rationalizing here is a load of bs.

comparing racism to sexism is bs.

It's a near perfect analogy. You're just talking out of your arse.

dude. please at least attack my argument instead of throwing insults.

i am saying there is a fine line between a disgusting insult and sexism.

i am not defending choggie as some shining light of parity. i am just saying he wasn't attacking her femininity, he was attacking her appalling record. so there's a difference.

it seems all you would be satisfied with is if i accept YOUR overly broad definition of sexism. well i don't, because it's overly broad. Hillary is a stupid disgusting manipulative pathetic power hungry bitch. Shove your sexism up your arse.

my girl doesn't think i am sexist. she doesn't feel degraded by choggie's comments, she's stronger than that. so get over it.

The phrase "talking out of your arse" is not an insult. Telling a person to shove something up one's arse might be considered an insult, though. That said, I think my reply was reasonable considering your immediately preceding one-liner which was empty of any explanation.

Mink wrote: "i am just saying he wasn't attacking her femininity, he was attacking her appalling record. so there's a difference."

Wow, you're quite the contortionist! I'm impressed. He didn't say a single word about her "record". He did make a pun about her clitoris, though. Perhaps where you come from "record" has an anatomical meaning I'm not aware of.

And you still don't get it. (lol!) Let me make it even more simple for you. Choggie doesn't like Hillary Clinton's politics. (Neither do I; I think she's ridiculously dishonest, a right-wing warhawk, and shamelessly power-hungry.) Choggie, rather than criticizing her politics embarks on a very sexualized and degrading rant. That is sexism. The language was, by definition, sexist. To reconstruct here a near-perfect analogy for your benefit, imagine if I were commenting on a Louis Farrakhan sift. There are many things that disturb me about Farrakhan. I feel that he's racist, anti-semitic and disturbingly authoritarian. Now, to make the analogy, it would be deeply racist of me to attack Farrakhan's specific ethnic physical features rather than the features of his ideology that I find disturbing.

It's irrelevant whether "your girl" (omg!) feels offended by Choggie's vile comments. (She probably didn't even see them as he edited his post pretty quickly.)

Like I said earlier, I feel it's the responsibility of people to confront racism, sexism, homophobia etc., when it occurs.

It's not really feasible to give every candidate equal time in the media. Some candidates are just far too weak to be paid much attention to. Criteria are set so that the people who have a chance to win get attention. Otherwise, I could say I'm running today and demand equal time on the major networks and they'd have to give it to me. I think Ron Paul has proven himself to be worthy of attention in this race, even though I have no doubt that he will lose the primary. He still is big enough to be there in the race. Honestly though, <1%. That's a marginal candidate at best.
Anyway, the republican party really needs to come up with a strong candidate for this race. Seeing as how the Dem's have 2 dynamite options. Hillary's got legacy working for her and Obama is about as charismatic and downright reasonable as they come. I don't think there has been a more convincing "good-guy" sort of candidate than him in... generations. I'm an issues voter so I probably wont vote for him, but I'll surely consider it if he wins the primary. I just don't think Ron Paul has any chance at all up against either of the Dem leaders. As much as his followers might love him, he doesn't have enough of those followers to get elected, be that unfortunate or not. Still, he makes waves at debates and deserves a seat.

I don't know Doc M. Ron Paul has a good standing with a lot of liberal minds because he tends to lean toward liberal views. I think if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination that he would take a lot of democratic votes others, say John McCain wouldn't have.

Hillary, I don't think she's in the right time. She has strong standings with the far left but I really don't think people are ready to vote for a woman president.

Obama is probably the most likely Dem for the DNC to nominate but having a Muslim background isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.

I don't see things going well for the Democrats this election unless they can find a strong WASP male to take the podium. Having said that, I don't think it's right but I think that is the way things still work in this nation. But I am glad they are paving a way for future women and minorities to run for president.

somehow, there should be less talk of what other people are going to do, polls etc, and more talk about what each of us believe. but in the current system, you have an incentive to tactically vote.
I disagree that there should be unequal time for "important" candidates, because that gives the power to some editor to choose who he thinks is important.

remember democracy is about the pre election debates and the crazy fringe candidates having their say, it's not just about the result.

showing support for someone like ron paul is clearly making a difference to the debate, he's getting attention. variety is good.

oh, and for those fans of the 1% number, if you really must look at polls, try these:
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/11/ron-paul-pollin.html

blah blah spin whatever, if you believe in what ron paul stands for you should vote for him anyway and tell people wherever you go why.
same is true for any candidate.

gorgonheap wrote: "I think if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination that he would take a lot of democratic votes others, say John McCain wouldn't have."

Possibly true. What's more likely I think is Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination, and then - although he has so far denied any intention of such a thing - he'll run as an independent. If he doesn't run as an independent then my suspicion is that a very large part of his supporters simply won't vote, abandoning the race to the Democrats.

Gorgonheap wrote: "Hillary, I don't think she's in the right time. She has strong standings with the far left but I really don't think people are ready to vote for a woman president."

Ah...what is your definition of "far left"? Traditionally "far-left" refers to Stalinist and Maoist politics but probably that's not what you mean. Or are you refering to people like Michael Albert, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, et al? I assure you that you'll find no fans of Hillary Clinton here.

Perhaps you're using the term "far-left" the way Bill O'Reilly uses it. In that case why didn't you just say mainstream Democrats?

Logically wouldn't most left-of-centre Democratic Party supporters be for Dennis Kucinich?

It seems like there are people who like RP, people who don't like RP, and people who like RP but aren't going to be bothered to invest time or energy in him because they are convinced he cannot win. Unfortunately the way we have things setup it favors a "two candidate" race forcing people to pick from the two they "think" has the best chance of winning instead of picking who they really want to win. Plurality voting works great only if there are two people running for office. If there are more then two then many voters are forced to vote strategically, rather than voting according to their sincere preferences. They fear if they don't do this they could end up splitting the vote and the win could go to a candidate with less then 50% of the vote.

We could of course avoid all of this by switching to "Instant Runoff Voting".

but if you do anything except first past the post, people say it's "too complicated". gah.
There's flaws in all the systems, i just think the media/polling distortion beforehand is a big minus.

For the people who say it's "too complicated" they can remain ignorant and either not vote or just vote for one person like they always do.

well yeah, we know that.

Latest CBSNEWSNYT POLL SET FOR RELEASE ON WEDNESDAY:
IOWA: Romney 27; Huckabee 21; Giuliani 15; Thompson 9
NH: Romney 34; McCain/Giuliani tied 16; Paul 8; Huckabee 6; Thompson 5

IOWA: HILLARY 25%; EDWARDS 23%; OBAMA 22%
NH: HILLARY 37%; OBAMA 22%; EDWARDS 9%

--according to Drudge.

8 percent! Break out the champagne, boys! lol

Qualm, who are you supporting?

I'm not a USian.

"I'm not a USian"

That much is obvious. But I was wondering since you are against Ron Paul then who are you for?

8% is almost as high as george bush's approval rating.

"That much is obvious. But I was wondering since you are against Ron Paul then who are you for?"

"That much is obvious." What is that supposed to mean?

This election I could, hypothetically, support Kucinich. But if I were a USian there's almost no chance I'd be a member of the Democrat Party. So to answer your question it would be Kucinich...or more likely Brian Moore: http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/

From what I've seen of it they've got a good platform.

From what i have seen in Lithuania, their platform aint the way to go.
(although i applaud many of their sentiments, i don't believe their policies would have the effect they predict)

The Socialist Party USA is active in Lithuania?

no. but they used to have this thing called the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Is there a "socialist" party in Lithuania that advocates a return to Stalinism? I don't see what the undemocratic, totalitarian Soviet Union has to do with the Socialist Party USA's platform. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the coordinator class.

thought that would get you going.

lol. I'm pretty even-tempered these days. Probably because I'm going to spend winter moored in a quiet little cove somewhere up north along the Inside Passage. I have a novel to work on. And fish to catch.

hooray for double entendre.

Yeah, the battering I get here has me flummoxed. (Triple-entendre.)

qualm wrote:

"That much is obvious." What is that supposed to mean?

By you saying that you are not "USain" is something an American wouldn't say...that's all.

qualm wrote:

This election I could, hypothetically, support Kucinich. But if I were a USian there's almost no chance I'd be a member of the Democrat Party. So to answer your question it would be Kucinich...or more likely Brian Moore: http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/
From what I've seen of it they've got a good platform.

So you obvioulsy believe that what a candidate stands for is more important then thier poll numbers. Yet you constantly mock RP's poll numbers even though they are higher then the two candidates you would support.

Polls schmolls.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/ron_paul_probably_a_risk_he_co.html

I think I've only mocked Ron Paul's poll numbers with the one comment about cracking the champagne to celebrate more than doubling his support...to 8 percent. Certainly not constantly. I have posted the same link to a page with a whole collection of polls, but not merely for the sake of mockery.

you are such a literalist!!
i think the word "constantly" was used rhetorically here.
point is, you mock RP's low poll score but you support the communist i mean the People's Popular Democratic Socialist Workers Happiness Party. That's worth pointing out.

Isn't it funny how words and sentences of words actually have meaning...

But that's never concerned you in the past, so don't let it concern you now.

isn't it funny how words have different meanings to everyone that uses them, and yet you expect everybody else to refer to your own personal Dictionary of Qualm. Give people some space, this is the internet, half of us are drunk and/or naked. I say stuff I don't really mean all the time, to test it out. Why not? I am not making a sworn statement. Don't hold me to anything, I am not even using my real name

Hehehe. What makes you think I take you seriously?

your constant replies

That's you taking yourself seriously, not me.

Out of curiosity, am I the only one in the room who an actually vote in the republican primary? lol.

Hey Doc_M, I'm voting in the republican primary for Ron Paul.

Qualm, maybe "constantly mock" was not the best choice of words...but you do bring his polling numbers into almost every RP video you have commented on...even if it is just posting a link to the polls the intent seem clear that you are trying to discourage people based on his polling numbers instead of just sticking to the issues. I'm not saying his polling numbers aren't fair game...just that it seems a bit hypocritical when you would prefer we were supporting someone with even lower polling numbers.

I've posted that link to the site with numerous polls maybe three times? I think you're exaggerating again. And I've only offered it with the hopes that it might encourage people to integrate that data into the bland and predictable "Ron Paul is really constitutional" discussions you people like to have.

I don't know if it's a sign of the relative youth here or a certain lack of political experience but there's a sort of bright and shiny tone to the Ron Paul discussions that I find Stepfordish and a bit off-putting.

Clearly I have no interest in reading or taking part in a blinkingly uncritical Ron Paul/rw-libertarian coffee klatch. But if there arose a discussion around specific strategies then I might be able to pinch my nose and offer some insight as I do have a bit of background in that sort of thing.

doc_m wrote:

"Out of curiosity, am I the only one in the room who an actually vote in the republican primary? lol."

I'll be voting....just got confirmation yesterday that my registration has been switched back to Republican.

In some states like CA they won't let you vote for a Republican in the primaries unless you are registered as a Republican. So if any non-republicans are planning on voting for Ron Paul you better check that. If you don't like the Republican party but you like Ron Paul just hold your nose and do it. You can always switch back after the primaries since in the November general election you can vote for anyone no matter what party you are registered with.

According to this blog the Iowa Republican Debate has been canceled.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/FoxIowa_GOP_debate_off_Romney_blamed.html

The Iowa Republican Party announced today that the debate they had planned in concert with Fox is now off. It was to be Dec. 4.

The press release issued by the party said it had been canceled due to unspecified "candidate scheduling conflicts."

But in a statement at the bottom of the release, Iowa GOP executive director Chuck Laudner appears to pin the blame on just one.

"It is too bad that a candidate wouldn't want to take advantage of this kind of debate with representation from all 99 Iowa counties in the audience, let alone the fact FOX News Channel has had the most viewers of any debate," Laudner said.

Per some unhappy Iowa Republican sources, that candidate is Mitt Romney. The state party had been waiting to hear on both Romney and Rudy Giuliani (with either assumedly waiting on the other). When they got word that the poll-leader in the state wouldn't attend, they decided to pull the plug altogether.