Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simple question, as much as a person can "win" a debate, who do you think came out on top last night?

I guess no one watched it, lol!

Of course no one watched it. It was on Fox

LordofHats wrote:Of course no one watched it. It was on Fox

Yup, lol.

Well, technically I don't have cabal. So even if I wanted to watch something as bland as the news when there's plenty of prime time dramas and "edgy" teen comedies...

They all won, that debate was one of the funniest, if not The funniest, political related event I've ever seen XD

Funny for being pathetic, or for other reasons?

LordofHats wrote:Of course no one watched it. It was on Fox

Of course!

Besides, attempting to figure such a thing out is not only a waste of your own time, but is wasting everyone else's time and sometimes money.

Edit: Also, herp derp fair and balanced you say? Lie to my face you will? Displeased in the dark side, yoda is.

Apparantly it was pretty popular, with over 3 million viewers (more than Maddow & Morgan (the next two) combined.

Presidential debates at this point are pretty useless, most of the people who will be running haven't even declared their candidacy yet.

So was trump absent? Cause if he was present, that would truly have been a circus worth watching.

No one won as none of those candidates are seriously in the 2012 running...yet.

Basically once you declare you're running for president, a bunch of legal disclosure issues kick in. The expected "front runners" for the GOP nomination (or at least the political heavyweights) haven't declared because it would limit their ability to raise money.

Then again, there's no saying that a relative lightweight couldn't win the GOP nomination, it worked for Obama.

LordofHats wrote:Well, technically I don't have cabal. So even if I wanted to watch something as bland as the news when there's plenty of prime time dramas and "edgy" teen comedies...

Typo?

I never claimed to win awards at spelling bees

LordofHats wrote:I never claimed to win awards at spelling bees

I wonder what was the official stance of these GOP candidates on spelling bees?

Proud American Tradition, or Communist Subervsion Tactics?

They're elitist, and full of foreigners. Depends on the Republican, but those are black marks for many.

Mannahnin wrote:They're elitist, and full of foreigners. Depends on the Republican, but those are black marks for many.

My new favorite hobby is pointing out that pointing out elitism in other people is itself a form of elitism.

dogma wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:They're elitist, and full of foreigners. Depends on the Republican, but those are black marks for many.

My new favorite hobby is pointing out that pointing out elitism in other people is itself a form of elitism.

Well I take offense that your pointing out that your new hobby is pointing out elitism in other people being a form of elitism.

That's just so elitist.

dogma wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:They're elitist, and full of foreigners. Depends on the Republican, but those are black marks for many.

My new favorite hobby is pointing out that pointing out elitism in other people is itself a form of elitism.

Wait wouldn't that make you an elitist...oh wait, damn I think I'm an elitist too now :/

asimo77 wrote:
Wait wouldn't that make you an elitist...oh wait, damn I think I'm an elitist too now :/

Yeah, but I'm a snob, so I don't care.

dogma wrote:

asimo77 wrote:
Wait wouldn't that make you an elitist...oh wait, damn I think I'm an elitist too now :/

Yeah, but I'm a snob, so I don't care.

The Democrats won!

biccat wrote:Apparantly it was pretty popular[/url], with over 3 million viewers (more than Maddow & Morgan (the next two) combined.

Almost 1% of the US population watched! This was more people than watched talking head pundits on a calbe news channel!

You're right that the viewing numbers were quite good, but they were good by the standards of cable news, not by the standards of relevant political debate.

Presidential debates at this point are pretty useless, most of the people who will be running haven't even declared their candidacy yet.

Basically, yeah. None of these people are serious candidates. They only appear that way because there's no serious candidates out in the wings.



EDIT - I guess Herman Cain won, given no-one had any idea who he was before the debate started, and now we do thanks to that fun line about how well experienced candidates have done in Washington. I don't think anyone else gained one tiny thing about the debate, so that leave Cain.

Also, the mispelling of Rick Santorum's name in the poll is awesome, given the other meaning of Santorum... makes him sound like a pornstar.

I always really like Ron Paul. He has a lot of interesting things to say.

Monster Rain wrote:I always really like Ron Paul. He has a lot of interesting things to say.

Then he says "gold standard"...

Also, the mispelling of Rick Santorum's name in the poll is awesome, given the other meaning of Santorum... makes him sound like a pornstar.

Haha! One of my funnier typos to be sure.

As to the debate, on the basis of who had the most to benefit from the debate, I have to agree that perhaps Herman Cain edges out here. Before the debate a lot of people really didn't know who he was, and his one liner certainly garnered him some renown.

However, I think that Paul made a close second by using the exact same scoring "system." Last election cycle (and now to an extent) many people did not consider Paul having any chance of getting the nomination. However, since 2008 Paul's message as led to some of the biggest political stirrings in the nation. Fox News, most likely the most hostile news network to Paul, even conceded that he is considered by many to be "the Founder of the Tea Party movement." Regardless of your opinion on the Tea Party, and its many factions, you cannot deny the large political force it has brought to the table and how it is forcing the old "establishment" GOP to rethink the way they handle things.

In short, last election almost everyone said "Who is Ron Paul?" This cycle a large majority of people know who he is and a great deal of his predictions about the economy have come true in the past few years, who would have thought 3 years ago that the Fed would ever any level of transparency brought to it?

Now, if we grade the candidates on an intellectual standard, the is no denying Paul took the cake. Cain offered no really solid answers to any of the questions asked him, just witty and Reaganisque responses that sound appealing. T-Paw and Santorum came off as the personification of the "typical politician" and I think the debate hurt them, especially since the image of "typical politicians" is really a no go at the moment, or at least more so than in the past.

Johnson... ehh... kind of like Paul in some ways but really not very impressive nor as energetic as the Congressman. Other than the Mary J question, I think he didn't lose much, but he certainly gained nothing either.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I always really like Ron Paul. He has a lot of interesting things to say.

Then he says "gold standard"...

True. I don't drink his kool-aid, but he's honestly the guy who I most identify with out of the Republican field of candidates.

winner

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I always really like Ron Paul. He has a lot of interesting things to say.



Then he says "gold standard"...

True. I don't drink his kool-aid, but he's honestly the guy who I most identify with out of the Republican field of candidates.

I have typically found that most people who say "o lord, he wants a gold standard?" can't go on to explain what the difference between a gold standard and fiat currency is. The problem with the way people understand how the gold standard works is that they look at it with the mindset of a Keynesian economist (Keynesianism, our current accepted system, has proved time and time again to be bust system that is responsible for the boom and bust cycle of our economy) instead of an Austrian economist.

Those who learn about the Austrian school and accept the Keynesian school as unsustainable, suddenly look at the gold standard in a new light. Although it might sound archaic, not all things old are bad.

For those of you who want a quick read on both schools, just go to wikipedia, the explanations there are fairly good.

Most people who support the gold can't then follow on with what benefits there are for it exactly, especially vs. the costs.