The Youtube Debate - Democrat Edition

The GOP one is in September...did any of you watch it? If so, what'd you think?

I thought it was mildly interesting, I found myself more and more impressed with Clinton and less impressed with almost everyone else...Barry got a couple of good zingers in there.

My question is, what the hell is up with Richardson? Why does he consistently choke whenever he's onstage with everyone?

Also, Biden is the man...even though he'll never be president.

Edit: What do Republicans think? I know there are a couple of you guys on here that lean right, what do you all think of Clinton and Obama?

I can't wait to see the GOP one...I bet some of those videos will be really interesting to watch.

Redneck_spikhater: "Mr Romney, why do you worship the devil? And Rudy...why are you a gay abortionist Mary worshipper?"

i thought the question about working for minimum wage was hilarious.

Fucking stupid, I turned it off because I had to do an assignment which was due. Anyhow, they all just say what they think is going to get them the most votes. Obama would talk his way out of a bag of shit before he'd give you a straight up answer. I seriously don't think he could win though anyways, he's black and I just don't see the red states (read as "full of rednecks") to give him the votes he'd need. Clinton maybe, but then again I highly doubt it. We are fucked, and I'm afraid the republicans will be up to their dirty tricks again and pull the carpet out from under us again. They've rigged the system, I'm convinced, it won't be fair when they use electronic polling machines. I'll vote, but I honestly don't think it matters anymore.

Dennis the Mennace is still the only candidate who speaks my mind.... And actually gives a fuck about anything...

1. Leaving Iraq
2. The new law forcing IRaq to Privatize thier oil.... (So much for the war paying for it's self)
3. Making gas stations dispense gasoline at temperature independent volume.




Still gotta love gravel........

I only watched a bit of it. The whole format and questions presented seemed a little too silly to take seriously.

When I turned it on, Clinton was being asked about being a liberal, and she gave some long convoluted answer about preferring the term "progressive", :emb: then after that, everyone else seemed too embarrassed to admit to being tagged a liberal.

When they got to the subject of reparations for slavery, I couldn't handle it anymore. It seemed like every one of them gave wimpy PC answers, especially Obama who I remember dodged the question entirely.



I think Obama is going to fall out of favor with most people. In my opinion, one of the reasons he's relatively well liked is because people really don't know that much about him. In recent months though, I remember on at least a few separate occasions he made some really obvious pander speeches that shows he's just as much a politician as any of them.

Hillary Clinton, I think, is dishonest and annoying in many of her public appearances. To me, it seems like she doesn't make decisions based on principle, but rather, based on poll numbers.

Just some of my opinions, though.

Joe Biden don't pander...

Much...

He says crazier shit than Mike Gravel....

LIke the one on guns...

Haha...

Pwned......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnairDogg

I'm afraid the republicans will be up to their dirty tricks again and pull the carpet out from under us again. They've rigged the system, I'm convinced, it won't be fair when they use electronic polling machines.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

3. Making gas stations dispense gasoline at a temperature independent volume.

---

LOL

Well I think a few things are clear this election cycle.

Republicans don't like their candidates. For a party that so values personal responsibility, three of the four top contenders have been divorced at least once, whereas none of the top Democrats has.

Obama polls very well among Democrats and Republicans under 35 (He would beat any other Republican currently running) and would completely sweep the independent vote...not to mention the Democratic base.

Clinton will have a tougher time, but I think one thing is clear and Zenimus touched on this, she just doesn't seem sincere. The big reason I see this is she has to play it much tougher than everyone else because she's a woman, she can't be seen as weak in any way.

In the first debate they were all asked what they would do if America were attacked again, all the other Dems on stage had these convoluted answers about deploying readiness troops and forming task forces...Clinton said one word, "Retaliate".

I'm still with Obama so far, but Hillary is really winning me over. I don't LIKE her, but she bleeds competence and strength...something that I think will play well in the general.

If anyone is seriously considering Hillary as a president, and says the republicans are crooked.. their right to vote should be revoked.

P.S. Hillary has cankles... pass it on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanillaThunder

and says the republicans are crooked.. their right to vote should be revoked.

---

:rolleyes:

Rommney might actualy not be a bad president....

At least he has been able to work with the Mass legislature... Not a great job.... But stilll...

That bit where Clinton identified with Progressives was retarded shit...

Sure she identifies with modern socialist progressives, but to identify with the older movement isn't accurate at all.

Kucinich was very disappointing as well, he dodged the "will my taxes go up" question by claiming Bush raised taxes and then went on to talk about the deficit despite that having nothing to do with the fact that he has openly said he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts (which, while I'm not a supporter of Bush has increased Govt revenue) which would amount to the largest tax raise in American history....

http://beginnorth.com/blog/?p=93

The Telecommunications act of 1997 was not very progressive.

If I had a camera and wasn't so damn ugly, I would have asked a question about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

That bit where Clinton identified with Progressives was retarded shit...

Sure she identifies with modern socialist progressives, but to identify with the older movement isn't accurate at all.

Kucinich was very disappointing as well, he dodged the "will my taxes go up" question by claiming Bush raised taxes and then went on to talk about the deficit despite that having nothing to do with the fact that he has openly said he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts (which, while I'm not a supporter of Bush has increased Govt revenue) which would amount to the largest tax raise in American history....

---

You're little mixed up there. Of the people on stage, the only person who could come close to holding socialist positions would be Kucinich and...well...Kucinich. Even Gravel wants to eliminate the IRS.

Clinton is not a socialist, and hearing that would make Marx turn in his grave. She's received more Wall Street contributions than any candidate in either party except for Obama and Romney and she's been endorsed by Warren Buffett...who isn't exactly petty bourgeois.

Secondly, the old progressives, the Teddy Roosevelt progressives, WERE socialists. One of their primary policy points was to criminalize conglomeration and expand government oversight and regulation of industry. Roosevelt was the trust busting, unionizing, pinko commie of his day.

The modern term "progressive" is a euphamism for center-left liberal...essentially a liberal who is more skeptical of organized labor and more open to business. Think Bloomberg or Bill Clinton even.

EDIT: and also, repealing retarded tax cuts is not a tax increase, it's called responsible government.

Besides, what do you care? Unless you made more than $200k a year you barely saw a dime come back to you.

Anyone that mentions the word "socialist" in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton clearly either has their head up their ass, listens to too much Limbaugh/Hannity or both.
She served on the fucking board of directors at Wal-Mart for Christ's sake.
Last time I checked, they're not too big on socialism.
Being for universal health care doesn't make you a socialist, it just means you don't bend over and take it in the ass from drug and insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK

You're little mixed up there. Of the people on stage, the only person who could come close to holding socialist positions would be Kucinich and...well...Kucinich. Even Gravel wants to eliminate the IRS.

Clinton is not a socialist, and hearing that would make Marx turn in his grave. She's received more Wall Street contributions than any candidate in either party except for Obama and Romney and she's been endorsed by Warren Buffett...who isn't exactly petty bourgeois.

---

Buffet is more "Socialist" than people give him credit for.....

Also, no Progressive is an adversary to organized labor....

The whole progressive movement is founded in honest pay for honest work......

Maybe they understand that a balance must be made... But progressives know that what's in the best interests of the workers is in the best interests of the economy and the country.


As far as calling yourself "Progressive goes", Progressives still don't put enough emphasis on "efficiency"..... It's a great flank for the Norquists.

A few thoughts...

Overall, that had to be one of the dumbest debates I have ever seen. The questions and the presentation of the questions was ridiculously low level, and it made the debate very silly and dumb. The whole thing was just simple minded.

Also, I think we should stop it with the liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. labels. Nobody up there is really a socialist, just as nobody on the GOP debates is a fascist. People should focus on what these people say rather than labeling them under a certain umbrella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IMTheWalrus

A few thoughts...

Overall, that had to be one of the dumbest debates I have ever seen. The questions and the presentation of the questions was ridiculously low level, and it made the debate very silly and dumb. The whole thing was just simple minded.

Also, I think we should stop it with the liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. labels. Nobody up there is really a socialist, just as nobody on the GOP debates is a fascist. People should focus on what these people say rather than labeling them under a certain umbrella.

---

Giulianni is pretty much a fascist...

Maybe not in the Hitler vein, but definitively in the Mussolini vein.

IMTheWalrus: I hear ya, but that's wishful thinking.

What annoys me about these debates is that they aren't really debating anything...no one is challenging anyone else.

I know you're supposed to be civil and respectful in these primary debates but no one is getting anywhere...and Mike Gravel is getting really annoying.

Saw some of it while at work last night and it was interesting to say the very least and can only wonder what the Republican version will be like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hidden Character

Saw some of it while at work last night and it was interesting to say the very least and can only wonder what the Republican version will be like.

---

"Dear Ruddi, as like you I'm a vampire, which age bracket do you find has the best blood?"

Quote:

---

Anyone that mentions the word "socialist" in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton clearly either has their head up their ass, listens to too much Limbaugh/Hannity or both.
She served on the fucking board of directors at Wal-Mart for Christ's sake.
Last time I checked, they're not too big on socialism.
Being for universal health care doesn't make you a socialist, it just means you don't bend over and take it in the ass from drug and insurance companies.

---

QFT

No one running for president this election is a socialist. People are still too fucking scared of Communists to ever properly point out socialists or Communists. To some GOPers a Liberal is a Communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loopz

Anyone that mentions the word "socialist" in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton clearly either has their head up their ass, listens to too much Limbaugh/Hannity or both.
She served on the fucking board of directors at Wal-Mart for Christ's sake.
Last time I checked, they're not too big on socialism.
Being for universal health care doesn't make you a socialist, it just means you don't bend over and take it in the ass from drug and insurance companies.

---

Sure she served on the board at Wal-Mart and now she would never do such a thing because it wouldn't be popular. I doubt she believes in the socialist agenda she's pushing, but it makes her a popular.

BTW - I believe she is pushing a socialist agenda, I support universal healthcare, I don't support socialism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK

EDIT: and also, repealing retarded tax cuts is not a tax increase, it's called responsible government.

Besides, what do you care?

---

Back up your first statement....

Second, I do care because with the tax cuts the govt. is pulling in more money which should eventually help out people like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Back up your first statement....

Second, I do care because with the tax cuts the govt. is pulling in more money which should eventually help out people like me.

---

This is a really ridiculous statement.... I'm going to assume that your use of the word "pulling" is used incorrectly.




PS
No president in recent has increased taxes more than George W. Bush.

His irresponsible "cuts", and record expansion are just going to result in tax increases in the future.... With interest.

Never mind what the borrowing does to interest rates.... Fucking over every tom jane and harry who tries to buy a house on credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

No president in recent has increased taxes more than George W. Bush.

His irresponsible "cuts", and record expansion are just going to result in tax increases in the future.... With interest.

Never mind what the borrowing does to interest rates.... Fucking over every tom jane and harry who tries to buy a house on credit.

---

your response is little more than bashing Bush -- an individual who I dislike as much as the next guy.

His record expansion pisses me off, the guy should be ashamed to call himself a conservative.

But, government income is up as a result of the tax cut. So why would it be "responsible" to repeal it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Back up your first statement...

---

Ok look at it this way. Bush cut taxes and then went to war without so much as rationing raw materials.

How do you think we paid for the war if we didn't pay any extra taxes? Clinton left behind a 250 billion dollar surplus which was quickly spent, and then the President went into deficit spending...which is essentially like racking up a credit card bill.

The Iraq war costs $11 billion a MONTH.

A month!

We'll have to pay that back eventually, with interest of course, and guess what's gonna have to happen to do it?

Repealing the tax cuts.

What the Democrats should do is make people work for the tax cuts, there should be recycling quotas or something along those lines so that people can offset their lower taxes and actually contribute to society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

But, government income is up as a result of the tax cut. So why would it be "responsible" to repeal it?

---

By government income do you mean the salaries of employees or revenue?

I can assure you that revenue has not gone up. I mean that's economically impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK

By government income do you mean the salaries of employees or revenue?

I can assure you that revenue has not gone up. I mean that's economically impossible.

---

Tax revenue is up 15% after the tax cuts vs before, and if we continue to allow the tax cuts to take effect I imagine that revenue will climb even higher.

This could be due to other things however, and I agree is seems impossible that revenue would go up, however it's completely possible that investment would go up, more jobs would be created and that revenue would increase, unlikely, but possible

And I as I've said before (and somehow the left leaning members of the board cannot seem to grasp) I am an anti-bush, anti-war, conservative. You don't need to preach to me about the stupid expenses of the war.

When I watch these debates the pattern seems to be - dodge the question and change the subject to bashing republicans - I would love to hear a Democrat talk about what they would do to help out (health care aside, I feel they have done well getting that point across). All of their proposals seem vague and indefinite. All I ever hear is that they are going to help "people who are don't have the best" etc....while this is all well and good, how about something that helps average joe American instead of the guy who says he is underprivileged because he sits on his ass all day, or blames race, or income on his problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

how about something that helps average joe American instead of the guy who says he is underprivileged because he sits on his ass all day, or blames race, or income on his problems.

---

Isnt being poor (particularly working poor) one of the requirements for needing help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesagwa

Isnt being poor (particularly working poor) one of the requirements for needing help?

---

That depends on your point of view and I think is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. I would say that person needs help, but not financial help, rather motivation to better his position through education or what have you.

I guess maybe it comes down to whether or not you believe that everyone can get somewhere with hard work and determination...which is a whole different discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

That depends on your point of view and I think is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. I would say that person needs help, but not financial help, rather motivation to better his position through education or what have you.

I guess maybe it comes down to whether or not you believe that everyone can get somewhere with hard work and determination...which is a whole different discussion.

---

You have to realize there are factors other than motivation that are out of the hands of most people.

A can do attitude can only get you so far. But yeah, whole other conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesagwa

You have to realize there are factors other than motivation that are out of the hands of most people.

A can do attitude can only get you so far. But yeah, whole other conversation.

---

I don't know if I'd say most people but you're absolutely right, many people have other factors in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesagwa

You have to realize there are factors other than motivation that are out of the hands of most people.

A can do attitude can only get you so far. But yeah, whole other conversation.

---

I think Al Franken put it this way.

How can someone pull themselves up by their bootstraps... if they have no boots?

Lashujin is right....

Receipts are up 15-20% since the tax cuts.... and 30-40% since 2003.

So the tax cuts were not as devastating as everybody supposed... Still irresponsible (since they were intended to distribute the SURPLUS).

Of course the lack of real changes to the AMT has eliminated such cuts [and in many cases increased] taxes for the middle class. The cuts were written knowing that the AMT would offset a large amounts of cuts.

The real problem with the tax cut is that it created some rather large massive debts [receipts slipped from 2001-2004] which must be paid off. Secondly, the economy has moved very slowly during the same period. And so haven't real wages for a vast majority of Americans.

The explosion of the federal government from 2001-2007 is the real culprit of our fiscal problems. The tax cuts have exacerbated the problems.... Modifying them would solve some problems. Some people would say that would kill the economy. Others disagree....

I still say that the tax cuts were unnecessary.... If you compare tax policy, the economy and revenues between the Clinton era and the Bush Era, you will find that everything worked better in the Clinton era.

Going back to 2000, I would have preferred the Al Gore tax cuts.... They were much more proportional across the board. They were much smaller as a total....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

Snip

---

Sounds legit, but I'm curious how tax cuts made problems worse if receipts are up and how tax cuts created debt?

I also don't think tax cuts should be across the board, but that because I think having tax brackets is ridiculous in the first place. Why punish someone for succeeding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Sounds legit, but I'm curious how tax cuts made problems worse if receipts are up and how tax cuts created debt?

---

The 15% revenue increase figure does not adjust for inflation. When you adjust for inflation, revenue has only JUST matched it's pre-cut levels.... 2006 is the first year that the receipts matched pre-cut levels. Receipts were lower in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 THAN they were in 2000.

So I guess that might be a good thing for some people.The goverment cut taxes and is getting the same amount of money. Of course these "Cuts" were supposed to pay for themselves 10x over. Wether or not that happens remains to be seen (I still doubt it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

I also don't think tax cuts should be across the board, but that because I think having tax brackets is ridiculous in the first place. Why punish someone for succeeding?

---

I understand your point.... But there is another way to look at it.

Ever since it's inception, a major focus of the goverment was to protect private property (IE: WEALTH). Those with the most wealth receive the most protection. Everything from police, to foreign wars to stopping the manufacture and sale of counterfeit goods around the globe.

Businesses also benefit the most from the goverment expansion of infrastructure. Look at what Rural Electrification, the Interstate system and the Internet has done for Walmart.


The other funny thing is that the people at the very very top don't pay that high of taxes anymore.... I remember Warren Buffet talking about how his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

I love whenever a canidate is asked a question and they give an answer that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked.

My favorite from that debate was Obama talking about public education for 2 minutes after he was asked about slave reparation.

Kucinich starting one his answers with the phrase "the bible says.." was rather amusing also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

Ever since it's inception, a major focus of the goverment was to protect private property (IE: WEALTH). Those with the most wealth receive the most protection

---

And why is this wrong? Of course if you have more wealth you would benefit most from wealth protection...

The Warren Buffet thing does seem whacked out though, that shouldn't be that way. They should both be paying the same tax.

Also if the govt. is receiving the same amount of revenue while taking some of the tax burden off of people (whether they be super rich or not shouldn't matter) isn't that a good thing? Why is there then a need to re-instate the taxes. It is likely to have a similar effect in the opposite direction - immediately revenue will be up enormously (as it was down) but over time revenue will drop and people will lose their jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

And why is this wrong? Of course if you have more wealth you would benefit most from wealth protection...

---

And you should pay the most....

If Venezuela invaded, I wouldn't be that much worse off..... But the Buffets, the Gates and Haliburton might be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

The Warren Buffet thing does seem whacked out though, that shouldn't be that way. They should both be paying the same tax.

---

THat's not what Buffet himself says....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Also if the govt. is receiving the same amount of revenue while taking some of the tax burden off of people (whether they be super rich or not shouldn't matter) isn't that a good thing?

---

Well for one, goverment expenditures have risen exponentially over that time...

Even without the increased expenditures, we still owe trillions of dollars....

THe more that that gets paid off, the better we are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Why is there then a need to re-instate the taxes. It is likely to have a similar effect in the opposite direction - immediately revenue will be up enormously (as it was down) but over time revenue will drop and people will lose their jobs.

---

GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

Ohh wait, no not such a great idea...

Ever heard of the Clinton Tax hikes of 1993??????
Clinton nearly doubled revenues in 8 years, Job Growth was strong. The economy ran at a post WWII record place. Wealth and real wages were boosted at EVERY level.....

Since 2001, real wages have remained stagnant for 95% of the population.

Which would you prefer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

That's not what Buffet himself says....

---

And? I wouldn't consider him an authority on whats best for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

Well for one, goverment expenditures have risen exponentially over that time...

Even without the increased expenditures, we still owe trillions of dollars....

The more that that gets paid off, the better we are...

---

I agree with you on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

Ohh wait, no not such a great idea...

Ever heard of the Clinton Tax hikes of 1993??????
Clinton nearly doubled revenues in 8 years, Job Growth was strong. The economy ran at a post WWII record place. Wealth and real wages were boosted at EVERY level.....

Since 2001, real wages have remained stagnant for 95% of the population.

Which would you prefer?

---

Well, there is a ceiling on how high the taxes can go before it's simply too much. I would argue that the tax burden even on the lower brackets (read=me) is too much. How high do we really need to go.

God democrates cry like little bitches quit thinking us republicans rig elections or control electronic poll machines :lolz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Geo MVS

God democrates cry like little bitches quit thinking us republicans rig elections or control electronic poll machines :lolz:

---

Sigh....this doesn't help at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Geo MVS

God democrates cry like little bitches quit thinking us republicans rig elections or control electronic poll machines :lolz:

---

Yeah, us democrates sure is stoopid.

I better break up your marriage, renounce Jesus, make your daughter have a black baby and then turn it gay. I have a lot to live up to.

PS, whatever happened to the smart ones? This used to be a fair fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

Well, there is a ceiling on how high the taxes can go before it's simply too much. I would argue that the tax burden even on the lower brackets (read=me) is too much. How high do we really need to go.

---

Of course....

It's a [Laffer] curve.

The question is where ithe USA is on the curve...

I just resist the notion that raising taxes ALWAYS kills the economy. And the Lowering them ALWAYS helps the economy.......

It's good way to campaign ....... But a bad way to shape policy.

Democrats are only mad because rigging elections is their racket*.







*Historically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashujin

And why is this wrong? Of course if you have more wealth you would benefit most from wealth protection...

The Warren Buffet thing does seem whacked out though, that shouldn't be that way. They should both be paying the same tax.

Also if the govt. is receiving the same amount of revenue while taking some of the tax burden off of people (whether they be super rich or not shouldn't matter) isn't that a good thing? Why is there then a need to re-instate the taxes. It is likely to have a similar effect in the opposite direction - immediately revenue will be up enormously (as it was down) but over time revenue will drop and people will lose their jobs.

---

I don't know where you got that 15% figure from, but that may very well be true.

But that doesn't mean that you can attribute that to the tax cuts. There are other factors at play here. Even if there are tax cuts, if the economy grows (as it did when we financed our economic growth through the government spending more money than it took in) you will receive more tax revenue. Of course, when the tax cuts started in 2001 until now, the economy probably grew MORE than 15%, meaning that our tax revenue may have grown slower than it would had we not cut taxes. When the economy grows about 4% a year for 6 years, that's more than 15% growth I think over that period of time. And, as Norton pointed out, this doesn't even consider the effect of inflation, but the growth in our economy is measured against inflation.

On top of that, foreign investment (which is how we fund our deficit) supply's revenue as well, however that's not real revenue, that's borrowed money. Selling more government bonds isn't really increasing revenue, it's using the government credit card.

I don't see how anyone can defend the Bush tax cuts. It was given to the people who needed it the least, during a time in which we invaded a country and increased the size of the government. It wasn't fiscally responsible, and it mortgages the economic future of every man, woman, and child in this country.

What I do know is that our budget deficit could probably be eliminated if we did what John Edwards is suggesting and eliminate the tax cuts for people making over $200K a year, which is not unreasonable in my opinion, as well as getting out of Iraq and examining our defense spending a little closer. We spend a ridiculous amount of money on weapons that we not only don't need, but are antiquated.

In related news, every republican candidate other than Ron Paul and John McCain refused to do the Republican Youtube Debate.

Something about having better things to do than take questions from a snowman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesagwa

In related news, every republican candidate other than Ron Paul and John McCain refused to do the Republican Youtube Debate.

Something about having better things to do than take questions from a snowman.

---

That's funny, until Ron Paul and John McCain get an hour and a half of free publicity.

The Debate is sponsored by the Florida GOP, it's not like it's gonna be cancelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesagwa

In related news, every republican candidate other than Ron Paul and John McCain refused to do the Republican Youtube Debate.

Something about having better things to do than take questions from a snowman.

---

Although I felt the debate was pointless, it would be foolish for the Republicans not to participate. There's definitely an advantage in participating in that kind of public forum, even if it's low brow.

In other words, a dumb Youtube debate isn't going to get people to not vote for someone, but not participating in it could hurt a candidate's image.