[quote]tedro wrote:
I for instance thought he won the debate by a landslide but I’m not going to waste my time on a worthless on line poll.[/quote]
You thought he won because you respect and agree what he stands for. As I said someone who doesn’t know who they want or what they want will be immediately turned off to Paul. You won’t waste your time on a worthless online poll because you’re not an idiot.
Actually, maybe it can be proved. From what I’ve read and what I see on this site young males are the bulk of Paul’s support. And I mean MALES as young females are not turned on by Paul. Young females will once again vote for Obama. All a good republcan candidate can do is try to draw enough away to make a difference. But yeah young males are most of Pauls supporters I’d bet a lot on that.
Thanks, can I sign you up for “ZEB’S Politics and Pundits” It’s an Internet newsletter that will appear in your mailbox every Friday of each week. No…actually I’m kidding.
They also eat at McDonalds regularly.
[quote]Bachmann for instance is typically very good at saying the right thing, but I simply don’t trust her and don’t believe she has much in the way of substance. She screwed up big on the 10th ammendment, but overall she is typically an excellent speaker, and frankly that quality is entirely overrated. Newt Gingrich is proof of that. Like him or not (seems like most don’t), he has been an extremely effective politician and I generally agree with his stance as well. Yet whose face is constantly on fox? Bachmann’s. Didn’t they have her on right after the debate? Was anybody else interviewed afterwards? (These are serious questions, I went to bed shortly after it ended.)
[/quote]
Why don’t you trust Bachmann? Is it because she is a female? There is a biased against female leaders in this country. Look how fast the democratic establishment threw Hillary under the bus once Obama arrived on the scene.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why don’t you trust Bachmann? Is it because she is a female? There is a biased against female leaders in this country. Look how fast the democratic establishment threw Hillary under the bus once Obama arrived on the scene.[/quote]
She simply strikes me as an opportunist. In general, I agree with what she says and what she stands for, and while she is definitely considerably more intelligent than Sarah Palin, I’m just yet to see enough substance out of her to be convinced she is much more than a bunch of talking points. At this point I feel like she is more of a populist for the tea party movement. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but as a politician she does not get the benefit of doubt from me until she proves otherwise.
It has nothing to do with being female. I don’t trust Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum, or Gingrich either. I don’t know enough about Huntsman to comment. Cain I do think I would trust, I’m just not sure when to take him seriously.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why don’t you trust Bachmann? Is it because she is a female? There is a biased against female leaders in this country. Look how fast the democratic establishment threw Hillary under the bus once Obama arrived on the scene.[/quote]
She simply strikes me as an opportunist. In general, I agree with what she says and what she stands for, and while she is definitely considerably more intelligent than Sarah Palin, I’m just yet to see enough substance out of her to be convinced she is much more than a bunch of talking points. At this point I feel like she is more of a populist for the tea party movement. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but as a politician she does not get the benefit of doubt from me until she proves otherwise.
It has nothing to do with being female. I don’t trust Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum, or Gingrich either. I don’t know enough about Huntsman to comment. Cain I do think I would trust, I’m just not sure when to take him seriously.[/quote]
Probably a good read not trusting any of them. Trust is a very important word and to actually give that to a politician of any sort is probably not a good idea. I thought you were just singling her out as your post indicated.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I can’t wait to hear the excuses tomorrow, the armchair generals are already dumbfounded how he won last nights debate.[/quote]
Well tell us John what do you expect to happen tomorrow?[/quote]
Ron Paul winning the Ames straw poll or at least top 3. With that he offically emerges as a top tier candidate. I just got off a conference call about it and let me tell you I was surprised by the ammount of people who are coming and they are all from Iowa so we can’t get the ballet stuffer argument against this one.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I can’t wait to hear the excuses tomorrow, the armchair generals are already dumbfounded how he won last nights debate.[/quote]
Well tell us John what do you expect to happen tomorrow?[/quote]
Ron Paul winning the Ames straw poll or at least top 3. With that he offically emerges as a top tier candidate. I just got off a conference call about it and let me tell you I was surprised by the ammount of people who are coming and they are all from Iowa so we can’t get the ballet stuffer argument against this one.[/quote]
Tell me John do you know if the voters have to actually sign their names and show ID BEFORE they have the opportunity to vote? If no one is looking sure Paul will do well. As I said he will always do well when the Paulies, like yourself, have the opportunity to cheat. But when there are ID checks and signatures involved he doesn’t do so well.
‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:
‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]
Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)
I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]
Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]
[quote]John S. wrote:
I can’t wait to hear the excuses tomorrow, the armchair generals are already dumbfounded how he won last nights debate.[/quote]
Well tell us John what do you expect to happen tomorrow?[/quote]
Ron Paul winning the Ames straw poll or at least top 3. With that he offically emerges as a top tier candidate. I just got off a conference call about it and let me tell you I was surprised by the ammount of people who are coming and they are all from Iowa so we can’t get the ballet stuffer argument against this one.[/quote]
Tell me John do you know if the voters have to actually sign their names and show ID BEFORE they have the opportunity to vote? If no one is looking sure Paul will do well. As I said he will always do well when the Paulies, like yourself, have the opportunity to cheat. But when there are ID checks and signatures involved he doesn’t do so well.
So which is it? [/quote]
Well I can’t give you the offical numbers because I am not alloud too. But at the Straw poll you have to show ID before you can vote, and let me tell you, you will at the very least see a top 3 finish if not an overall top finish.
Also only Iowan’s can vote for this. So if your claim tomorrow is we bussed in people from all over the united states for that you can’t use that one.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I can’t wait to hear the excuses tomorrow, the armchair generals are already dumbfounded how he won last nights debate.[/quote]
Well tell us John what do you expect to happen tomorrow?[/quote]
Ron Paul winning the Ames straw poll or at least top 3. With that he offically emerges as a top tier candidate. I just got off a conference call about it and let me tell you I was surprised by the ammount of people who are coming and they are all from Iowa so we can’t get the ballet stuffer argument against this one.[/quote]
Tell me John do you know if the voters have to actually sign their names and show ID BEFORE they have the opportunity to vote? If no one is looking sure Paul will do well. As I said he will always do well when the Paulies, like yourself, have the opportunity to cheat. But when there are ID checks and signatures involved he doesn’t do so well.
So which is it? [/quote]
Well I can’t give you the offical numbers because I am not alloud too. But at the Straw poll you have to show ID before you can vote, and let me tell you, you will at the very least see a top 3 finish if not an overall top finish.
Also only Iowan’s can vote for this. So if your claim tomorrow is we bussed in people from all over the united states for that you can’t use that one.[/quote]
Well Pal if he actually wins in a fair contest with people signing in and having to show ID’s then good for him and you.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:
‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]
Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)
I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]
Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]
They repeatedly were, why not now?[/quote]
Well they are involved now, in as much as they play their part in aiding Karzai and other opium warlords. But that’s a far cry from being involved in drug importation/exportation, distribution, sales and taking profits. In addition, contrary to Paul’s wild-eyed ravings there is no evidence whatsoever that a ‘CIA coup’ resulting in the CIA ‘running everything’ including the US military has occurred.
Hey John S. are you out celebrating Paul’s second place finish in Iowa? A whopping 4,671 votes! That means that every living breathing human being at least 18 years of age who wanted Ron Paul voted. Now it’s on to the first real primary and he will get his head handed to him. But hey enjoy his second place finish, I know the democrats did.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Paul will never be taken seriously.
Pawlenty is worthless.
Bachmann doesn’t have it.
Newt has too much controversy around him.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.[/quote]
Max:
I was following your line of reasoning…until you had Romney beating Perry.
Do you feel that there is that much of a lingering “Bush Effect” among the electorate?
I just don’t think so. (But I have been wrong before about this stuff!)
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Paul will never be taken seriously.
Pawlenty is worthless.
Bachmann doesn’t have it.
Newt has too much controversy around him.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.[/quote]
I agree with this- except I think it will be a Romney/Bachmann ticket unfortunately. I was at the straw poll today and voted. I predicted the top three finishers correctly, but when I was there I was nervous because Paul had a massive crowd and Bachmann’s while sizeable, didn’t seem substantially larger than Paul’s like I had anticipated. I got into it with Bachmann’s media campaign manager and humiliated her. She deserves to lose her job over what she’s done. I wasn’t entirely set on voting for Bachmann today, but that sealed the deal.
I wish Cain would have finished higher than Santorum- that would’ve done some good for his momentum.
It was pretty much what I expected (since I was there in '07 too). I got to meet Laura Ingraham (among others) and get a picture with her and that’s about all I cared about. I told her all about the Bachmann thing too. I don’t think she’s a fan…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Paul will never be taken seriously.
Pawlenty is worthless.
Bachmann doesn’t have it.
Newt has too much controversy around him.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.[/quote]
Max:
I was following your line of reasoning…until you had Romney beating Perry.
Do you feel that there is that much of a lingering “Bush Effect” among the electorate?
I just don’t think so. (But I have been wrong before about this stuff!)
Mufasa[/quote]
You know, I gave my position another thought, and think that perhaps Perry might win because he was able to bring in tax revenue while creating jobs. Perry also gave illegal aliens in-state tuition, so he might be able to court the Latino vote too. So in a sense, he gave both parties a little piece of the pie. I think that if he doesn’t go overboard with the religion, he could give Obama a real push.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Paul will never be taken seriously.
Pawlenty is worthless.
Bachmann doesn’t have it.
Newt has too much controversy around him.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.[/quote]
Wow, you cut right through every primary and the Presidential election…now what do we talk about?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Paul will never be taken seriously.
Pawlenty is worthless.
Bachmann doesn’t have it.
Newt has too much controversy around him.
I see Romney and Perry in the GOP final, and Romney winning (I don’t see people forgiving a Texan just yet). And Obama beating Romney in the end. But the GOP takes the Senate.[/quote]
Max:
I was following your line of reasoning…until you had Romney beating Perry.
Do you feel that there is that much of a lingering “Bush Effect” among the electorate?
I just don’t think so. (But I have been wrong before about this stuff!)
Mufasa[/quote]
You know, I gave my position another thought, and think that perhaps Perry might win because he was able to bring in tax revenue while creating jobs. Perry also gave illegal aliens in-state tuition, so he might be able to court the Latino vote too. So in a sense, he gave both parties a little piece of the pie. I think that if he doesn’t go overboard with the religion, he could give Obama a real push.
[/quote]
But how will he do against the press? It’s the MSLM that will paint him as another GW Bush. Obama gets to take the high road as his partner in crime the liberal media takes down either Perry for being another Bush, or Romney for being a Mormon.
