[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is from before CPAC, but it’s good:
I think at the end of the day the economy is going to drive the median vote.[/quote]
Hey BB thanks for the link and good to see you again my friend.
Ib BB’s link we see that Paul has just about the longest odds of becoming President. They have Pataki as a greater long shot and I certainly disagree with this. The former Governor of New York has proven that he can attract conservatives and moderates alike. He is far and away more electable than the Paul. Paul has shown nothing other than he can fire up a limited number of 20 something dreamers and if I forgot to mention…he comes off as an old crank.
Really Paul is one guy that we can all bet on who will NEVER become President. Not now, not EVER. But it will be fun to watch him run again and again for President. In 2016 Presidential race he’d be something like 81. And then when he runs again in 2020 he’ll be 85. Let’s see, how many Presidential cycles will it take before he’s running for President at 100? Yes this is going to get even more fun than it is now. I wish the man a long life and those of us who enjoy this ridiculous gesture every four years many laughs.
Nice to see you, too, Zeb. Always good to see the old guard coming in strong (I clicked on this thread because I saw Mufasa started it).
RP guys: If you think the odds are wrong, make a bet and win some money… Quite a bit, actually, given the odds. You can place it over at InTrade…
One point to note: the post I linked specifically omitted Chris Christie of NJ because he has denied he wants to run - but I hope he changes his mind.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One point to note: the post I linked specifically omitted Chris Christie of NJ because he has denied he wants to run - but I hope he changes his mind.[/quote]
At this point he has denied it so many times and claimed he is not ready so many times he probably wouldn’t be able to win, anyway. Do you think many people would vote for a guy who has stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms “I am not ready to be president”?
And I would consider myself a RP guy but I have no delusions that he is electable as POTUS. I don’t even think his age is a problem. He does come across as a whiny old crank and he is absolutely incapable of sidestepping a question, which seems to be essential to be successful in politics.
I ask because I’m not sure.
Isn’t Ron Paul heavy on economic policy and issues…but falls short when it comes to both domestic policies and International Relations?
(Economics can be presented in more “black-and-white” terms…domestic and international policy is much more “messy”).
Again, I’m asking; I simply don’t know exactly where he stands, just what I’ve read.
Mufasa
Economic policy is domestic and international policy.
That is all politics is: quibbling over who gets to loot what from whom.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economic policy is domestic and international policy.
That is all politics is: quibbling over who gets to loot what from whom.[/quote]
BUT not necessarily “vis-a-versa”, correct?
Certainly prosperity can lessen a lot of social and international problems, but not all.
Therefore, even if someone may have the “answers” to our National Debt…it doesn’t necessarily tell you much on their stand on Welfare; Israeli/Palestinian relations; or immigration.
Mufasa
The one thing that Ron paul has going for him, is that he has the ability to attract voters from the
other side of the spectrum because he is not the usual reactionary neocon. He is against an aggressiv
militaristic policy, he is qustioning the fact that the fed is a privatly owned bank that has been given
power by the government. Many people on the left share this wiews and regard them as important, Therefor
he is an republican that can actually steal voters from the democrats, especially voters who are disapointed
over the obama administrations warfare policy. As an example I have a friend here in norway who votes for
the marxist party, but who at the same time is a huge fan of Ron Paul. If he was an american citizent, hes
vote would probably go to him.
just my 2 cents about that.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economic policy is domestic and international policy.
That is all politics is: quibbling over who gets to loot what from whom.[/quote]
BUT not necessarily “vis-a-versa”, correct?
Certainly prosperity can lessen a lot of social and international problems, but not all.
Therefore, even if someone may have the “answers” to our National Debt…it doesn’t necessarily tell you much on their stand on Welfare; Israeli/Palestinian relations; or immigration.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Every choice that gets made is necessarily economic in nature. What is given up versus what is gained? Every choice made is a choice foregone.
That is the core of what economics really teaches us and why it is important for the people who would presume to lead us to understand it.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One point to note: the post I linked specifically omitted Chris Christie of NJ because he has denied he wants to run - but I hope he changes his mind.[/quote]
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
At this point he has denied it so many times and claimed he is not ready so many times he probably wouldn’t be able to win, anyway. Do you think many people would vote for a guy who has stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms “I am not ready to be president”?
And I would consider myself a RP guy but I have no delusions that he is electable as POTUS. I don’t even think his age is a problem. He does come across as a whiny old crank and he is absolutely incapable of sidestepping a question, which seems to be essential to be successful in politics.[/quote]
We’ll see - I think his current name recognition is low enough that he could overcome it - I think the current occupant of the Whitehouse made a lot of similar claims (though I’m not sure on the temporal proximity to the presidential election in his case).
You’re right that politicians need to be able to duck and dodge, though.
“Blunt speech in campaigns has always cost me votes - whether the topic involved was ridiculous or sublime.” – Richard Neuberger
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One point to note: the post I linked specifically omitted Chris Christie of NJ because he has denied he wants to run - but I hope he changes his mind.[/quote]
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
At this point he has denied it so many times and claimed he is not ready so many times he probably wouldn’t be able to win, anyway. Do you think many people would vote for a guy who has stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms “I am not ready to be president”?
And I would consider myself a RP guy but I have no delusions that he is electable as POTUS. I don’t even think his age is a problem. He does come across as a whiny old crank and he is absolutely incapable of sidestepping a question, which seems to be essential to be successful in politics.[/quote]
We’ll see - I think his current name recognition is low enough that he could overcome it - I think the current occupant of the Whitehouse made a lot of similar claims (though I’m not sure on the temporal proximity to the presidential election in his case).
You’re right that politicians need to be able to duck and dodge, though.
“Blunt speech in campaigns has always cost me votes - whether the topic involved was ridiculous or sublime.” – Richard Neuberger
[/quote]
Well, I dont think any candidate has to fear the sublime in a MSM interview.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote
Yeah, but the electable ones are bastards.
What to do?[/quote]
Elect the least harmful bastard that can actually win. All politicians are bastards. Even Paul.[/quote]
Ron Paul really isn’t a politician that fits the paradigm of today’s politicians.
He is more about adherence to constitutional principle than trading favors for the accumulation of power.[/quote]
We already had this discussion. Ron Paul plays the pork game to just like all other congressmen. He just deceives those who fervently wish to believe in that one honest man. [/quote]
He follows the constitution and does not vote for spending. It’s his job to put earmarks into the bills even though he votes against them. Heck, he is so honest he even tells people he’ll put their projects into the bill but that he will vote against it.
That’s not playing pork games. That’s making sure the executive branch does not get to spend the money when it is Congress’ job to decide how it gets spent – per the constitution. EVERY congressman should be doing what Paul does.
You still don’t get it. But that’s ok – what ever helps you reconcile your worldview.[/quote]
You still fall for that don’t you?
Congress has the power to reduce spending. If they don’t put the pork in the budget can be reduced. Of course they jam in the pork to buy votes and campaign contributions.
In front of a camera he says the right things. Behind the scenes he is the same as all the rest.
Looking for a leader to save the US is a huge mistake. It will take a grassroots movement.
I mean, seriously, Paul loads his district full of spending on items that are clearly outside the Federal governments scope.
Wake up!
He is not the last honest man.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Well it seems the slant against Ron Paul is beginning.
This is from FOX.
First part is the Cspan video second is what fox showed and edited.[/quote]
THAT …was funny.
lol
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One point to note: the post I linked specifically omitted Chris Christie of NJ because he has denied he wants to run - but I hope he changes his mind.[/quote]
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
At this point he has denied it so many times and claimed he is not ready so many times he probably wouldn’t be able to win, anyway. Do you think many people would vote for a guy who has stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms “I am not ready to be president”?
And I would consider myself a RP guy but I have no delusions that he is electable as POTUS. I don’t even think his age is a problem. He does come across as a whiny old crank and he is absolutely incapable of sidestepping a question, which seems to be essential to be successful in politics.[/quote]
We’ll see - I think his current name recognition is low enough that he could overcome it - I think the current occupant of the Whitehouse made a lot of similar claims (though I’m not sure on the temporal proximity to the presidential election in his case).
You’re right that politicians need to be able to duck and dodge, though.
“Blunt speech in campaigns has always cost me votes - whether the topic involved was ridiculous or sublime.” – Richard Neuberger
[/quote]
I believe his quotes were from 2004-2006 time frame, then all the sudden he was campaigning.