[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Paul/McCain 2012![/quote]
Why the fuck McCain ?[/quote]
Because the two of them would be a crypt-keeper super duo.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Who is going to be able to stand up to him in the primaries? Romney? Palin? Cain? I would say the only challenge he has in the primary is Romney, and if Romney pulls it out I am voting Obama just to spite the GOP.[/quote]
First of all John, you’re either not paying attention to my posts, or you must have some sort of counter which you have not posted. As I’ve pointed out to you time and again it doesn’t matter who the best debater is. I even gave you the Kennedy/Nixon example. But none of this means a thing to you. All you see is Ron Paul being the best debater and a sage when it comes to debate and mastering the issues. A national election is so much more than this, as I’ve explained already.
I guess I’ll just have to say it one last time and then I won’t come back. Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President because he’s an old man who sounds like he’s whining. He has a lack of charisma that is unequalled in American politics at this level. It doesn’t matter how much he knows about the economy, or that he is a strict constitutionalist (as if the average voter cares about that one). All that will matter is that he will be standing next to Mitt Romney or, anyone else (pick any other viable candidate) and he looks bad. End of story. I know you don’t want to think that people are that shallow but as I’ve already explained and poll after poll every four years tells us, most people don’t start paying attention to the Presidential election until about 30-60 days away from the election. And when they do they mostly vote their emotion. You are a rare breed John especially for your age, and I admire you for that. But most people especailly the ones who start paying attention 30-60 days out don’t understand the issues and they vote on emotion.
Now unless you have some facts which prove me wrong I suggest you lighten up with the Ron Paul rhetoric it’s only making you look bad. And keep in mind that I am not enjoying these little reminders to you. I wish that you were correct. While I don’t fully agree with everything that Paul stands for he is so much better than Obama I’d trip over myself getting to the voting booth to vote for him, but that choice will NEVER come.
Your spiteful move to vote for Obama is immature and beneath your intelligence level. After Paul is defeated why not pick the best candidate who is left and vote for him? Do you think I liked voting for McCain in 08’? Nope. But he was absolutely head and shoulders better than the inexperienced lefty we now have.[/quote]
Two things are different this time around then anywhere else in history, first is the Tea Party, no one can deny at this point they are not a power house and right now we are deciding if we are going to back Ron Paul or Herman Cain. The winner of this will solidify 30%.
Now the second is people actually are paying attention to the economy. Obama’s approval on the economy is at an all time low, with inflation rising faster and faster each month more and more people are going to get worried about it, especially the poor and lower middle class. That was Obama’s bread and butter in the election.
We also have to take into account the Internet in this election, and no one has a following that can run and internet campaign like Paul. Now like with all elections people watching the media will skyrocket, and with Fox being the number 1 news channell that is where most are going to get their information, now if Fox does what it did last election cycle then yeah your right he is going to get crushed big time, If they report on him like they did with McCain, you will see him Crush Obama. Also take into account CNN likes him which is a good thing as they are the second biggest Media outlet on television.
If the GOP does not put Ron Paul up then I have to re-evaluate why I am with the GOP and not just make a break and vote strictly Libertarian, hence why I would vote for Obama over Romney any day much rather have a Liberal with a D behind his name then a Liberal with an R behind it. Tho I do like Gary Johnson that could be a compromise.[/quote]
You speak of the Tea Party as if it is going to make a difference with Paul. Yes, they can promote Paul, but when it comes to the masses they will reject him out of hand because of the many reasons that I’ve mentioned.
Anyway, I can see that none of my historical references even made a dent in your thinking. So I’ll just beg off this thread for now. But rest assured John you’d better get your back-up plan ready because Paul IS NOT going to be the GOP nominee, not now, not ever. Sorry man.[/quote]
History doesn’t have anything to do with the here and now. People can learn and change the ideas they believe in. That is what a real understanding of history will teach us.[/quote]
You are confused, I think you’re just having a bad day. My thoughts on political history are spot on. For example, John thinks that most people are like he is, or you and I for that matter. We are seriously interested in politics and world affairs. The average person would have a difficult time telling you who the VP of the US is. And as I’ve said repeatedly, most get interested in the Presidential election about 30-60 days out. That IS history and no it has not changed in many, many decades.
More history for you, as I’ve said in the media age we don’t elect people that look or act like Ron Paul. It does not happen. The most charismatic candidate wins. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that is a FACT!
For you not to think that political history is not repeated is naive and frankly quite surprising. Would you like me to tell you the exact states that must be won by the GOP in order for a republican to get elected? It too is an historical fact, albeit more recent history.
Again, I’ll chalk it off to you having a bad day. Go get some rest and clear your head my friend.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Paul/McCain 2012![/quote]
Why the fuck McCain ?[/quote]
Because the two of them would be a crypt-keeper super duo.[/quote]
John McCain is an excellent example of what I’m talking about relative to not being electable in the media age. Does anyone think that McCain lost to Obama because Obama’s ideas were better? Do you honestly think that most people thought beyond the “hope and change” nonsense, or the way he spoke, looked and presented himself?
The GOP can never again put up a candidate who looks like Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was a good President by the way). We need slick, young and savvy, or we can welcome in a second Obama term.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Paul/McCain 2012![/quote]
Why the fuck McCain ?[/quote]
Because the two of them would be a crypt-keeper super duo.[/quote]
John McCain is an excellent example of what I’m talking about relative to not being electable in the media age. Does anyone think that McCain lost to Obama because Obama’s ideas were better? Do you honestly think that most people thought beyond the “hope and change” nonsense, or the way he spoke, looked and presented himself?
The GOP can never again put up a candidate who looks like Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was a good President by the way). We need slick, young and savvy, or we can welcome in a second Obama term.[/quote]
Do you have any ideas on who that candidate might be? Romney?
[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Paul/McCain 2012![/quote]
Why the fuck McCain ?[/quote]
Because the two of them would be a crypt-keeper super duo.[/quote]
John McCain is an excellent example of what I’m talking about relative to not being electable in the media age. Does anyone think that McCain lost to Obama because Obama’s ideas were better? Do you honestly think that most people thought beyond the “hope and change” nonsense, or the way he spoke, looked and presented himself?
The GOP can never again put up a candidate who looks like Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was a good President by the way). We need slick, young and savvy, or we can welcome in a second Obama term.[/quote]
Do you have any ideas on who that candidate might be? Romney?[/quote]
Not really, but I have seen many who cannot beat Obama. Haley Barbour, Palin, Huckabee, Paul, Pawlenty, and on and on. We have a weak line-up. Right now Romney is not looking bad. He’s sharp enough to hold his own in a debate. He’s charismatic enough to hold his own in the media. He’s been a Governor and ran the Olympics one year. He also made a great deal of money in private enterprise. He’s my favorite right now. But I am hoping for better. Perhaps a popular young Governor. Maybe the Governor of Ohio? I don’t know, I do know that the GOP is in trouble if that one man (or woman) does not step up and soon!
I think a factor no one is considering is Paul , I believe would pick up a lot of votes from the left’s libertarians ,I am not saying he would win , but there is a good possibility I would vote for him.
i know his agenda would can a lot of Social programs I would consider essential , but to gut the military budget and the war on drugs could balance the budget asaf 
Cut it all. Get out of Iraq. War is over and won. Get out of Afghanistan. Totally pointless. Get out of Libya.
Cut military spending 50%. The US would still have the most powerful military.
These things are so obvious it is painful.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Cut it all. Get out of Iraq. War is over and won. Get out of Afghanistan. Totally pointless. Get out of Libya.
Cut military spending 50%. The US would still have the most powerful military.
These things are so obvious it is painful.[/quote]
Frankly, I am still at a loss when it comes to what part of “being broke” is too hard to understand.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Cut it all. Get out of Iraq. War is over and won. Get out of Afghanistan. Totally pointless. Get out of Libya.
Cut military spending 50%. The US would still have the most powerful military.
These things are so obvious it is painful.[/quote]
Frankly, I am still at a loss when it comes to what part of “being broke” is too hard to understand.[/quote]
Credit cards haven’t been cut up yet.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Yeah, who you going for? You found anyone yet?[/quote]
Nope, and it seems like the choices are between hospital food and airplane food.
I want a candidate (the party affiliation is less and less important) who:
-
Insists on balanced budgets and cuts in spending, and renounces the supply-side theology that tax cuts pay for themselves
-
Gets China, and I mean really gets China, and plans on setting the US on a path of freeing us from that “entangling alliance” - “free trade” has simply translated into “free weapons” for the Chinese elite
-
Insists on real entitlement reform (i.e., raising of age limits on SS, possibly even means-testing)
-
Insists on busting up the big banks so that “too big too fail” becomes moot, as nothing will be “too big”
-
Insists on bona fide institutional reform - talks about term limits, more transparency in government, neutral redistricting rules, earmark bans, waiting periods on laws (public viewing before enactment, etc.),
-
Gets serious about reforming our agricultural policy (i.e., phase-out subsidies, but promote domestic agrilcultural producton)
-
Get serious about diversifying our energy portfolio (i.e., expanding domestic production of both fossil fuels and alternatives)
-
Wants to protect the value of the dollar so that saving - and thus the middle class - isn’t penalized
For starters.[/quote]
Sounds like Paul without the baggage.
If ZEB is right about paul, then there must be one guy in the entire country of america that has the
same political wiews as paul and that also has all the other things that ZEB talks about.
[quote]florelius wrote:
If ZEB is right about paul, then there must be one guy in the entire country of america that has the
same political wiews as paul and that also has all the other things that ZEB talks about. [/quote]
I honestly can’t think of one. Even if there was, he/she would probably be marginalized by the media as loony or wacko for not holding the mainstream views of the Rep. or Dem. Party.
[quote]florelius wrote:
If ZEB is right about paul, then there must be one guy in the entire country of america that has the same political wiews as paul and that also has all the other things that ZEB talks about. [/quote]
Probably not, for the simple fact that anyone who suscribes to Paul’s clown act definitionally cannot come across as a sane, responsible, articulate adult who has succeeded at anything worthwhile in their professional lives.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Sounds like Paul without the baggage.[/quote]
I’d say not quite, because pretty much all these points presume the existence of a fairly active role of government, something Paul stands in defiance of (in addition to his creepy flirtation with white supremacists).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
If ZEB is right about paul, then there must be one guy in the entire country of america that has the same political wiews as paul and that also has all the other things that ZEB talks about. [/quote]
Probably not, for the simple fact that anyone who suscribes to Paul’s clown act definitionally cannot come across as a sane, responsible, articulate adult who has succeeded at anything worthwhile in their professional lives.[/quote]
He was a doctor.
[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
He was a doctor.[/quote]
Right, and he does not come across as sane, responsible or articulate (it was a compound requirement). He sounds like a street corner doomsayer with a high-pitched voice and exudes exactly zero leadership gravitas when trying to peddle his conspiracies. He couldn’t win a Senate race in Texas - he sure as hell couldn’t win a national election.
His ardent followers are morons. I just can’t bring myself, after all these years, to call them anything different. They are plain silly and seemingly immune to reason and common sense. Their economics are atrocious, and they couldn’t beat a fifth grader in a history quiz.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
He was a doctor.[/quote]
Right, and he does not come across as sane, responsible or articulate (it was a compound requirement). He sounds like a street corner doomsayer with a high-pitched voice and exudes exactly zero leadership gravitas when trying to peddle his conspiracies. He couldn’t win a Senate race in Texas - he sure as hell couldn’t win a national election.
His ardent followers are morons. I just can’t bring myself, after all these years, to call them anything different. They are plain silly and seemingly immune to reason and common sense. Their economics are atrocious, and they couldn’t beat a fifth grader in a history quiz. [/quote]
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?
EDIT: Also, they would also state that you are, “plain silly and seemingly immune to reason and common sense.” Could you expound on as to why? (if you have in the past i am not aware of it since I do not read most of the threads here)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
If ZEB is right about paul, then there must be one guy in the entire country of america that has the same political wiews as paul and that also has all the other things that ZEB talks about. [/quote]
Probably not, for the simple fact that anyone who suscribes to Paul’s clown act definitionally cannot come across as a sane, responsible, articulate adult who has succeeded at anything worthwhile in their professional lives.[/quote]
From our perspective, people who do not subscribe to our absolute view of freedom are the insane ones.
Perspective is everything.
And to say Ron Paul hasn’t succeeded at anything in his “personal life” betrays your bias, Dunder. Ron Paul is a doctor and has delivered over 4000 babies. It is doubtful you will accomplish anything as worthwhile and life giving as that – despite your disagreement with his personal philosophy.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
He was a doctor.[/quote]
Right, and he does not come across as sane, responsible or articulate (it was a compound requirement). He sounds like a street corner doomsayer with a high-pitched voice and exudes exactly zero leadership gravitas when trying to peddle his conspiracies. He couldn’t win a Senate race in Texas - he sure as hell couldn’t win a national election.
His ardent followers are morons. I just can’t bring myself, after all these years, to call them anything different. They are plain silly and seemingly immune to reason and common sense. Their economics are atrocious, and they couldn’t beat a fifth grader in a history quiz. [/quote]
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?
[/quote]
Dunder cannot ague against Austrian Economics because it is beneath him to actually read any theory and what he has been subjected to here in the forums he has summarily dismissed or just isn’t intelligent enough to understand.