[quote]pittbulll wrote:
He would get my vote if he can get on the ballet; I think getting on the ballet will be the biggest obstacle[/quote]
He circumvented that problem by running as a Republican instead of a libertarian.
Getting him on the ballot is no prob.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
He would get my vote if he can get on the ballet; I think getting on the ballet will be the biggest obstacle
He circumvented that problem by running as a Republican instead of a libertarian.
Getting him on the ballot is no prob.[/quote]
I think he’s referring to the general election ballot, not the primaries.
mike
Well, he has to win the Republican nomination for that…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
He’s by far my favorite candidate in the race, but has about the same chance as a snowball does in the Sahara. Virtually none.[/quote]
Actually, he has a better chance than a snowball in the Sahara.
Snowball – 0
Ron Paul – aprox 6 to 1 (or 4 - 1 if you believe Sportsbook.com)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s by far my favorite candidate in the race, but has about the same chance as a snowball does in the Sahara. Virtually none.
Actually, he has a better chance than a snowball in the Sahara.
Snowball – 0
Ron Paul – aprox 6 to 1 (or 4 - 1 if you believe Sportsbook.com)[/quote]
That just shows that people who would bet on Ron Paul are suckers. They don’t even demand good odds.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
It’s not about winning.
The Paul battle cry…[/quote]
It’s absolutely about winning…just not necessarily Ron Paul. I could give a rat’s ass who ends up in the white house. All I care is that whoever finds himself in the hot seat is a man who will defend the Constitution. No one does that. So if Paul puts a little pressure on the candidates to think about giving more than lip service to the Constitution, that’s a win in my book.
mike
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That just shows that people who would bet on Ron Paul are suckers. They don’t even demand good odds.[/quote]
Uhhh…you do know how odds are calculated don’t you? One doesn’t demand odds. The higher the bidding the better the odds.
His odds are pretty damned good.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That just shows that people who would bet on Ron Paul are suckers. They don’t even demand good odds.
Uhhh…you do know how odds are calculated don’t you? One doesn’t demand odds. The higher the bidding the better the odds.
His odds are pretty damned good.[/quote]
Yes. Paul attracts a loyal group of suckers that are willing to bet on him.
They are the same suckers that flood internet polls and straw polls.
Yet when broad polls are taken he has minimal support.
Paul supporters are fooling themselves.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
It’s not about winning.
The Paul battle cry…
It’s absolutely about winning…just not necessarily Ron Paul. I could give a rat’s ass who ends up in the white house. All I care is that whoever finds himself in the hot seat is a man who will defend the Constitution. No one does that. So if Paul puts a little pressure on the candidates to think about giving more than lip service to the Constitution, that’s a win in my book.
mike[/quote]
That is what I hoped for with his candidacy. Unfortunately he spends most of his visible time on his naive view of foreign policy and his anti war stance. This has brought the crazies out of the woodwork in their support for him.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Unfortunately he spends most of his visible time on his naive view of foreign policy and his anti war stance. [/quote]
You mean there are more important topics than the constitution and people dying because of the war? Do fill us in.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
It’s not about winning.
The Paul battle cry…
It’s absolutely about winning…just not necessarily Ron Paul. I could give a rat’s ass who ends up in the white house. All I care is that whoever finds himself in the hot seat is a man who will defend the Constitution. No one does that. So if Paul puts a little pressure on the candidates to think about giving more than lip service to the Constitution, that’s a win in my book.
mike
That is what I hoped for with his candidacy. Unfortunately he spends most of his visible time on his naive view of foreign policy and his anti war stance. This has brought the crazies out of the woodwork in their support for him.
[/quote]
The crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth hysterical non-killing crowd.
Shame on them.
I blame Jesus, that radical peacenik hippy.
And don`t get me started on economists.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Unfortunately he spends most of his visible time on his naive view of foreign policy and his anti war stance.
You mean there are more important topics than the constitution and people dying because of the war? Do fill us in.[/quote]
Gay marriage, Muslim terrorists, prayer in schools, gay senators in airport toilets, ten commandments in public buildings, hiding the tits of Justitia, phony soldiers, Iran starting the first war since 1757 (?)…
Jesus, it is enough to want to bomb someone…
And let us not forget, gays in the military.
God forbid a gay translator prevented a bomb from going off.
That simply would not do.
I think of my vote as a statement, if enough people make a statement , Maybe the politicians will listen, I think our government is broken we should make the most radical statement possible.
St. Anselm College’s Institute of Politics will release a new poll today, completed by SRBI Research in New York City, showing that Clinton and Romney hold solid leads in New Hampshire.
The survey of 1,514 likely primary voters has margins of error of 4.1 percent for Democrats, 4.5 percent for Republicans and 4.8 percent for undecided voters. It was conducted Oct. 15 to 21.
It shows Democrat Clinton leading Obama 42.6 to 21.5 percent, with John Edwards at 13.9 percent. Among Republicans, Romney leads Giuliani 32.4 to 21.8 percent, with John McCain at 15.2 percent and Ron Paul in fourth place at 7.4 percent.
These just don’t sound like the ravings of a mad man. This is one of the better discussions of economics he has been engaged in by the press.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s by far my favorite candidate in the race, but has about the same chance as a snowball does in the Sahara. Virtually none.
Actually, he has a better chance than a snowball in the Sahara.
Snowball – 0
Ron Paul – aprox 6 to 1 (or 4 - 1 if you believe Sportsbook.com)[/quote]
Just wanted to throw out there that as someone who makes a living betting with these sportsbooks, sportsbook.com is not a reliable resource on this issue. The limits at Sportsbook are so low that it might actually be worthwhile for Ron Paul supporters to bet him up, so that folks will reference the sportsbook.com website. Reputable sites like Matchbook.com are quoting 13-1 payoffs. And even then they are offered at very small limits and could once again be manipulated by a few Ron Paul supporters with a little money.
It would be a super great thing for me if a true libertarian was president as it would make it much easier for me to do business, but unfortunately it would be a black swan level event if it actually happened. 4-1 at sportsbook.com is a joke and should in no way be interpreted as true barometer of his real chances. I wish it were true, but alas it ain’t.