http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-introduce-bill-legalize-marijuana-225335489.html
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
OK. I’ll go have a soda and then say a quick prayer for centrist Mitt Romney and then be thankful to Amerikuh for safeguarding me and the world. Isn’t that what juniors are supposed to do?
I mean, fuck having a critical mind and an opinion of your own. One should just listen to wise old men like you ZEB. No need to actually look at what’s happening in society. That’s totally overrated.[/quote]
I never said that having a critical mind is a bad thing. You have to pay better attention. I think you’re a bright kid, I do. But you have to get a grip on what you’d like to have happen and the most probable outcome.
Do you understand what I’m saying?[/quote]
If you want young people to have a critical mind and be interested in politics you might want to spend a little less time being condescending and acting superior towards those kids that actually exhibit those qualities. Just sayin’
[/quote]
Who’s acting?
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Try and get your head around that despite what you’ve been saying here for some years now, Paul IS a serious force in this fight and that he will help shape its eventual outcome.[/quote]
The establishment morons are already starting to adopt his rhetoric even if they aren’t smart enough to understand its meaning or implications.[/quote]
And THAT is why I want him in the race. THAT is why we need him in the race.[/quote]
We don’t need people paying lip service to what he is saying, we need him as the nominee, otherwise the GOP can get fucked.[/quote]
Paul won’t be the nominee. And furthermore, if for some strange reason he was, (let’s say the rest of them dropped out and he was the only one left, yeah that would be the only way he’d be the nominee), he would get trounced so bad by Obama that it would make Reagan’s landslide win over Mondale look like a squeaker.
So, no we don’t want Paul as our nominee, and fortunately most other people feel the same as I do. But Push makes a legitimate point. If some of his fiscal conservatism can wear off on the likes of Romney, Bachman and some of the others who could become the nominee then Paul has served his purpose. [/quote]
Actually Ron polls pretty well against Obama. At least one poll has him doing better than any other republican.[/quote]
This is a good example of your youth and inexperience. Anyone who has followed two or three national election cycles knows that a “Presidential poll” this early means absolutely nothing. Do you understand that? IT MEANS NOTHING. During the primary season last go around most polls showed McCain beating Obama. But what happened? Here’s what happened, they ran something called a campaign. And during the course of that campaign minds were changed. Paul would be Obama’s dream candidate to run against. Picture a 6’ 1" charismatic incumbent with an exceptional speaking voice standing next to a shriveled up man pushing 80. (Forget the fact that he’s only a Congressman from a small district). And as soon as he opens his mouth he’d chase more people away with his whine and very creepy manner. And how many times has he run for President? Two, three? It’s not like the people have never seen him before. They’ve seen him, rejected him, and now he’s back again. GASP–I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME? For the umteenth time, most people vote for the man, not the party, or even a concept SURPRISE! No…really…why do you think that most of Paul’s supporters are 20 something no nothings? The most gullible of our electorate, and by the way (that age group) the least likely to turn out to vote. Uh huh…
Okay enough for today, you’re excused. Be here bright and early on Thursday and we’ll resume.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Try and get your head around that despite what you’ve been saying here for some years now, Paul IS a serious force in this fight and that he will help shape its eventual outcome.[/quote]
The establishment morons are already starting to adopt his rhetoric even if they aren’t smart enough to understand its meaning or implications.[/quote]
And THAT is why I want him in the race. THAT is why we need him in the race.[/quote]
We don’t need people paying lip service to what he is saying, we need him as the nominee, otherwise the GOP can get fucked.[/quote]
Paul won’t be the nominee. And furthermore, if for some strange reason he was, (let’s say the rest of them dropped out and he was the only one left, yeah that would be the only way he’d be the nominee), he would get trounced so bad by Obama that it would make Reagan’s landslide win over Mondale look like a squeaker.
So, no we don’t want Paul as our nominee, and fortunately most other people feel the same as I do. But Push makes a legitimate point. If some of his fiscal conservatism can wear off on the likes of Romney, Bachman and some of the others who could become the nominee then Paul has served his purpose. [/quote]
Actually Ron polls pretty well against Obama. At least one poll has him doing better than any other republican.[/quote]
This is a good example of your youth and inexperience. Anyone who has followed two or three national election cycles knows that a “Presidential poll” this early means absolutely nothing. Do you understand that? IT MEANS NOTHING. During the primary season last go around most polls showed McCain beating Obama. But what happened? Here’s what happened, they ran something called a campaign. And during the course of that campaign minds were changed. Paul would be Obama’s dream candidate to run against. Picture a 6’ 1" charismatic incumbent with an exceptional speaking voice standing next to a shriveled up man pushing 80. (Forget the fact that he’s only a Congressman from a small district). And as soon as he opens his mouth he’d chase more people away with his whine and very creepy manner. And how many times has he run for President? Two, three? It’s not like the people have never seen him before. They’ve seen him, rejected him, and now he’s back again. GASP–I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME? For the umteenth time, most people vote for the man, not the party, or even a concept SURPRISE! No…really…why do you think that most of Paul’s supporters are 20 something no nothings? The most gullible of our electorate, and by the way (that age group) the least likely to turn out to vote. Uh huh…
Okay enough for today, you’re excused. Be here bright and early on Thursday and we’ll resume. [/quote]
I’m confused now, didnt we just get accused of being bussed in to rig the RLC straw poll?
Ron Paul in polls constantly shows he has the best chance to beat Obama. Now remember when the Economy went to shit and people voted for anyone but a Republican? What do you think is going to happen as this economy continues to deteriorate? People vote with their wallets and add to the fact that Ron Paul has been warning about this since 1979 and you better believe the GOP if he is the nominee will be screaming this from the roof, Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands a chance.
Go aead and run Romney or Bachmann, will be my greatest joy voting against them(and let me tell you, most of the Ron Paul supporters feel the exact same way).
And go you, you old know it all guys. 14 trillion dollars in debt your generation ran this country so great, thanks for making me spend the rest of my life to pay it down. If only my generation was as good at finance as yours.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I’m confused now, didnt we just get accused of being bussed in to rig the RLC straw poll?[/quote]
Yes, Paul has a loyal and almost fanatical youth following. And while these people will turn out to vote for Paul, overall that is the least likely vote to turn out. Sorry if I wasn’t clear regarding that point in my previous post.
And you’re not paying attention John, which is unlike you. Around this same time period (2003) before Bush ran a second time, just about every single democratic candidate beat Bush in a poll. And what did it mean? And just as I said to your friend above, every poll in 07’ had McCain beating Obama. Why? They said it was because McCain was middle of the road and could pull the independents. But, what happened? I could go back in history and give you more examples. George Bush (sr.) was supposed to win in a walk. He polled higher than all the democratic candidates back in 1991. And why was he ahead in the polls? Because he drove Saddam out of Kuwait. But what happened in 92? A young upstart by the name of Bill Clinton beat the sitting President. As I said there is no accurate poll which crosses party lines at this early date that can be looked at as being accurate.
That is an important element John, no question. But you are being overly simplistic. There are some very unique circumstances playing out that may negate much of this. Firstly, we have the mainstream liberal media fawning over Obama for the past 3 years and they’re not going to stop until he’s gained a second term. It will take a strong candidate to beat him. Someone who can stand up to the media, and more importantly stand next to Obama in a debate and not look like his elderly groundskeeper. Here’s how most people are influenced before deciding:
-Looks, charisma, composure
-Speaking voice
-Presentation skills
And yes they will look at what the person has to say beyond the rhetoric, but sadly that is not their primary reason for choosing.
Most importantly what you and your brethren need to understand is that the American voter is not all that partisan. Most vote for the man and what kind of “feeling” he gives them. As I’ve said repeatedly most do not even pay attention until after Labor Day. Sad? Maybe, but they feel they have more important things to do than pay attention to political matters several months before it matters (to them). And here you and I are debating Presidential politics in June of 2011. We’re the odd ducks here my friend.
Well, I’d like to have a witty comeback like, Ron paul is the only candidate who has no chance. But I can’t say that as most of them would take a good beating against Obama. I suspect that there are only a couple of candidates who stand a chance and that’s if they pick the right running mate. Trust me John, it will be very difficult to unseat Obama. Remember what I said back in 08?
That is immature, but what else could I expect? “I want vanilla and if I can’t have vanilla I don’t want any ice cream at all.” Yeah, cool no problem. It doesn’t matter anyway, not a whole lot. The Paul supporters will be split three ways, stay home, vote for Obama, or in the final hours realize that whomever the republican candidate is will be better than Obama and do the mature thing. But whichever they choose there really isn’t enough of them to matter especially when dispersed among the three choices.
Yeah, Bush was a real disappointment in that regard. And Obama has driven up the debt more in 3 years than I believe the last 3 sitting Presidents combined. But that also speaks to my point about the MSLM. How come we are not hearing more about this? And that’s the type of favorable coverage that will make it very difficult to unseat Obama. In one survey it was discovered that Obama recieved an almost 2 to 1 favorablility reporting over McCain in 08. Not that McCain would have beaten him, I think the public suffered from Bush fatigue and wanted a complete change. But in an election where Obama could be beaten you are going to see the media turn out in a big way for Obama. Which will be very difficult to overcome. Not that it couldn’t happen under almost perfect circumstances.
As to my generation, I take responsibility for my actions. And I’ve always voted for the most conservative candidate since I was able to vote. And I agree with you we need more fiscal responsibility or we will be in very large trouble very soon.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Try and get your head around that despite what you’ve been saying here for some years now, Paul IS a serious force in this fight and that he will help shape its eventual outcome.[/quote]
The establishment morons are already starting to adopt his rhetoric even if they aren’t smart enough to understand its meaning or implications.[/quote]
And THAT is why I want him in the race. THAT is why we need him in the race.[/quote]
We don’t need people paying lip service to what he is saying, we need him as the nominee, otherwise the GOP can get fucked.[/quote]
Paul won’t be the nominee. And furthermore, if for some strange reason he was, (let’s say the rest of them dropped out and he was the only one left, yeah that would be the only way he’d be the nominee), he would get trounced so bad by Obama that it would make Reagan’s landslide win over Mondale look like a squeaker.
So, no we don’t want Paul as our nominee, and fortunately most other people feel the same as I do. But Push makes a legitimate point. If some of his fiscal conservatism can wear off on the likes of Romney, Bachman and some of the others who could become the nominee then Paul has served his purpose. [/quote]
Actually Ron polls pretty well against Obama. At least one poll has him doing better than any other republican.[/quote]
This is a good example of your youth and inexperience. Anyone who has followed two or three national election cycles knows that a “Presidential poll” this early means absolutely nothing. Do you understand that? IT MEANS NOTHING. During the primary season last go around most polls showed McCain beating Obama. But what happened? Here’s what happened, they ran something called a campaign. And during the course of that campaign minds were changed. Paul would be Obama’s dream candidate to run against. Picture a 6’ 1" charismatic incumbent with an exceptional speaking voice standing next to a shriveled up man pushing 80. (Forget the fact that he’s only a Congressman from a small district). And as soon as he opens his mouth he’d chase more people away with his whine and very creepy manner. And how many times has he run for President? Two, three? It’s not like the people have never seen him before. They’ve seen him, rejected him, and now he’s back again. GASP–I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN THIS TIME? For the umteenth time, most people vote for the man, not the party, or even a concept SURPRISE! No…really…why do you think that most of Paul’s supporters are 20 something no nothings? The most gullible of our electorate, and by the way (that age group) the least likely to turn out to vote. Uh huh…
Okay enough for today, you’re excused. Be here bright and early on Thursday and we’ll resume. [/quote]
I’m confused now, didnt we just get accused of being bussed in to rig the RLC straw poll?
Ron Paul in polls constantly shows he has the best chance to beat Obama. Now remember when the Economy went to shit and people voted for anyone but a Republican? What do you think is going to happen as this economy continues to deteriorate? People vote with their wallets and add to the fact that Ron Paul has been warning about this since 1979 and you better believe the GOP if he is the nominee will be screaming this from the roof, Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands a chance.
Go aead and run Romney or Bachmann, will be my greatest joy voting against them(and let me tell you, most of the Ron Paul supporters feel the exact same way).
And go you, you old know it all guys. 14 trillion dollars in debt your generation ran this country so great, thanks for making me spend the rest of my life to pay it down. If only my generation was as good at finance as yours.[/quote]
Polls only matter if the are against that Damned Obama
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is Zeb the “loudest” poster in any Ron Paul thread that pops up?[/quote]
For some reason he’s overly obsessed with him. I’m a Paul supporter but do not post nearly as much as he. Odd isn’t it? I would agree with him though that Dr. Paul will not be elected. Unlike ZEB though, I do think he is a much more important player this time.
Yet he is the only candidate anyone is seriously talking about.
I haven’t seem any of the other dunderheads on nearly as many talk shows speaking about specific ideas – and when they do you can tell they don’t know what they are talking about. It’s always just political posturing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Try and get your head around that despite what you’ve been saying here for some years now, Paul IS a serious force in this fight and that he will help shape its eventual outcome.[/quote]
The establishment morons are already starting to adopt his rhetoric even if they aren’t smart enough to understand its meaning or implications.[/quote]
Yup. If he was so insignificant then they would not even bother doing it.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is Zeb the “loudest” poster in any Ron Paul thread that pops up?[/quote]
For some reason he’s overly obsessed with him. I’m a Paul supporter but do not post nearly as much as he. Odd isn’t it? I would agree with him though that Dr. Paul will not be elected. Unlike ZEB though, I do think he is a much more important player this time.[/quote]
I’m not obsessed with Paul. I’m overly curious as to why anyone with a functioning brain stem would actually think he has a chance to become President.
By the way, he’s an important player to YOU. Therefore YOU think he’s an important player to everyone. Keep in mind the average person in the US doesn’t even know who Ron Paul is. Did you know that? No probably not.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yet he is the only candidate anyone is seriously talking about.
[/quote]
Stop it, your credibililty is stake. Logic would tell you who most of the people are talking about. Just figure out who is on top and go from there. No one is talking about Paul except the Paulies, of which you are one. You’re projecting again, try to be more aware of this and I’m sure it won’t happen again.
And don’t bother thanking me, I got your back man 
Keep in mind I was saying this same stuff back in 08. And who was right? Oh yeah, that would be me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not obsessed with Paul. I’m overly curious as to why anyone with a functioning brain stem would actually think he has a chance to become President.
[/quote]
I for one do not think he’ll get elected. I’m not going to sit here and claim perfect foreknowledge of the future but the likelihood of him getting elected is minuscule at best.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way, he’s an important player to YOU. Therefore YOU think he’s an important player to everyone. Keep in mind the average person in the US doesn’t even know who Ron Paul is. Did you know that? No probably not.[/quote]
In 2008 I would have agreed that most did not know him. Each time I mention his name in public however I’m always surprised to see that most seem to know who he is. Either you obviously have not been paying much attention or or he’s more popular in my area (for whatever reason). He’s also been on TV almost constantly now, which is why his name recognition is much higher than 4 years ago. Now, is he as well known as some others. No.
He is an important player though (no, not just to me). If he wasn’t ZEB other candidates would not now trying to sound a little like him. That should be obvious to even anyone. Even the television pundits are constantly talking about the Federal Reserve now. No one was even mentioning it before Ron Paul took the stage.
Having said all this though I do wonder why anyone thinks Paul would become president. Just wishful thinking I suppose. There are simply too many obstacles in the way.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not obsessed with Paul. I’m overly curious as to why anyone with a functioning brain stem would actually think he has a chance to become President.
[/quote]
I for one do not think he’ll get elected. I’m not going to sit here and claim perfect foreknowledge of the future but the likelihood of him getting elected is minuscule at best.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way, he’s an important player to YOU. Therefore YOU think he’s an important player to everyone. Keep in mind the average person in the US doesn’t even know who Ron Paul is. Did you know that? No probably not.[/quote]
In 2008 I would have agreed that most did not know him. Each time I mention his name in public however I’m always surprised to see that most seem to know who he is. Either you obviously have not been paying much attention or or he’s more popular in my area (for whatever reason). He’s also been on TV almost constantly now, which is why his name recognition is much higher than 4 years ago. Now, is he as well known as some others. No.
He is an important player though (no, not just to me). If he wasn’t ZEB other candidates would not now trying to sound a little like him. That should be obvious to even anyone. Even the television pundits are constantly talking about the Federal Reserve now. No one was even mentioning it before Ron Paul took the stage.
Having said all this though I do wonder why anyone thinks Paul would become president. Just wishful thinking I suppose. There are simply too many obstacles in the way.[/quote]
Yeah, well I think we pretty much agree. But, as to his popularity, he might be more popular now than in 08’ but that’s only because he’s run for President three times. Still, being “more” popular means that perhaps an addition 2% to 3% of the populace knows his name. Add that to his base of 5% to 7% and you might be up to 10% (at best) of the poplulation who have has actually heard of him. What does that really mean? That certainly doesn’t mean that if they’ve heard his name they are going to vote for him.
And as a side note, I’m not trying to antagonize the Paul supporters. Well, I didn’t start out to anyway. It’s just that there should be no group of adults walking around thinking that Paul could ever become President, as it’s just never going to happen for the many reasons that I’ve repeated in these Paul threads. And that is no slam on the man. As I said the best chance for Paul would be to grab a high level cabinet position from someone who could win. What if Paul threw his 7% base of followers toward another candidate? This is actually how politics is done. Groups of people compromising and coming together for the greater good. This way you will get at least some of what you want. I know most of you are in your 20’s but there is a lesson in life that you will learn at some point, and that is, a half a loaf is better than none!
Food for thought I hope.
Bad news for Paul in Iowa.
DES MOINES, Iowa A new Iowa Poll shows national Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann leading among the state’s likely GOP caucus-goers.
The poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, with support from 23 percent in Iowa. Bachmann, the Minnesota representative who plans to launch her campaign in Iowa on Monday, has support from 22 percent.
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose campaign has struggled since widespread staff departures this month, has support from 7 percent, the same as Texas Representative Ron Paul."
Now what did I say in my post above about Paul’s following? Scroll up, I said it was 7% give or take. And it seems that the people of Iowa agree with me.
With such a huge discrepancy between the Polls; it makes you wonder:
-
Who was Polled
-
What were the questions asked;how were they worded; and who asked the questions
-
How was the data collated, analyzed and eventually interpreted
I think that Paul still comes out with low numbers; but the discrepancy between the Polls is pretty significant.
With Romney and Bachmann so close, I think that you would have to put her actually ahead.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
With such a huge discrepancy between the Polls; it makes you wonder:
-
Who was Polled
-
What were the questions asked;how were they worded; and who asked the questions
-
How was the data collated, analyzed and eventually interpreted
I think that Paul still comes out with low numbers; but the discrepancy between the Polls is pretty significant.
With Romney and Bachmann so close, I think that you would have to put her actually ahead.
Mufasa[/quote]
-
400 caucus members were polled.
-
Romney is only spending a minimal amount of time and money in Iowa. The rational is that he will do well enough and the resources are better spent in states that can actually give him delegates, such as New Hampshire.
-
I think Bachman is only a temporary threat. While she could do well in Iowa I don’t think her organization is strong enough, or her pockets deep enough to keep up with the likes of Romney. But certainly a win in Iowa would help her greatly.
-
Paul will, in all likely hood win nothing from this point forward. While he may rise above 7% on occasion, (given the right circumstances), he has a glass ceiling which will in effect keep him in the single digits until he gets tired of losing and drops out of the race, as he did in 08.
The independents here in Iowa haven’t switched over to parties yet. Right now all polls in Iowa are worthless.
Here Ron Paul is tied with Bachmann.
Now Ron Paul losing here in Iowa would not surprise me. Ron Pauls poll numbers won’t increase till well into the primary season when the weaker wons are knocked off. Last year he was polling 1% at this time.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Here Ron Paul is tied with Bachmann.
Now Ron Paul losing here in Iowa would not surprise me. Ron Pauls poll numbers won’t increase till well into the primary season when the weaker wons are knocked off. Last year he was polling 1% at this time. [/quote]
Do you just recycle your posts from 2008? That is almost the exact same thing that you said back then. Your logic is so filled with flaws, and replaced with dreams and wishes that it’s actually difficult to read.
-
Ron Paul IS one of the weaker ones, you need to acknowledge that.
-
What makes you think that when the (other) weaker candidates drop out that Paul will automatically get their supporters? It makes more sense to me that someone who wanted say Gingrich, a well established former republican Speaker of the House would then back a candidate like Romney, Bachman or Pawlenty. You know someone who actually has a chance of winning.
-
How dare you brag about a candidate because one year ago he was only a flicker at 1% and now has about 7% support? Granted Paulies have to take whatever they can get their hands on and try to make it look good, but you only make yourself look foolish touting numbers like these. You do realize that it will take a great deal more than 7% to win the republican nomination right? And then a good deal more than that to defeat Obama.
How long will you be living this fantasy? Furthermore, I want some kudo’s when I am correct about Paul, AGAIN. Last time out I called it exactly and you didn’t have the good manners to mention it.
Here is a bet offer for you. If Paul gets the nomination I’ll write at the end of every one of my posts that “John S. is brilliant.” If he is defeated you must write the same thing at the end of your posts, except substitute my name for yours.
I’m not even talking about him winning the Presidency, just the nomination. And if you don’t even think that he can win that much why do you waste everyone’s time with you nonsense about Paul?
Deal?