Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
There is a big difference between concepts and actual policy positions. Generally I am a very big advocate of smaller government. Getting rid of several government agencies would be a very good beginning. However, generally Paul acts as if this is the year 1800. His simplistic view of the world would no doubt get us in very deep trouble.
To answer your question more directly, the answer to our problems is not through libertarian policies, which seem only to work on paper. The answer is to elect a very good conservative republican who can speak to these issues in a more rational, pragmatic manner. I wouldn’t vote for Paul, or anyone else espousing his political positions.[/quote]
What conservative Republicans ? They think they are Conservative if they vote to take away social programs , They do not realize it means to vote to save money . War and War on Drugs would balance the budget even in a bad economy . Any one that likes the way our military dominates the world is NOT A CONSEVATIVE
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of conservatism. Somehow over the past 10 years or so conservatism has gotten tangled up with libertarianism in definition alone. This has confused the definition of conservatism and we have people like you posting such comments.
I know that you’re not old enough to remember Barry Goldwater (neither am I), but he said some things that define conservatism in our age, relative to foreign policy:
“We cannot allow the American flag to be shot at anywhere on earth if we are to retain our respect and prestige.”
“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. it is peace mongering.”
And his most classic:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson and was soundly defeated. In fact, his opponent received the highest percentage victory in the history of Presidential elections with 61%! I guess the country was not ready for modern conservatism in 1964. By the way Johnson went on to become one of the worst, if not the worst, Presidents in the history of the country. He spent billions on something called “The Great Society” which was nothing more than a perpetuation of the great welfare state begun under FDR. Johnson also escalated the war in Vietnam which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.
The good news, 16 years later a man by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan ran on the same brand of conservatism as Goldwater and won two terms as commander and chief. So, when you talk about conservatism make sure that you get it right. Conservative republican politicians do not adhere to the many nonsensical themes that Ron Paul espouses.
[/quote]
Ronald Reagan was the worst President ever . I think some where your definition of conservative got skewed. It is a simple term meaning one is conservative in spending, if it costs too much money and does not save the amount it costs then it is a poor buy and should not be purchased . All of your values (CONSERVATIVE) are anti freedom
Libertarianism (Freedom) has it’s place in America. Just as the Republican (Electing Representatives to Rule) point of view. AS well as the Democratic (Majority Rules )
I think “ranking” President’s gets a little tricky…but I will admit being more than a little confused when I read what “PWI” members define as being “conservative”…and compare that with the actions of the Reagan Presidency.
I certainly think that the Religious Right rode in with his Presidency with a vengence…but what was really “Conservative” about his Presidency?
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
There is a big difference between concepts and actual policy positions. Generally I am a very big advocate of smaller government. Getting rid of several government agencies would be a very good beginning. However, generally Paul acts as if this is the year 1800. His simplistic view of the world would no doubt get us in very deep trouble.
To answer your question more directly, the answer to our problems is not through libertarian policies, which seem only to work on paper. The answer is to elect a very good conservative republican who can speak to these issues in a more rational, pragmatic manner. I wouldn’t vote for Paul, or anyone else espousing his political positions.[/quote]
What conservative Republicans ? They think they are Conservative if they vote to take away social programs , They do not realize it means to vote to save money . War and War on Drugs would balance the budget even in a bad economy . Any one that likes the way our military dominates the world is NOT A CONSEVATIVE
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of conservatism. Somehow over the past 10 years or so conservatism has gotten tangled up with libertarianism in definition alone. This has confused the definition of conservatism and we have people like you posting such comments.
I know that you’re not old enough to remember Barry Goldwater (neither am I), but he said some things that define conservatism in our age, relative to foreign policy:
“We cannot allow the American flag to be shot at anywhere on earth if we are to retain our respect and prestige.”
“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. it is peace mongering.”
And his most classic:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson and was soundly defeated. In fact, his opponent received the highest percentage victory in the history of Presidential elections with 61%! I guess the country was not ready for modern conservatism in 1964. By the way Johnson went on to become one of the worst, if not the worst, Presidents in the history of the country. He spent billions on something called “The Great Society” which was nothing more than a perpetuation of the great welfare state begun under FDR. Johnson also escalated the war in Vietnam which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.
The good news, 16 years later a man by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan ran on the same brand of conservatism as Goldwater and won two terms as commander and chief. So, when you talk about conservatism make sure that you get it right. Conservative republican politicians do not adhere to the many nonsensical themes that Ron Paul espouses.
[/quote]
Ronald Reagan was the worst President ever .[/quote]
I’ve read you espousing this nonsense on other threads. You call the immediate freeing of Iranian hostages, job growth of 20 million, tearing down the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Empire crumbling, and generally restoring American will being a bad President? I wonder what you’d call a total bum like Obama? Who is he in your opinion? The anti Christ? And please save the speech about racking up debt under Reagan, it’s Congress that controls the purse strings. I’m sure you understand that insignificant little fact. No?
Not at all, it is just as I stated. Barry Goldwater was the modern conservative, and Ronald Reagan was the eventual winner from that new conservatism.
Mostly, yes.
Your definition of freedom is quaint.
I agree, the exact place that it holds today, very insignificant and trivial. Some of the libertarian view points are so naive that I wonder how thinking men and women can swallow them. But then I fully understand that most of those are the starry eyed kids who think Ron Paul could have been (and still can be) elected President.
I certainly think that the Religious Right rode in with his Presidency with a vengence…but what was really “Conservative” about his Presidency?
Mufasa[/quote]
Without checking, I don’t remember Reagan having both houses of Congress as republican. That could answer your question. However, just compare Reagan’s Presidency to Obama’s (so far) and I think you will agree that Reagan’s was far, far more conservative. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone, should it? If you want a real conservative to govern as one 100% of the time then a Congress must also be elected which will back up his agenda, just as the democrats have backed the play of the Obama who is the most liberal person to ever hold the office.
Come on Mufasa, you know all this stuff, stop making me type.
Here in lies my problem with “comparing” Presidents…
You would really have to compare individuals at similar times (which is impossible)…but at least under similar circumstances. This may be possible; but often involves some huge stretches of credibility. (That you can often find in abundance on “PWI”).
I think that’s why “history” often judges a President; and even THEN, people will still put that history within the context of their own beliefs. (Eg. Lincoln and many on this very Forum).
There are plenty of other problems with Ron Paul. Think what you will, but there are lots of independent and democrats who would support the right candidate. Of course you are right that there is the problem of alienating a social conservative base. That is why I do not foresee any viable change for a long time to come. Not abstinence-only education is more important to so many than sound financial policy (if forced to choose between the two)[/quote]
You won’t get to ‘sound financial policy’ without a socially conservative people. Fiscal conservatism and libertarian thought are dead. I doubt even the majority of the TP wants spending on SS/Medicare curbed by much, if at all. If anything, the ‘fiscal conservatism’ of today is the position Progressive advanced from yesterday. That’s the extent of it.
The first order of business won’t be fiscal conservatism. It’s either rebuild the traditional values and family of the people, or nothing. Sure, we’re going to get some reform of SS/medicare such as indexing to life expectancy. But, there won’t be real cuts deep enough to make us solvent. The difference will be made up with higher taxes and eventually a VAT. And when that can’t keep up any longer, we’ll get UHC.
[/quote]
You do realize without cutting the cost of Social security and Medicare this system is going to collapse right? If people want to talk about cutting the deficit and slashing spending they better get ready for those 2 programs to get cut/eliminated. Without doing that it doesn’t matter which party is in power the system will still collapse.
So let me get this right, we are going to get UHC and we are at the same time going to return to our “christian roots”?
Economics decides social construct, until you get your fiscal house is in order you can’t get your social house in order. What you are also forgetting is the number 1 concern of voters is the Economy, forget the social nonsense the “christian conservatives” way of big government is dead, Bush killed it.
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
They have ignored this and the straw polls, It is the Christian “Conservatives”(liberals) that are trying to convince themselves that Ron Paul is no threat. As the Rassmussen and Straw Polls show if/When Ron Paul runs he will be a real viable solution, even more so if Obama does not renew bush’s tax cuts.
And after watching a bunch of republicans here in Iowa say they would not vote for Branstad then turn around and support him I think that those who are really opposed to Ron Paul when push came to shove would end up voting for him because he would be the less “evil” of the two candidates.
Alvin Toffler’s book, Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, is a bizarre, revolutionary view and blueprint for the 2lst century. Gingrich WROTE the forward for this book - it’s frightening and you should read both editions. These books became best sellers in Communist China because they mirror Mao.
On page 433 of Toffler’s bilge, we read: “The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE and hence increasingly if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be RADICALLY changed and a NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INVENTED - a democracy for the 2lst Century.”
This one even gives the page number. 433[/quote]
I found your passage , but explained the way you have done so is way out of context. Our Government is way out of control , our Government has been thwarting our constitution since I can remember . We need to refurbish our constitution in a way that it must be followed .
The way the Birch society approached this would be like me advising you how to repair a drain. But (YOU) telling every one else all I said was you are going to have to bust up the floor .
I have to discount the birch Society for that reason, I do think there are things that would run best if they were dealt with libertarian style.
It was 30 years since I read this book , I think it is going to be the first book I will have read twice
[/quote]
He is calling for the death of the constitution and a new one implemented, I am pretty sure that is not a good thing for someone to be preaching if their oath is to “protect and uphold the constitution”. I am sure showing this to a few of my Soldier friends will be enough to convince them not to vote for Newt if he should run.
Lets face it, Newt and this Toffler guy are radicals.
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
They have ignored this and the straw polls, It is the Christian “Conservatives”(liberals) that are trying to convince themselves that Ron Paul is no threat. As the Rassmussen and Straw Polls show if/When Ron Paul runs he will be a real viable solution, even more so if Obama does not renew bush’s tax cuts.
And after watching a bunch of republicans here in Iowa say they would not vote for Branstad then turn around and support him I think that those who are really opposed to Ron Paul when push came to shove would end up voting for him because he would be the less “evil” of the two candidates.[/quote]
You bring up a good point. I’m not sure who I’d vote for, ron paul or barack obama.
I suppose ron paul, as he’d be completely stymied by Congress. They would cancel themselves out.
I’d vote for Newt (warts and all) in a second over either of them. There is no way Newt would have tried to push through Nationalized Health Care/Wall Street Takeover/or Cap and Trade. Further, having read his books, I know that he actually knows U.S. history (in contrast to paul).
You bring up a good point. I’m not sure who I’d vote for, ron paul or barack obama.
I suppose ron paul, as he’d be completely stymied by Congress. They would cancel themselves out.
I’d vote for Newt (warts and all) in a second over either of them. There is no way Newt would have tried to push through Nationalized Health Care/Wall Street Takeover/or Cap and Trade. Further, having read his books, I know that he actually knows U.S. history (in contrast to paul).
JeffR
[/quote]
Have you watched the video’s I posted, he praises a guy who calls for the death of our constitution. I am not sure how any “conservative” could vote for Newt.
And are you suggesting that Ron Paul would push through health care, wall street takeover, and cap and trade?
And how do you figure Ron Paul doesn’t know history? He destroyed the Republicans revisionist history of 9/11 on the campaign trail.
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
They have ignored this and the straw polls, It is the Christian “Conservatives”(liberals) that are trying to convince themselves that Ron Paul is no threat. As the Rassmussen and Straw Polls show if/When Ron Paul runs he will be a real viable solution, even more so if Obama does not renew bush’s tax cuts.
And after watching a bunch of republicans here in Iowa say they would not vote for Branstad then turn around and support him I think that those who are really opposed to Ron Paul when push came to shove would end up voting for him because he would be the less “evil” of the two candidates.[/quote]
Does anyone else getting deja Vu? I read this sort of nonsense in 07’ and 08.’ “Paul this Paul that, Paul is better than sliced bread. Paul can’t be stopped.” Then all of a sudden he was stopped dead in his tracks, defeated. What do the Paulies have to say about that? They don’t don’t talk much about it, they just continue to rant and rave like lunatics. I hate to throw a bunch of facts at these idiotic kids, but someone has to.
Fact: Ron Paul will turn 75 in August. Who was the oldest elected president the first time he ran? 68 years old. And he had everything going for him: great communicator, good looking, polished, well financed, major party backing, former Governor of CA. And I lived through the Reagan Presidency, I was honored to watch him speak in person. And believe me junior Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan (Benston did it better).
Fact: Paul’s appeal is near zero to those who are not died in the wool libertarian loons. Show me a legitimate poll where Paul beats anyone of credibility where the general public is polled and not some right wing organization which leans libertarian,
Fact:Paul has no money. Yes, yes I know you send him $5.00 when you and your friends pool your beer money, but I’m talking about real bucks junior. He doesn’t have it and he will never have it.
Fact:He has no organization. I realize that you don’t understand the importance of a strong political organization in all 50 states (56 states in Obama’s world), but no one has won the nomination without one in the modern ear. I know Paul thinks like someone from the 18th century but that doesn’t mean he can run a campaign like that.
Fact You seem to be a 20 something who should have learned his lesson last time, but for some reason the what happened to him just flew over your head. So, from the bottom of my heart please shut the hell up! You bring the level of discussion on this board down about 30 IQ points every time you claim Paul is a serious contender for the Presidency.
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
They have ignored this and the straw polls, It is the Christian “Conservatives”(liberals) that are trying to convince themselves that Ron Paul is no threat. As the Rassmussen and Straw Polls show if/When Ron Paul runs he will be a real viable solution, even more so if Obama does not renew bush’s tax cuts.
And after watching a bunch of republicans here in Iowa say they would not vote for Branstad then turn around and support him I think that those who are really opposed to Ron Paul when push came to shove would end up voting for him because he would be the less “evil” of the two candidates.[/quote]
Does anyone else getting deja Vu? I read this sort of nonsense in 07’ and 08.’ “Paul this Paul that, Paul is better than sliced bread. Paul can’t be stopped.” Then all of a sudden he was stopped dead in his tracks, defeated. What do the Paulies have to say about that? They don’t don’t talk much about it, they just continue to rant and rave like lunatics. I hate to throw a bunch of facts at these idiotic kids, but someone has to.
Fact: Ron Paul will turn 75 in August. Who was the oldest elected president the first time he ran? 68 years old. And he had everything going for him: great communicator, good looking, polished, well financed, major party backing, former Governor of CA. And I lived through the Reagan Presidency, I was honored to watch him speak in person. And believe me junior Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan (Benston did it better).
Fact: Paul’s appeal is near zero to those who are not died in the wool libertarian loons. Show me a legitimate poll where Paul beats anyone of credibility where the general public is polled and not some right wing organization which leans libertarian,
Fact:Paul has no money. Yes, yes I know you send him $5.00 when you and your friends pool your beer money, but I’m talking about real bucks junior. He doesn’t have it and he will never have it.
Fact:He has no organization. I realize that you don’t understand the importance of a strong political organization in all 50 states (56 states in Obama’s world), but no one has won the nomination without one in the modern ear. I know Paul thinks like someone from the 18th century but that doesn’t mean he can run a campaign like that.
Fact You seem to be a 20 something who should have learned his lesson last time, but for some reason the what happened to him just flew over your head. So, from the bottom of my heart please shut the hell up! You bring the level of discussion on this board down about 30 IQ points every time you claim Paul is a serious contender for the Presidency.
[/quote]
Why don’t you check the Rassmussen poll sparky. Might show you that Independents like the guy. But then again that would require going out of your comfort zone and then you would finally have to realize that if you run a candidate like Bush/Mccain you will lose from now on.
Rassmussen is showing he is a real contender, infact the only thing holding him back in that poll is that only 66% of Republicans would vote for him, but you know as well as I do that if it came down to it most republicans with maybe the exception of 10% would end up voting for Ron Paul, meaning he would beat Obama.
And the age thing? Really? If anything if managed properly you could twist the debat to be wise old guy vs inept young guy who has failed.
Just for shits and giggles, who have you put forward? Let me hear the Christian “Conservatives” answer, now you can’t just say NO, No can’t run for president, Give me the name of who will beat Obama. Because it sure as fuck isn’t Newt, and if you put Mr. universal health care Romney up you are going to get destoryed by the libertarian base in the party.
So while polls are showing over and over again that Ron Paul is the one republican who can beat him you just keep on grasping at straws. If the election in 08 showed you anything it is the day’s of Social “conservatism” are over.
13 million dollar money bomb is what Ron Paul did. Not bad for one day from a guy who just recieves donations.
Among independents, Paul has an astonishing 47% to 28% edge over the president.
Any more useless “facts” or are you willing to admit that you have no one else to run, so maybe its time to get behind Ron Paul, who polls show will beat Obama if the “christian conservatives” would hold their noes this time and pull the lever.
And one more little fact, this time its about me, I was pulling for Romney last election.
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative [/quote]
No it won’t. Or, you’d have Ron Paul beating Obama in polls at this moment. Instead it’s Huckabee, Romney, and yes, even Palin. Without the support of libertarians it’s a closer race for the GoP. Without social conservatives, the GoP candidate gets skunked.[/quote]
Could Happen, rasmussen poll in link has Obama 42% to Paul 41% (for all, not just independents)
They have ignored this and the straw polls, It is the Christian “Conservatives”(liberals) that are trying to convince themselves that Ron Paul is no threat. As the Rassmussen and Straw Polls show if/When Ron Paul runs he will be a real viable solution, even more so if Obama does not renew bush’s tax cuts.
And after watching a bunch of republicans here in Iowa say they would not vote for Branstad then turn around and support him I think that those who are really opposed to Ron Paul when push came to shove would end up voting for him because he would be the less “evil” of the two candidates.[/quote]
Does anyone else getting deja Vu? I read this sort of nonsense in 07’ and 08.’ “Paul this Paul that, Paul is better than sliced bread. Paul can’t be stopped.” Then all of a sudden he was stopped dead in his tracks, defeated. What do the Paulies have to say about that? They don’t don’t talk much about it, they just continue to rant and rave like lunatics. I hate to throw a bunch of facts at these idiotic kids, but someone has to.
Fact: Ron Paul will turn 75 in August. Who was the oldest elected president the first time he ran? 68 years old. And he had everything going for him: great communicator, good looking, polished, well financed, major party backing, former Governor of CA. And I lived through the Reagan Presidency, I was honored to watch him speak in person. And believe me junior Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan (Benston did it better).
Fact: Paul’s appeal is near zero to those who are not died in the wool libertarian loons. Show me a legitimate poll where Paul beats anyone of credibility where the general public is polled and not some right wing organization which leans libertarian,
Fact:Paul has no money. Yes, yes I know you send him $5.00 when you and your friends pool your beer money, but I’m talking about real bucks junior. He doesn’t have it and he will never have it.
Fact:He has no organization. I realize that you don’t understand the importance of a strong political organization in all 50 states (56 states in Obama’s world), but no one has won the nomination without one in the modern ear. I know Paul thinks like someone from the 18th century but that doesn’t mean he can run a campaign like that.
Fact You seem to be a 20 something who should have learned his lesson last time, but for some reason the what happened to him just flew over your head. So, from the bottom of my heart please shut the hell up! You bring the level of discussion on this board down about 30 IQ points every time you claim Paul is a serious contender for the Presidency.
[/quote]
Why don’t you check the Rassmussen poll sparky. Might show you that Independents like the guy. But then again that would require going out of your comfort zone and then you would finally have to realize that if you run a candidate like Bush/Mccain you will lose from now on.[/quote]
Is this how your mind works? Why am I asking that question? Of course it is. When did I ever say I wanted McCain? Your logic speaks volumes, I’m not pro Paul so therefore I am pro McCain. Ha ha. Now I understand why you don’t get it and never will.
You stupid little twerp. If by some miracle Paul actually got the republican nomination (which he never will) Obama would beat him worse than Reagan beat Mondale in 84’ (when you were still about 4 or 5 years away from being born). All the American public has to see is Paul standing next to Obama in a debate. “Oh look Obama was kind enough to bring his grandfather to the debate, how nice.” Why you don’t understand that, even at the tender age you’re at I don’t understand. More importantly why I waste my time trying to get you to understand it, I don’t understand.
One more stupid comment by an inexperienced kid. Clue #1 the typical American voter will not even tune into the Presidential race until after labor day about two months from the Presidential race. Didn’t know that did you? You walk around thinking that everyone thinks like you do don’t you? Most don’t care kid, they have actual lives that they lead and spend time worrying about stuff that happens within the confines of that domain. So, when they do wake up and look at the two candidates they will look at Obama and many won’t like him very much. They will then turn to Paul (because in your dreams he gets the nomination) and they might not stop laughing until Novemeber when they either stay at home, or vote for Obama.
This is a discussion about Paul’s chances. As I’ve said many times I have no idea who the republicans will put forward. I would bet at this point that it is someone that we’ve not heard of. A young conservative who can appeal to the center. Someone who could actually live out his term if he were elected President (average life span of the American male is about 76).
You are a little block head, there is no other way to say it. First of all why do you think that a poll in 2010 means a dam thing about a Presidential election in 2012? History has repeatedly shown that the leader two years out is NOT the candidate. Secondly, some people have actually heard of Paul, there is a strong distaste for Obama right now and so Paul gets some votes. Guess what junior? If they put your Teddy Bear up against Obama your little Teddy would also come close to beating Obama. Sheesh even Palin beats Obama in some polls and she’d get clobbered in a face off with Obama.
And if the election showed you anything it should have shown you that Ron Paul has no chance of becoming President. But, here you are once again beating the same old Paul drum with the same old crap lines that made no sense 3 years ago.
Thank you for proving my point. For a guy who resembles the Professor in the movie Back To The Future and is pushing 107 years old that is really, really good. But, 13 million is the proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to Presidential races. Hang on to your high chair kid! In 08’ the average spent by each candidate was 500 million dollars! That is 1/2 billion dollars to run a national campaign. Yea that 13 million is really impressive for an old guy with crazy ideas and no chance to win. Yep. But it puts him about 487 million short on the money trail.
Once again, just about everyone has about a 47% to 28% (or better) edge over the President. It almost doesn’t matter who you put up. These stats are meaningless. Come on,don’t you remember doing this 3 years ago? How dumb are you?
I’m sure that all facts are “useless” to a blind ideolog. And I will get behind Ron Paul, I think we should all take turns pushing his wheel chair.
“Polls show.” Next time you are in the bathroom bring those polls with you and put them to good use. As I’ve said many times, just about everyone beats Obama right now. Ron Paul can’t even do that.
Yea, it’s about you this time (eye roll). Please, once again, shut the hell up.
If most folks only tune in 2 months before the election, why did Obama start his campaign for 2008 in 2006?
If Ron Paul has no chance at 77, how did Bob Dole have a chance at 73?
Why is Ron Paul’s ability to raise money in question? Open Secrets suggests Paul was roughly (VERY roughly, but still) neck and neck with McCain’s fundraising until the start of the primary season. You don’t think he’d be able to pull in money with the backing of the RNC?
If most folks only tune in 2 months before the election, why did Obama start his campaign for 2008 in 2006?
If Ron Paul has no chance at 77, how did Bob Dole have a chance at 73?
Why is Ron Paul’s ability to raise money in question? Open Secrets suggests Paul was roughly (VERY roughly, but still) neck and neck with McCain’s fundraising until the start of the primary season. You don’t think he’d be able to pull in money with the backing of the RNC?
Why do you put your hope in a dark horse candidate?
Full disclosure: I’m not a Paulie. I just don’t think your reasoning is… well reasoned.
[/quote]
His stance has nothing to do with facts, I pointed out Ron Paul raised 13 million in one day and he dismissed it(and like he said was an outsider at the time), with the RNC backing his ability to raise money would not be a problem.
Also most people where well into the spirit of the election before 2 months out, another fact that I think he pulled out of his ass.
The way I look at it, is he came into my thread which is about Newt, bashed Ron Paul, then when I asked him who he would support would not answer. As far as I am concerned his opinions don’t mean shit till he has someone to back and we can get into a fair argument. Right now he gets to throw all the questions and insults at Ron Paul and I am left unable to counter because he has no idea, not even an interest in who he would want to run.
His age may be an issue, not on getting elected but on willingness to run. Thats the only way age would come into play.
But yet, in my thread about Newt it seems the Christian Conservatives are dead set on chainging this Convo to be about Paul instead of Newt.
This will be my last post in this thread regaurding Ron, time to bring this thread back to topic.
If most folks only tune in 2 months before the election, why did Obama start his campaign for 2008 in 2006?[/quote]
It’s called “base building” and it’s done by all serious candidates. Simple because polls mean nothing (or very little) doesn’t mean that a good candidate with a solid shot at winning does not do this base building several years out.
This is a flawed question would you like to restate it and ask again?
You just answered your own question. Pauls base will gladly give him their money, maybe even their first born based on what I’ve seen around here. But alas, that’s where it ends. Beyond his base he doesn’t raise a dime. When the primary season began and things got semi-serious Paul did what Paul will do once again if he is foolish enough to try once more, that is he sank like a rock in water. The general mainstream republican thinks Paul is an old crank. Go figure.
More money? Sure, but not nearly enough. But let’s get one thing perfectly clear (as Richard Nixon used to say), money is the least of Paul’s problems. If he and Obama each started out with 600 million dollars Obama would have the largest electoral (and popular vote) landslide in the history of US Presidential elections. Paul would take such a royal beating it would be laughable.
Why would you make such a suggestion? I have not placed my hope in any candidate at this point.
[quote]Full disclosure: I’m not a Paulie. I just don’t think your reasoning is… well reasoned.
[/quote]
Then why don’t you begin picking it apart piece by piece.
Why don’t you show me some facts how
-A 77 year old man is going to beat Obama
-An underfunded candidate is going to take the nomination
-A Congressman is going to become President
-How someone who wants to govern as if this is 1800 is going to win
-How someone without a strong organzation in all 50 states is going to win
I get the appeal that he has with all of the 20 something simpletons, don’t get me wrong. But, that is largely where it begins and ends. As I said before, currently putting anyone against Obama in a straw poll will show that person running strong. Obama’s popularity is falling off the cliff. As a side note can you imagine how low Obama’s popularity would be if he did not have the mainstream liberal media in his hip pocket? What if he got the same treatment as Bush? Wow, his ratings would probably be in the low 30’s.
The people are not happy with Obama, and for good reason, the guy is a disaster. But, they will not accept Ron Paul as their next President (nor will the republicans be stupid enough to give him the nomination). And if you want to put your money where your mouth is I will show you how confident I am. I am truly sick of the mindless Paulies yakking endlessly about Pauls great chance to become President. They did the same thing in 07. They simply ignored that outcome and are now back agains stating the same old nonsense. When it comes to the Ron Paul issue they are deserving of zero respect and that’s exactly what I’m going to give them.
