On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
On December 11 2011 16:37 koreasilver wrote: Most news on the internet is intimately connected with mainstream media, if not already a part of the mainstream media. The internet is already largely a form of media to begin with.
I wouldn't call it "mainstream." There is definitely a LOT of media on the internet which has good exposure that gives a much different view than traditional media. However, that media is just as tainted as mainstream media, except with different interests (audiences) in mind.
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Also, I forgot to mention he has bested Obama before:
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
Paul hasn't EVER polled above Obama... I'm really baffled where you Paul people keep getting your information.
Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
On December 11 2011 09:25 Suisen wrote: Gingrich just tripped up too. Foreign policy blunder similar to those of Bachmann on Iran embassy and Cain on Libya.
He thinks the alternative history fringe Jewish groups propose, contrary to all evidence, is the truth. He just denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by claiming it was all 'invented' afterwards.
Wonder if he will be forced to pull out over this..
Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
On December 11 2011 09:29 hmunkey wrote: [quote] Don't believe what he says. Gingrich, unlike Bachmann, Cain, or Perry, has been around for a long time and has a very good understanding of the issues. He's also a very seasoned politician and knows when he needs to lie and when he should tell the truth. I have no doubt he understands the actual facts of the situation well and is just saying stupid things to pander.
In short, he's playing politics and you can't believe what he says.
He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
So Romney has recruited Ann Coulter to support/speak for him in hopes to attract Conservatives. Another stupid mistake, how long before she says something, she will, that will be deemed so offensive that even Republicans won't endorse?
On December 11 2011 09:31 Derez wrote: [quote] He also has the charisma of a bag of sand and has no shot in a general, just due to his negatives among dems, independents and even republicans.
This is shaping up to be a brokered convention, could be very exiting.
He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights.
Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor...
I dunno why Romney is making these mistakes. If he just sat in a stable position he would have continued to be in a pretty good position even if a lot of the Republicans are out to get him.
On December 12 2011 09:13 koreasilver wrote: I dunno why Romney is making these mistakes. If he just sat in a stable position he would have continued to be in a pretty good position even if a lot of the Republicans are out to get him.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights.
Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor...
So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
I've always wondered who actually believed the usual run-of-the-mill propaganda campaigns...nice to finally meet you...
As my country tag should say, I'm not a US citizen, and only follow the US political scene in passing. But, for the sake of everyone who actually wishes that democracy actually means something beyond preaching to the choir and months of rhetoric, learn how to apply some critical thinking to the political process.
Ron Paul has done things that his campaign followers can use to make him look like a saint, just like every other candidate that has ever run in politics, ever.
Ron Paul will also spew BS on a frequent basis, and it's your job as a voting Citizen to actually use your brain and actually piece together what statements are actually meaningful, and which are political fluff.
On December 12 2011 09:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Romney has recruited Ann Coulter to support/speak for him in hopes to attract Conservatives. Another stupid mistake, how long before she says something, she will, that will be deemed so offensive that even Republicans won't endorse?
What??????????????????????????????????? Are you kidding? lolol There goes my chance of voting Republican this time around, (unless Paul or Huntsman somehow scrapes it out)
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights.
Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor...
So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
I've always wondered who actually believed the usual run-of-the-mill propaganda campaigns...nice to finally meet you...
As my country tag should say, I'm not a US citizen, and only follow the US political scene in passing. But, for the sake of everyone who actually wishes that democracy actually means something beyond preaching to the choir and months of rhetoric, learn how to apply some critical thinking to the political process.
Ron Paul has done things that his campaign followers can use to make him look like a saint, just like every other candidate that has ever run in politics, ever.
Ron Paul will also spew BS on a frequent basis, and it's your job as a voting Citizen to actually use your brain and actually piece together what statements are actually meaningful, and which are political fluff.
propaganda campaigns? What BS is this son? Where's your citation and fact sheets. I want proof of this, otherwise your just another talking head like the mainstream media.
On December 11 2011 09:35 lizzard_warish wrote: [quote] He has low negatives in republican polls and won the independent vote over obama in a ramussen poll a week ago, but okie dokie...
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
Watch this :
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote:
On December 11 2011 10:05 Derez wrote: [quote]
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
Sometimes he says stupid stuff. I never refuted that but, don't be blinded by the fact that he among few others voted against the NDAA(recently) to protect our freedoms. I guess some people are just blinded by party association. Here's the facts on the vote: 93-7 on the senate and 406-17 from the house. Now are you seeing straight?
EPT![[image loading]](http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/388733_10150437602506686_6233046685_8740098_1537721022_n.jpg)
