Guys like that slowly melt my brain. 'If Ron Paul doesn't win there was votefraud and we need to start shooting the bastards'. 'There are no secret votes in democracies', while any real democracy secret votes and secret balloting are a key condition.
Ron Paul has a decent shot at taking the Iowa caussuses for sure, but it's not like its an immortal lock, and the 'uniqueness' of the Iowa caussuses have a lot to do with that. Even taking Iowa, Paul has no real shot at taking the actual nomination (read Nate Silver's thoughts link). Candidates on the far fringes of the system have no shot at a general, and the primary system is in part designed to weed candidates like that out before the actual race starts.
Guys like that slowly melt my brain. 'If Ron Paul doesn't win there was votefraud and we need to start shooting the bastards'. 'There are no secret votes in democracies', while any real democracy secret votes and secret balloting are a key condition.
Ron Paul has a decent shot at taking the Iowa caussuses for sure, but it's not like its an immortal lock, and the 'uniqueness' of the Iowa caussuses have a lot to do with that. Even taking Iowa, Paul has no real shot at taking the actual nomination (read Nate Silver's thoughts link). Candidates on the far fringes of the system have no shot at a general, and the primary system is in part designed to weed candidates like that out before the actual race starts.
So, Paul doesn't sell out to corporations, but instead to white supremecists. A politician being a politician. I'm sure his other supporters will see this and be reasonable about it.
I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
WASHINGTON -- In an interview that aired Wednesday night on NBC News, Mitt Romney definitively answered one of the lingering questions surrounding his presidential ambitions, saying he had no plans to release his tax returns should he win the Republican presidential nomination.
"Never say never, but I don't intend to do so," Romney said.
The statement marks an interesting point in the continuous frictions between political expedience and demands for transparency, as well as the benefits and downsides of both. Releasing his tax returns would have allowed voters to better judge Romney's financial history, as well as his potential conflicts of interest. It stands to reason that he would have gotten some credit for the disclosure, or at least less criticism for his pattern of non-disclosure.
But the tax returns would have also brought political headaches by displaying specific information about the former governor's immense wealth. They also would have likely disclosed the fact that he pays a lower tax rate than middle class voters (it is widely believed that Romney earns a good chunk of his money through capital gains).
Short version: The VA Republican party is requiring anyone voting in their primary to pledge to support whoever the eventual R candidate is. About my only conclusion here is that maybe Perry and Gingrich got shafted by some politico rather than actually failing to meet requirements.
At any rate, it's getting to the point where even as a conservative I'm wanting another party to vote for just on the basis of sheer Republican political incompetence. This race should, in a sane world, be headlined by Johnson vs Huntsman, with Paul as the perennial spoiler he is, but instead it's been a farce: Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Trump, Romney... hell, with his history, how is Gingrich a "serious" candidate?
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
Does that same poll breakdown individual events? We see many times where people answer extremely broad questions with a political lean, but more direct questions with a different one. Polls on taxes seem to ring a bell on this one.
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
Does that same poll breakdown individual events? We see many times where people answer extremely broad questions with a political lean, but more direct questions with a different one. Polls on taxes seem to ring a bell on this one.
Specifically, that poll was about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and potential involvement in Iran.
Iran in particular is important, because a majority of people are opposed to us interfering with them, yet all of the candidates (Obama included) other than Ron Paul want to take "preemptive measures".
I sort of like Ron Paul, but too many people here are treating him like the he is God. The only person I have seen who gets more fandom love than Paul is Kim-Jon-il. You guys will be incredibly disappointed if he gets into office.
Guys like that slowly melt my brain. 'If Ron Paul doesn't win there was votefraud and we need to start shooting the bastards'. 'There are no secret votes in democracies', while any real democracy secret votes and secret balloting are a key condition.
Ron Paul has a decent shot at taking the Iowa caussuses for sure, but it's not like its an immortal lock, and the 'uniqueness' of the Iowa caussuses have a lot to do with that. Even taking Iowa, Paul has no real shot at taking the actual nomination (read Nate Silver's thoughts link). Candidates on the far fringes of the system have no shot at a general, and the primary system is in part designed to weed candidates like that out before the actual race starts.
So, Paul doesn't sell out to corporations, but instead to white supremecists. A politician being a politician. I'm sure his other supporters will see this and be reasonable about it.
Coming from a Pro-Obama supporter and already playing the race card eh?
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
There are a lot of ways to be involved in the world other than militarily, and Ron Paul seems to be against all of those too, so saying "78% of American's agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy" is very misleading. And how exactly are measures such as withdrawing from the UN anything other than isolationist?
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
There are a lot of ways to be involved in the world other than militarily, and Ron Paul seems to be against all of those too, so saying "78% of American's agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy" is very misleading. And how exactly are measures such as withdrawing from the UN anything other than isolationist?
Short version: The VA Republican party is requiring anyone voting in their primary to pledge to support whoever the eventual R candidate is. About my only conclusion here is that maybe Perry and Gingrich got shafted by some politico rather than actually failing to meet requirements.
At any rate, it's getting to the point where even as a conservative I'm wanting another party to vote for just on the basis of sheer Republican political incompetence. This race should, in a sane world, be headlined by Johnson vs Huntsman, with Paul as the perennial spoiler he is, but instead it's been a farce: Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Trump, Romney... hell, with his history, how is Gingrich a "serious" candidate?
I'm not a conservative but from a purely politically neutral view, it speaks monumental volumes about both Gingrich and Perry's organizational and delegation skills, and of the people they choose to surround themselves with, that they couldn't make it on the ballot in time.
Part of the test of running for President is in your campaign structure, and this kind of shit should be seen as a litmus test. They both have surrounded themselves with yes men, idiots or friends who are incapable of meeting basic campaign goals, and for that it should be impossible to view them as a viable candidate for an executive position.
Guys like that slowly melt my brain. 'If Ron Paul doesn't win there was votefraud and we need to start shooting the bastards'. 'There are no secret votes in democracies', while any real democracy secret votes and secret balloting are a key condition.
Ron Paul has a decent shot at taking the Iowa caussuses for sure, but it's not like its an immortal lock, and the 'uniqueness' of the Iowa caussuses have a lot to do with that. Even taking Iowa, Paul has no real shot at taking the actual nomination (read Nate Silver's thoughts link). Candidates on the far fringes of the system have no shot at a general, and the primary system is in part designed to weed candidates like that out before the actual race starts.
So, Paul doesn't sell out to corporations, but instead to white supremecists. A politician being a politician. I'm sure his other supporters will see this and be reasonable about it.
Coming from a Pro-Obama supporter and already playing the race card eh?
How is that playing the race card? Ron Paul is basically being supported by groups NO candidate should be a part of. He doesn't even condemn them, only wishes they would change their views while supporting him.
Also, I don't support any candidate. But that's cool, keep peddling your Paul youtube videos and eating up everything these Paul newsletters feed you.
On December 30 2011 04:03 alpinefpOPP wrote: I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination he has nothing but great ideas imo, and like him or not he's been pretty damn consistent about what he voted for over the years which is something I haven't seen from either side of the isle.
I hope he gets the nomination, too. It will make it extremely easy for Obama to get reelected.
On consistency—there are many topics you would not want your candidate to be consistent on, esp when new information comes out. One of those positions that will eventually hurt Paul (if he were to be the candidate) is his isolationist approach to foreign policy. It looks obvious to people when we are running a huge deficit, but there are situations where the US must intervene (or meddle depending on your p.o.v.).
He's not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a difference. Also, in a general election, the peoples vote matters. According to a national poll about 2 weeks ago, 78% of Americans want us to be less involved militarily throughout the world. As in, 78% of Americans agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy. If anything, his foreign policy will be the thing that helps him in a general election, and his economics will be what hurts him.
I disagree with Ron Paul being only non-interventionist rather than isolationist, but regardless of that, Obama ending the Iraq War (even if he wasn't the original person to pledge it) trumps that politically.
In many ways, Obama has been a hawk but politically that action will still carry much heavier weight than Ron Paul's position. It looks better to the normal person, yet it's still more militarily active for the conservatives who want us to be. I'm not saying this because I disagree with many of his positions, but I believe RP will get absolutely clobbered in a race with Obama.
On December 30 2011 19:21 Shiragaku wrote: I sort of like Ron Paul, but too many people here are treating him like the he is God. The only person I have seen who gets more fandom love than Paul is Kim-Jon-il. You guys will be incredibly disappointed if he gets into office.
The reason some people are treating Ron Paul like a god is because every single other candidate is absolute shit. I would not vote for any of them, not even for a "lesser of two evils."
If you put a hot dog next to a steaming pile of shit, the hot dog is going to be treated like filet mignon.
I've never adhered to this philosophy of "choose who you think can beat the other side." Don't let people tell you not to vote for someone because they "can't win." That isn't for you or them to decide. You make the judgement in your mind of who is the BEST candidate, and vote for that person, regardless of the consequences. It will be good for your self-respect.
On December 30 2011 19:21 Shiragaku wrote: I sort of like Ron Paul, but too many people here are treating him like the he is God. The only person I have seen who gets more fandom love than Paul is Kim-Jon-il. You guys will be incredibly disappointed if he gets into office.
The reason some people are treating Ron Paul like a god is because every single other candidate is absolute shit. I would not vote for any of them, not even for a "lesser of two evils."
If you put a hot dog next to a steaming pile of shit, the hot dog is going to be treated like filet mignon.
But he's not a hot dog either. He's no different than any other politician, taking any support he can get to get into office. The ends justify the means. He still plays the smoke and mirrors game with his views, showing many of his unusual stances in positive light. The only thing protecting him is the media not taking him seriously. Now that he may win 1 state, they're finally digging deep and he's having to defend himself, and his hands look just as dirty as the others.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Roll_eye/rolleye0014.gif)
