suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[Duckus]

My gut feeling is that Paul would get crushed in a general election to Obama. I think Obama would win by a bigger margin than 2008.

But, I think it would be a very interesting race and actually good for the GOP in the long run. I am not saying this as a Democrat, but I think it is better for the GOP to lose with someone like Paul then to win with someone like Romney.

[Kilmer17]

My gut feeling is that Paul would get crushed in a general election to Obama. I think Obama would win by a bigger margin than 2008.

But, I think it would be a very interesting race and actually good for the GOP in the long run. I am not saying this as a Democrat, but I think it is better for the GOP to lose with someone like Paul then to win with someone like Romney.

If I take the stance that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP nominee is (and Im pretty sure that's where I stand), then Paul would be a fun choice to watch as a contrast to Obama.

However, I dont thin kit would drastically change anything for 2016.

[greenspandan]

If I take the stance that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP nominee is (and Im pretty sure that's where I stand), then Paul would be a fun choice to watch as a contrast to Obama.

However, I dont thin kit would drastically change anything for 2016.

i can agree with all that. i'm no ron paul supporter, but it would at least be a more interesting campaign.

[SkinsHokieFan]

If I take the stance that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP nominee is (and Im pretty sure that's where I stand), then Paul would be a fun choice to watch as a contrast to Obama.

However, I dont thin kit would drastically change anything for 2016.

I think Paul could be the 21st century version of Goldwater in that he is setting the groundwork for re-calibrating the narrative on the right in America.

Goldwater laid the intellectual foundation in 1964 for Regan 1980. Perhaps a Paul 2012 run does the same in 2028 when many of the young supporters of Paul are in positions of power in business and politics then?

[GibbsFactor]

Damn. Harsh.

Know where I can find one?

just messin

[jpyaks3]

Oh, here I had given you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were merely implying that Ron Paul would order government officials to walk away from our nuclear weapons and the maintenance/development of said weapons (although we obviously don't really do much development anymore), a.k.a. what many people are referring to when using the term "nuclear program," and then would wait to see what happens. Instead, you're implying that he would do that and order government officials to also walk away from our nuclear power plants and then would wait to see what happens. Gotcha.

Where exactly has Paul outlined exactly what he was going to do with the responsibilities of the DoE as soon as he eliminates it? You are assuming that he has some master plan in place but I sure as hell haven't seen anything concrete from him. Sorry if I am not willing to just trust that it will all work out.

All of those things sound suspiciously like parts of a decent plan.

So in your magical world where there is no Department of Energy who develops and implements that plan? Who creates a coherent national energy plan, coordinates domestic production, and regulates use.

Okay, bring up specific things that the DoE does.

Sure, Cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories.

You're the only one that has ever been talking about Rwanda. Someone asked you why we need to have an interventionist foreign policy. You said that one reason would be the "need" to prevent situations in foreign nations from creating millions of refugees who would then flood over our border. I then pointed out that when it comes to the only nation that realistically could be "sending" millions of people over our border, we're failing on a massive scale.

My whole point was to illustrate how absurd your example was. Of course you're not literally talking about Rwanda. That's what I was saying.

I said nothing about intervening, once again you fail to put my quote in context, shocker. I was pointing out that the United States has legitimate interests in influencing (which can be done a number of ways) another countries policies. No where did I mention intervention. So instead of ranting maybe you should take a second and actually read the arguments others are making.

[Jeeb]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Paul's temperment or personality as far as winning a general election. His policies are too far from the norm.

People like Social Security and Medicare. People like the EPA, the Department of Education, etc. A lot of people will say these programs and departments are doing good things for them. And I think his stance is too far from what enough people consider to be acceptable that he can't win.

He's the right's version of Ralph Nader, but more successful in politics: a smart guy who wants to see the government do well and wants to see American's be better off. But he can't win.

I think Paul raises a lot of good questions in terms of policy debate and I do agree with him on the Patriot Act/NDAA/SOPA, but I can't get on board with pretty much every other idea he has.

[SkinsHokieFan]

If I take the stance that Obama is going to win no matter who the GOP nominee is (and Im pretty sure that's where I stand), then Paul would be a fun choice to watch as a contrast to Obama.

However, I dont thin kit would drastically change anything for 2016.

I think Paul could be the 21st century version of Goldwater in that he is setting the groundwork for re-calibrating the narrative on the right in America.

Goldwater laid the intellectual foundation in 1964 for Regan 1980. Perhaps a Paul 2012 run does the same in 2028 when many of the young supporters of Paul are in positions of power in business and politics then?

[GibbsFactor]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Paul's temperment or personality as far as winning a general election. His policies are too far from the norm.

People like Social Security and Medicare. People like the EPA, the Department of Education, etc. A lot of people will say these programs and departments are doing good things for them. And I think his stance is too far from what enough people consider to be acceptable that he can't win.

He's the right's version of Ralph Nader, but more successful in politics: a smart guy who wants to see the government do well and wants to see American's be better off. But he can't win.

People like BMWs, mansions and yachts too. That's the point. Sure it's nice to have medicare and social security. The "Great Society" can't exist at the current tax rate. No one wants to increase taxes to match it. We all want to be on welfare. Who doesn't want something for free?

[SkinsHokieFan]

I see this as a real non sequitur to what I said.

I like BMW's, mansions, yachts and medicare and social security. What I'm saying is that you can't win a general election on Paul's platform. He is taking away too much from people who like what he wants to take away. And those people have votes just like you.

Those things are going to be taken away. The math simply doesn't work to a) have our current tax structure and our current government

We are going to be paying more for less, sooner then later.

What will resonate is reducing the military and his arguments against the Fed

[Tulane Skins Fan]

People like BMWs, mansions and yachts too. That's the point. Sure it's nice to have medicare and social security. The "Great Society" can't exist at the current tax rate. No one wants to increase taxes to match it. We all want to be on welfare. Who doesn't want something for free?

I see this as a real non sequitur to what I said.

I like BMW's, mansions, yachts and medicare and social security. What I'm saying is that you can't win a general election on Paul's platform. He is taking away too much from people who like what he wants to take away. And those people have votes just like you.

[Jeeb]

People like BMWs, mansions and yachts too. That's the point. Sure it's nice to have medicare and social security. The "Great Society" can't exist at the current tax rate. No one wants to increase taxes to match it. We all want to be on welfare. Who doesn't want something for free?

My grandfather and mother are all about libertarian philosophy...I'm sure they'll be the first ones screaming foul if my grandfather's medicare and giant federal pension are cut.

[GibbsFactor]

I see this as a real non sequitur to what I said.

I like BMW's, mansions, yachts and medicare and social security. What I'm saying is that you can't win a general election on Paul's platform. He is taking away too much from people who like what he wants to take away. And those people have votes just like you.

At the rate we are going, in 3 election cycles we will be forced into alt energy and doing away with Medicare and SS. In 9 election cycles we will be insolvent and the market based credit economy will be a thing of the past. That's what people need to focus on. We have no choice.

We have to cut a little and raise a lot or raise a little and cut a lot. There is no other choice.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

At the rate we are going, in 3 election cycles we will be forced into alt energy and doing away with Medicare and SS. In 9 election cycles we will be insolvent and the market based credit economy will be a thing of the past. That's what people need to focus on. We have no choice.

We have to cut a little and raise a lot or raise a little and cut a lot. There is no other choice.

There's a lot of truth to that... But I think Paul has chosen the latter when a lot of people would choose the former, or something closer to the former.

[GibbsFactor]

My grandfather and mother are all about libertarian philosophy...I'm sure they'll be the first ones screaming foul if my grandfather's medicare and giant federal pension are cut.

They are dependent on it. None of the baby boomers want to lose what they've planned to use for their retirement. I get that, I think everyone gets that. The problem is we can't afford to hook the baby boomers AND the Gen Xers that will soon follow. Gen Xers have to be told right now that they no longer live in this great society with a 70 year old "new deal".

We can't afford it. We all go down if we don't change it.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 11:01 AM ----------

There's a lot of truth to that... But I think Paul has chosen the latter when a lot of people would choose the former, or something closer to the former.

I don't see anyone presenting the former. I see Paul presenting something that makes real sense when the big picture is considered. Where's the progressive screaming for tax increases? Political suicide? Isn't what Paul is doing political suicide? According to the latest polling numbers, perhaps not.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

They are dependent on it. None of the baby boomers want to lose what they've planned to use for their retirement. I get that, I think everyone gets that. The problem is we can't afford to hook the baby boomers AND the Gen Xers that will soon follow. Gen Xers have to be told right now that they no longer live in this great society with a 70 year old "new deal".

We can't afford it. We all go down if we don't change it.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 11:01 AM ----------

I don't see anyone presenting the former. I see Paul presenting something that makes real sense when the big picture is considered. Where's the progressive screaming for tax increases? Political suicide? Isn't what Paul is doing political suicide? According to the latest polling numbers, perhaps not.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, so I'll just say that I think there have been options to Paul's plan presented. And they rely on raising more revenue.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not trying to derail the thread, so I'll just say that I think there have been options to Paul's plan presented. And they rely on raising more revenue.

Raise revenue without cutting much? I don't see how we can expect to continuously scour the globe in search of weapons of mass destruction, that we invented by the way, and think that we will always be one step ahead of those that wish to do us ill will.

I believe the better option is to remove the desire to use one on us anyway. Who's terrorizing Switzerland? And I get it, we are more powerful and with great power comes great responsiblity... While that is true, perhaps we should attempt to stop inciting so much hatred with our puppeteering.

[SnyderShrugged]

Pathetic, look at the drudge headline now. (Drudge is being very fair in making this his headline btw).

The Iowa Gov is asking people to look at "second place" when RP wins the caucus.

They are so transparent!

[GibbsFactor]

Pathetic, look at the drudge headline now. (Drudge is being very fair in making this his headline btw).

The Iowa Gov is asking people to look at "second place" when RP wins the caucus.

They are so transparent!

If people are truly fed up with the establishment, this is all you need to vote with your brain.

Liberals should vote for Paul too, if nothing else, to watch Fox News squirm!

[No_Pressure]

I was watching a story on the news last night about how close Gingrich and Romney are. There was no mention of Ron Paul in front of both of them. Then for half a second they said the closest 3 candidates after Romney, Gingich *voice goes softer and speeds up* and Paul, are Bachmann, someone else and someone else.

Then it cuts to a segment of Michelle Bachmann screaming that Ron Paul would wait until an American city is blown up with nuclear weapons before taking action against other nations. Then the segment ended. That was it.

Whether you think Ron Paul is a good candidate with a solid set of values and ideas, or if you think Ron Paul is a misguided nutjob, you have to admit that it is a little bit creepy how he is downplayed, ignored, and brushed aside in favor of guys who will tow that party line like good little presidents. It is ****ing sad. I feel like electing a guy like Paul is the only way to put a dent in this bull**** system we're stuck with. Romney, Gingrich, Bush, Obama, McCain, it doesn't make any difference at all. We have a one party system folks, the things which are presented as major dividing issues are merely things for people to talk about, and things which distract us from what is really happening to us.

[Busch1724]

I was watching a story on the news last night about how close Gingrich and Romney are. There was no mention of Ron Paul in front of both of them. Then for half a second they said the closest 3 candidates after Romney, Gingich *voice goes softer and speeds up* and Paul, are Bachmann, someone else and someone else.

Then it cuts to a segment of Michelle Bachmann screaming that Ron Paul would wait until an American city is blown up with nuclear weapons before taking action against other nations. Then the segment ended. That was it.

Whether you think Ron Paul is a good candidate with a solid set of values and ideas, or if you think Ron Paul is a misguided nutjob, you have to admit that it is a little bit creepy how he is downplayed, ignored, and brushed aside in favor of guys who will tow that party line like good little presidents. It is ****ing sad. I feel like electing a guy like Paul is the only way to put a dent in this bull**** system we're stuck with. Romney, Gingrich, Bush, Obama, McCain, it doesn't make any difference at all. We have a one party system folks, the things which are presented as major dividing issues are merely things for people to talk about, and things which distract us from what is really happening to us.

Many more people are feeling like you and Paul may not with this election, but somewhere soon someone with his beliefe system will and a paradigm shift will be underway. He's good for politics.

[Dan T.]

Let me be the dip**** who points to a major negative affecting Ron Paul. He doesn't have the surface veneer of a Presidential candidate. He's a short older guy with a whiny voice who comes across as a cranky cross between Ross Perot and Western movie sidekick. His message may resonate with a great many thoughtful people, but his impact on the national scale would be greater with a different personna.

It's sad, but it's a factor in national election politics today. Especially with a candidate who is battling without the support of his own party.

[GibbsFactor]

Let me be the dip**** who points to a major negative affecting Ron Paul. He doesn't have the surface veneer of a Presidential candidate. He's a short older guy with a whiny voice who comes across as a cranky cross between Ross Perot and Western movie sidekick. His message may resonate with a great many thoughtful people, but his impact on the national scale would be greater with a different personna.

It's sad, but it's a factor in national election politics today. Especially with a candidate who is battling without the support of his own party.

It's what I meant by his missing "bravado" but if Jimmy Carter can get elected... And on the opposite end of the spectrum is Dubya.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Let me be the dip**** who points to a major negative affecting Ron Paul. He doesn't have the surface veneer of a Presidential candidate. He's a short older guy with a whiny voice who comes across as a cranky cross between Ross Perot and Western movie sidekick. His message may resonate with a great many thoughtful people, but his impact on the national scale would be greater with a different personna.

It's sad, but it's a factor in national election politics today. Especially with a candidate who is battling without the support of his own party.

You're absolutely correct. I've argued that Paul would be a shoo-in if he were 6'2" with a resonating baritone.

Makes me laugh to think about all those people that have called Paul's supporters "Paultards" and "Paulbots," implying they're caught up in a cult of personality. Paul has little more charisma and personality than a dusty encyclopedia.

[Mad Mike]

The thing is Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. The document as written is not that difficult. It's a simple document that he believes should be interpreted as written not manipulated like both parties have done the past hundred years or so. It's an idea that a lot of people are catching onto. It's no coincidence that when you see the things the governemnt is doing and relate to people about property rights, people will start to listen. Both parties have done a lot to ignore him and chastise him, but as people become more informed about him and he relates to the population in a simple way the people perk up and relate to him.

Ron Paul is a SELECTIVE constitutionalist who is NOT a true expert on the constitution. The founding fathers disagreed on a great many things including states rights vs a strong central government. In the end they agreed on a compromise, recognising that a strong central government was needed to hold the union together. And while Paul would have us return to the 1800s, even Jefferson recognised that each generation must set it's own rules according to the needs of their day.

Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute]." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. (*) ME 15:42

The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816. ME 15:46

A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:4

The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:270