Predicto Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 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. For whatever it's worth, my wife is an attorney with the Federal government, and her pension isn't going to be much, even with 25+ years service. Federal pensions are not what they used to be. It is the States and Local Governments that have the huge unfunded public employee pension liabilities, not the Feds. Just saying. ---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 01:15 PM ---------- 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," an implying they're caught up in a cult of personality. Paul has little more charisma and personality than a dusty encyclopedia. I can only judge his supporters by the way they act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I hate bringing the Consitition into these discussions because of the varying degrees of interpretation. Ron Paul has this on side: Mathematics The math simply does not allow for 1) the welfare state we have and want to have + 2) the global empire we have + 3) the acceptable tax levels we could have (even with tax raises) Just look at how the math is against us. And its getting worse every day So yes, I have no problem with raising taxes at this time. I also feel that we must reduce government in all areas. Even then, the math is against us because we simply cannot raise enough revenue and reduce spending enough to bridge the gap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul would be the first gynecologist to become U.S. President. So he brings that unique perspective to the Office. Aside from Bill Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul would be the first gynecologist to become U.S. President. So he brings that unique perspective to the Office. Aside from Bill Clinton. I heard a funny joke back when Cain was on the rise. "Imagine if there were a GOP candidate who looked at vaginas all day for many years yet never was accused of sexual harassment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 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! Look at second in another Iowa poll Paul leads...Perry http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf Heard a interview where Perry said he would back Paul IF he was the nominee on politico Naturally he plans on winning himself though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Look at second in another Iowa poll Paul leads...Perry http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf Heard a interview where Perry said he would back Paul IF he was the nominee on politico Naturally he plans on winning himself though Really? I though Perry hated Paul (didnt he campaign against Paul in TX?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Look at second in another Iowa poll Paul leads...Perry http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf Heard a interview where Perry said he would back Paul IF he was the nominee on politico Naturally he plans on winning himself though Wow, good for Perry. You know he's now curious as to the actual goings on at the Fed thanks to Paul. Baby steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Look at second in another Iowa poll Paul leads...Perry http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf Heard a interview where Perry said he would back Paul IF he was the nominee on politico Naturally he plans on winning himself though Am I reading it wrong because it looks to me like Paul is leading Romney and Perry is 3rd? Also, interesting that 100% of hispanics were for Bachmann, until you realize that it's only 4 people. The Other column is confusing to me. How do you get 10.7% of 4 people would vote for a candidate? Or is (Base) not the number of people responding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I can only judge his supporters by the way they act. Just got back from a quick shopping jaunt for Christmas. Passed one girl with two big Ron Paul magnetic signs on her car doors. Gave her a quick honk and wave. She seemed alright to me. Walking through the parking lot, another girl was getting in her car with a RP bumper sticker. I gave her a quick "Go, Ron." She smiled. Seemed ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Here's a good news clip on how the mainstream media tries to shape elections: mpVo7LBDusA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Am I reading it wrong because it looks to me like Paul is leading Romney and Perry is 3rd? Want to borrow my rose colored glasses ? I read it with margin of error and momentum;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Want to borrow my rose colored glasses ? I read it with margin of error and momentum;) I have these Burgundy colored ones, I just haven't worn them in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 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. Read your post and the quoted respose...serious question here. How are things like the Patriot Act and Obamacare not subject to a constitutional amendment? The reason I mention it is because of the over reaching arm of the government into our lives. These are two big things he has an issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ron Paul will get my vote unless a viable candidate appears....its not like my vote counts in Maryland anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 And here comes National Review The conservative establishment is running in fear right now. My only regret is I was once one of these guys http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286259/paul-fringe-frontrunner-rich-lowry?page=2#comment-422662 Paul, the Fringe Frontrunner An Iowa that would select Ron Paul is an Iowa that deserves to be taken less seriously. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses? In 2008, the surest way to get applause in the Republican primary debates was to excoriate Ron Paul. This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve, and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP ****tail party. It can be invigorating and fun, if you ignore the nasty adulterants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Doesn't appear that anyone in the media is willing to produce an intellectual argument against why he shouldn't be taken seriously or supported. If anything, this helps him because more people will want to know what he is about and when doing their own research, they will find that Paul is as consistent in his principals as they come and is also the most down to earth, grounded, realistic person running for president right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Perhaps the end of interest-free trillions and face-value purchases of otherwise worthless assets courtesy of the Fed? You mean big banks and corporations that are throwing a ton of money at the mainstream Democrats and Republicans who want to pass regulations on them aren't doing it because they think they need more government regulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Ron Paul will get my vote unless a viable candidate appears....its not like my vote counts in Maryland anyways Your vote in February counts, just not November. ---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 08:06 PM ---------- You mean big banks and corporations that are throwing a ton of money at the mainstream Democrats and Republicans who want to pass regulations on them aren't doing it because they think they need more government regulation? Well the candidates that get the money from big corporations are the mainstream. See how much like sheep we have become? And most don't even realize it. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News shape our opinions and we let them cause who has the time to actually find out which candidate is valuable on their own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I really have a hard time taking a presidential candidate who regularly goes on the Alex Jones show very seriously. Really? Alex Jones? That guy is a ridiculous conspiracy theorist and nutjob. I would think there are many more...respectable...avenues for a libertarian to get his views out in public. Unless he happens to agree with some of the conspiracy theories. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I really have a hard time taking a presidential candidate who regularly goes on the Alex Jones show very seriously. Really? Alex Jones? That guy is a ridiculous conspiracy theorist and nutjob. I would think there are many more...respectable...avenues for a libertarian to get his views out in public. Unless he happens to agree with some of the conspiracy theories. Who knows. This is the new tactic by Fox News. Heard it all day. The newsletters, written by Lew Rockwell, going on Alex Jones, etc... Fox News is now going with the "he's a racist and we could never support that" angle. It's text book and completely expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 This is the new tactic by Fox News. Heard it all day. The newsletters, written by Lew Rockwell, going on Alex Jones, etc... Fox News is now going with the "he's a racist and we could never support that" angle. It's text book and completely expected. and the very best part.......not working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Haha. I love this. So now the counter-tactic is simply saying "none of what is brought up to question him or his policies is valid because it is just smear attacks". I don't care if it is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, someone from the freaking Whig Party. Alex Jones is a wacko conspiracy theorist (you really care to argue against that?). Why is it not fair to ask if Paul believes in the things Alex Jones does as far as conspiracies, etc? Should that information be completely invalid in how people view him or his policies? He has been going on his show for years. So when Paul was just a non-factor as far as polls and, hence, wasn't getting any attention, his supporters complained about the media bias against him. Now that he has a lead in Iowa and has gotten much more attention on the national stage and, as a result, is being looked at and scrutinized much more (this is pretty much the same for ANY candidate once they become big) his supporters complain that it is all smears or proclaim that whoever is scrutinizing him is just scared of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 How regular of a guest is he on Alex Jones show? Alex Jones is an enormous tool. There isn't a tin foil hat that could fit him. A presidential candidate should not be giving him the time of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Theres a reason why companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and BofA are all jumping in to financially support Mitt Romney's campaign and why Ron Paul's almost all grassroots financial support. There are still far too many people who don't understand this. Wall Street would hate Ron Paul. All of the deregulation in the world isn't enough to make up for the free profits that come from the combination of constant inflation, implicit government guarantees, explicit government bailouts, and the many actions of the Fed. 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 you overestimate how much people like the EPA and the Department of Education. As far as Paul's electoral prospects. I view him as an enormously boom-or-bust type of candidate. On the one hand, he'd have the potential to win a lot of crossover voters. He'd win a lot of voters who care deeply about a president being anti-war. Same with those who care deeply about a president being anti-drug-war. Same with those who'd like the government to get out of the marriage business. He's very popular with Occupy Wall Street. People would actually believe him when he'd say that he would end the revolving door between Wall Street and the Treasury Department. On the other hand, it would be the most lopsided matchup of all time in terms of the Nixon-Kennedy effect. He'd also have plenty of potential to lose a lot of crossover voters. The ones who are foreign policy hawks, and would rather hold their nose and vote for Obama than vote for a complete non-interventionist. The unabashed big-government Republicans. The really, really anti-gay marriage people (although they'd probably just stay at home). The Chicago economists. In my opinion, it would either be a huge victory or a huge defeat. There wouldn't be any room for a close election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Haha. I love this. So now the counter-tactic is simply saying "none of what is brought up to question him or his policies is valid because it is just smear attacks". I don't care if it is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, someone from the freaking Whig Party. Alex Jones is a wacko conspiracy theorist (you really care to argue against that?). Why is it not fair to ask if Paul believes in the things Alex Jones does as far as conspiracies, etc? Should that information be completely invalid in how people view him or his policies? He has been going on his show for years.So when Paul was just a non-factor as far as polls and, hence, wasn't getting any attention, his supporters complained about the media bias against him. Now that he has a lead in Iowa and has gotten much more attention on the national stage and, as a result, is being looked at and scrutinized much more (this is pretty much the same for ANY candidate once they become big) his supporters complain that it is all smears or proclaim that whoever is scrutinizing him is just scared of him. No, it's a reason to be concerned. It's just that the newsletters are nothing new. Lew Rockwell is the infamous ghost writer. Lew Rockwell should have came out already. It's a shame he hasn't. I can't defend the Alex Jones show either other than Paul sees it as a platform and he's never been shy from using platforms to get his message out. Of course, not the best platform to use. He attracts the crazies cause the crazies think they can be crazy under his view of the way Government should work. You get that when you preach individualism. And to seperate him further from Alex Jones: v60TWZNVgtk ETA: The smear campaign against Paul will be similar to the one Obama dealt with with his connections to American Terrorists and his pastor. Guilty by association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.