What does that mean? No VOTES have been cast by anyone at this point. The ONLY polls that matter have yet to open. Mr. Paul has to win in the States, not the classrooms.
Why ron paul should not be president
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I think that Greg was calling for that - Dr. Paul's policy positions on Immigration and National Defense, both of which relate to the question you've posed, can be found at the following links:
Immigration
National Defense
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It means he won the straw poll at Drake University, taking 35% of the vote.
No need to complicate the rather obvious.
All kinds of votes are being cast by many folks - that's what a poll, by definition, is .....
I think that's a rather short-sighted view ..... for what ought to be some rather obvious reasons.
While it's certainly true that he needs to win in the States, it might be said that the path to the one, just may go thru the other ......
1225 college students are not even close to being representative of the general electorate. It is a interesting story. Mr. Paul has to win real elections to get the nomination. The race will get interesting soon, the real voting will start. As I said, he has to take Michigan, that will be the real test. It is open, anyone can vote. If he can't take Michigan he can't take Obama.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No leadership ? ..... yeah, uh-huh ......
Iowa Debate: A Ron Paul Love-In?
"The December 10 Yahoo/ABC News presidential debate in Iowa revealed a strong swing of candidates over to the issues and leadership of Representative Ron Paul.
"I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition," Paul told moderators George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer. "Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way."
What prompted the remarks were compliments from Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Each of the candidates were prompted by Sawyer to describe one thing they had learned from their opponents on the stage. Rick Perry said:
'Congressman Paul got me really intrigued with the whole, with the Federal Reserve, and I spent a substantial amount of time reading about a book called Currency Wars, the book by James Rickards. Congressman Paul is the individual on this stage that got me most interested in a subject that I found to be quite interesting and I found at the root of a lot of the problems that we have. And I thank you for that.
Mitt Romney said he had learned about Ron Paul's leadership and ability to inspire people. "One of the things about Ron Paul that always amazes me is when I come to a debate like this," Romney said, "the only signs I'd see are the Ron Paul people. In freezing temperatures, they are always there. He ignites an enthusiasm with a number of people. It's very exciting to watch."
Earlier in the debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich complimented Paul's position on the Federal Reserve and Bernanke, even though the Paul campaign released an advertisement criticizing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." In comments meant to deflect Rep. Paul's criticism of Gingrich's $1.6 million in consulting ties to mortgage giant Freddie Mac, Gingrich offered that "I happen to be with you on auditing the Fed, and frankly, on firing Bernanke." Gingrich had said on television back in October that Paul had been "pioneering" discussion of the Federal Reserve for the past 30 years.
Paul concluded in the debate that "I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition. Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way. So Rick, I appreciate it."
Paul stressed that if federal politicians follow through with their oath of office to keep to the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, there wouldn't be any reason for political infighting. "I work on the assumption that freedom brings people together," Paul added. "We shouldn't be fighting in Washington if we all take the same oath of office. Where does the fight come from?"
The candidates' varying political strategies necessitate the multiplication of kind comments to Paul. Mitt Romney may have calculated that having Paul and Gingrich split the Tea Party vote more evenly would give him a better chance to prevail in a three-way race. As of the time of the debate, Gingrich is ahead of both Romney and Paul in the polls in Iowa (Romney and Paul are in a statistical tie for second place). Romney may have calculated that the establishment wing of the GOP would be more successful in discounting any Paul surprise victory in Iowa.
Gingrich's strategy has been to pledge not to criticize any of his Republican rivals, though during the debate he drew the distinction between "legitimate comparison ads" and ads designed to cut down his rivals. (Watch for this qualification to be expanded if Gingrich begins to struggle in the polls.) The reason for Gingrich's strategy is not apparent, though part of it may have been to temper his past image of engaging in "negative" campaigns. Another factor may be to encourage reciprocity and prevent his rivals from digging too deeply into his own past, which is full of political somersaults and scandal."
"I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition," Paul told moderators George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer. "Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way."
What prompted the remarks were compliments from Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Each of the candidates were prompted by Sawyer to describe one thing they had learned from their opponents on the stage. Rick Perry said:
'Congressman Paul got me really intrigued with the whole, with the Federal Reserve, and I spent a substantial amount of time reading about a book called Currency Wars, the book by James Rickards. Congressman Paul is the individual on this stage that got me most interested in a subject that I found to be quite interesting and I found at the root of a lot of the problems that we have. And I thank you for that.
Mitt Romney said he had learned about Ron Paul's leadership and ability to inspire people. "One of the things about Ron Paul that always amazes me is when I come to a debate like this," Romney said, "the only signs I'd see are the Ron Paul people. In freezing temperatures, they are always there. He ignites an enthusiasm with a number of people. It's very exciting to watch."
Earlier in the debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich complimented Paul's position on the Federal Reserve and Bernanke, even though the Paul campaign released an advertisement criticizing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." In comments meant to deflect Rep. Paul's criticism of Gingrich's $1.6 million in consulting ties to mortgage giant Freddie Mac, Gingrich offered that "I happen to be with you on auditing the Fed, and frankly, on firing Bernanke." Gingrich had said on television back in October that Paul had been "pioneering" discussion of the Federal Reserve for the past 30 years.
Paul concluded in the debate that "I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition. Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way. So Rick, I appreciate it."
Paul stressed that if federal politicians follow through with their oath of office to keep to the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, there wouldn't be any reason for political infighting. "I work on the assumption that freedom brings people together," Paul added. "We shouldn't be fighting in Washington if we all take the same oath of office. Where does the fight come from?"
The candidates' varying political strategies necessitate the multiplication of kind comments to Paul. Mitt Romney may have calculated that having Paul and Gingrich split the Tea Party vote more evenly would give him a better chance to prevail in a three-way race. As of the time of the debate, Gingrich is ahead of both Romney and Paul in the polls in Iowa (Romney and Paul are in a statistical tie for second place). Romney may have calculated that the establishment wing of the GOP would be more successful in discounting any Paul surprise victory in Iowa.
Gingrich's strategy has been to pledge not to criticize any of his Republican rivals, though during the debate he drew the distinction between "legitimate comparison ads" and ads designed to cut down his rivals. (Watch for this qualification to be expanded if Gingrich begins to struggle in the polls.) The reason for Gingrich's strategy is not apparent, though part of it may have been to temper his past image of engaging in "negative" campaigns. Another factor may be to encourage reciprocity and prevent his rivals from digging too deeply into his own past, which is full of political somersaults and scandal."
Iowa Debate: A Ron Paul Love-In?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
True enough - of course, I never, ever said that it was (representative)
Yup - less than a month to go.
What happens between now and then could be very interesting indeed.
One of them anyways ....
I don't know - because I haven't researched how many times the eventual nominee didn't win the state's primary ... but still beat an incumbent.
You may very well correct ..... or not ....
We shall see. Nothing I have ever heard him say would inspire me to follow him in line for a hamburger let alone something important.
As I said, if he can't take the Michigan primary, he can't win. He has to convince steel workers and auto workers and small business people, Republicans, independents and tired Democrats that he is their man. It will take a leader. We shall see.
As I said, if he can't take the Michigan primary, he can't win. He has to convince steel workers and auto workers and small business people, Republicans, independents and tired Democrats that he is their man. It will take a leader. We shall see.
"True enough - of course, I never, ever said that it was (representative)"
Never said you did, just stating the facts.
I only say Michigan because it is open to all to vote. It will be more representative that a caucus or closed primary.
Never said you did, just stating the facts.
I only say Michigan because it is open to all to vote. It will be more representative that a caucus or closed primary.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You fail to consider that just possibly, for a substantial portion of the electorate, that may be a net positive for his campaign ....
That's humor BTW (at for some
)May be the case .... may not be ....
As I said before, I have no data how often Michigan has voted for someone who did not become the eventual nominee .... since you haven't offered anything up on that, I'll assume you don't either.
The Paul campaign opened a MI headquarters back in September, Paul has made appearances there, and has secured the endorsement of US Rep. Justin Amash (Grand Rapids) .... so there is some evidence that they are looking to duplicate the ground game that they have in Iowa, which has been key to what's going on in that state.
It certainly will - I'm not going to predict anything as far as MI goes at this point - but I will say that the time period of 2 over months remaining before the MI primary is a significant amount of time for a great many things to happen.
The "native son" thing and the fact that the state leans heavily Democratic inject a couple of factors that could influence the results ..... one way or another .....
Indeed, we shall
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Correction: it could be ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Sorry, those links do not work.
I wonder, you are not under the impression that I am a Republican are you? I am as independent as they get. Independents will either elect or sink Paul's election.
I wonder, you are not under the impression that I am a Republican are you? I am as independent as they get. Independents will either elect or sink Paul's election.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Actually, they work perfectly fine for me - if you're having problems loading the second (or the first), try hitting the refresh button on your browser after the appears to load (but is blank)
Nope - I'm not under any particular impression with regard to your political affiliation (.... political ideology is a different matter tho' ....
)I was however under the distinct impression that Ron Paul's political affiliation is Republican.
Independents certainly ..... as well as disgusted and disenchanted Democrats, and Republicans who love Liberty .....
Last edited:
Strange, they worked this time. The first time they came up with server errors.
I could care less about what the rest of the world thinks of us. I don't want us to be like Europe either. Their wonderful ideas brought us Hitler and Stalin and 2 (3 if one subscribes to my idea's) World Wars. Don't want to have a dictatorship like we see in many area of Asia.
I cannot become a "Blue Republican". In Michigan one does not register with a party. That is why we have an open primary.
I will watch. I will vote in the primary, I have yet to decide who for. No matter who I vote for I will be holding my nose, again.
There is no way, without spending hours and hours and hours talking that you, or anyone for that matter, figure out my political beliefs. That is good. I like it that way.
I could care less about what the rest of the world thinks of us. I don't want us to be like Europe either. Their wonderful ideas brought us Hitler and Stalin and 2 (3 if one subscribes to my idea's) World Wars. Don't want to have a dictatorship like we see in many area of Asia.
I cannot become a "Blue Republican". In Michigan one does not register with a party. That is why we have an open primary.
I will watch. I will vote in the primary, I have yet to decide who for. No matter who I vote for I will be holding my nose, again.
There is no way, without spending hours and hours and hours talking that you, or anyone for that matter, figure out my political beliefs. That is good. I like it that way.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah .. I had a little problem with one of them loading initially.
Wow ..... really ?
I think as an entirely pragmatic matter (particularly in terms of national security) it would be much better to be thought well of, rather than to be utterly despised ...
Being not hated might have advantages ...
Their wonderful ideas also informed the very people who founded this nation - ideas that came from:
... Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Spinoza .... the Greek and Roman classics .... and many, many more ...
I can't imagine many folks would ....
No one is suggesting that you should - but many people undoubtedly will.
ROTFLMAO ....... seriously ?
While one might not know the totality or understand all that you believe, one can certainly make some observations about your political orientation/ideology - based on the years that you have spent on here making comments which are political in nature. The historical record is substantial.
Last edited:
The ideas of the so called "great thinkers" have been distorted by government. Government is the greatest waste of thought ever invented by man.
I do not subscribe to any of the "philosophies" of others. I am what some may call a "free thinker" others say crazy!
One should never attempt to determine how I feel about politics based only on my MULTIPLE posts. Few things are the same in reality as they are on the internet. Then again........................
I do not subscribe to any of the "philosophies" of others. I am what some may call a "free thinker" others say crazy!
One should never attempt to determine how I feel about politics based only on my MULTIPLE posts. Few things are the same in reality as they are on the internet. Then again........................
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL .... probably won't get much argument on that from this quarter ...
.... careful there - sounds you are advocating anarchy
..... either that, or something even worse ... Okey-dokey
LOL ...... I think it's fairly safe to conclude that one can draw certain conclusions based on what others say ..... for instance:
If someone (repeatedly, evidently in earnest) says: "I think all politicians are dirty, no-good scumbags ..."
It is probably a fairly safe bet that they think, or genuinely believe, that all politicians are dirty, no-good scumbags.
That doesn't certainly mean that one understands the entirety of their political philosophy .... but it also doesn't mean that nothing is known.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Layout,
Just thinking about this and re-reading something that was sent to me.
Have you ever thought that the difference between Paul and the others who seem to be espousing something or another solution is that Paul's returns us back to problem solving through simple solutions?
I mean look at some of his ideas and look at the others and compare them based on simplicity.
Remember our country's greatest time wasn't fighting WW2 or in the 50's/60's but rather between 1870 and 1912 and this was because our government didn't meddle in our affairs while we were allowed to prosper and grow.
Just thinking about this and re-reading something that was sent to me.
Have you ever thought that the difference between Paul and the others who seem to be espousing something or another solution is that Paul's returns us back to problem solving through simple solutions?
I mean look at some of his ideas and look at the others and compare them based on simplicity.
Remember our country's greatest time wasn't fighting WW2 or in the 50's/60's but rather between 1870 and 1912 and this was because our government didn't meddle in our affairs while we were allowed to prosper and grow.
Here's the reason we're broke and getting broker:
PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Will Consume All Tax Revenues in 2049
Military spending is at 4.7% of GDP for 2011, an historically low level
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2375_chart1/b2375_chart1.ashx
The problem with our spending is not with the military, although that's not to say there's not waste in a govt. organization that huge. But if we don't do something to get entitlements and Obama's socialist agenda under control we have only to take a look at Greece to see what happens to a country that spends more than it takes in by trying to promise their population something for nothing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Geez, how can I make this clear? It is not Paul's ideas that I have the biggest problems with, it's Mr. Paul himself. I don't think he can pull it off. I do think some of his thinking is a bit "shaky" but not as bad as King Putz the 1st is.
As I say, I will vote for someone in the primary and, unless something drastic happens in the primaries, I will vote against Obama and not for anyone. As per normal.
It is not my fault that the vast majority of career politicians are dirty rotten scumbags and the rest are useless! I have no control over them!
As I say, I will vote for someone in the primary and, unless something drastic happens in the primaries, I will vote against Obama and not for anyone. As per normal.
It is not my fault that the vast majority of career politicians are dirty rotten scumbags and the rest are useless! I have no control over them!