Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on November 02, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
-
...for Perry and Cain ....that Fox news had to admit that Ron Paul is running second in the polls in New Hampshire. The last few times they've mentioned polls, they literally skip over several places just to cover the "frontrunners".
-
I like Cain but he keeps dropping the ball. Paul is my second pick.
-
It's important to not put too much stock in polls or funding, they don't reflect the other portion of the electoral/nomination process in terms of the power politics and gladhanding among the various state primaries and caucuses.
While the press is definitely being unfair to Paul in terms of straw polls, and funding goals/records, he's incredibly weak in that other part of the process. And their (lack of) coverage of him somewhat more honestly reflects that reality too.
However, if Romney gets kicked to the curb over his RINO'ism (please God, oh please...) and Perry/Cain self-destruct, this could be Paul's year. =) Especially seeing as an incumbent with Obama's fundamentals, in terms of the economy, unemployment, and approval ratings has never been re-elected, the challenger would have to have a dead same-sex underage prostitute in their trunk to fail to beat him.
-
Especially seeing as an incumbent with Obama's fundamentals, in terms of the economy, unemployment, and approval ratings has never been re-elected, the challenger would have to have a dead same-sex underage prostitute in their trunk to fail to beat him.
Midget, you left out them needing to be a midget.
-
It's important to not put too much stock in polls or funding, they don't reflect the other portion of the electoral/nomination process in terms of the power politics and gladhanding among the various state primaries and caucuses.
While the press is definitely being unfair to Paul in terms of straw polls, and funding goals/records, he's incredibly weak in that other part of the process. And their (lack of) coverage of him somewhat more honestly reflects that reality too.
This is basically true.
-
It's important to not put too much stock in polls or funding, they don't reflect the other portion of the electoral/nomination process in terms of the power politics and gladhanding among the various state primaries and caucuses.
While the press is definitely being unfair to Paul in terms of straw polls, and funding goals/records, he's incredibly weak in that other part of the process. And their (lack of) coverage of him somewhat more honestly reflects that reality too.
However, if Romney gets kicked to the curb over his RINO'ism (please God, oh please...) and Perry/Cain self-destruct, this could be Paul's year. =) Especially seeing as an incumbent with Obama's fundamentals, in terms of the economy, unemployment, and approval ratings has never been re-elected, the challenger would have to have a dead same-sex underage prostitute in their trunk to fail to beat him.
I would argue that by the MSM ignoring him and other candidates, they are unfairly making their candidacy weaker.
RP isn't the only one being skipped over routinely when they mention candidates. And the MSM puts a metric ass load of stock in the polls, many of which they fund themselves.
-
I saw Paul on Cspan.org talk about his book "End the Fed" the other day (not sure when it was filmed).
I found myself nodding more & more as it went on, I got a crick in my neck.
He still has a few problems:
1. He has reverted to libertarian cultural suicide with support for open borders.
2. Still naive on foreign policy.
Rand Paul has been a consistent voice of reason on facebook, though. Maybe he can drive home the nail Ron started.
-
I'm still predicting a Romney/Huntsman ticket.
:mad:
-
I saw Paul on Cspan.org talk about his book "End the Fed" the other day (not sure when it was filmed).
I found myself nodding more & more as it went on, I got a crick in my neck.
He still has a few problems:
1. He has reverted to libertarian cultural suicide with support for open borders.
2. Still naive on foreign policy.
So basically, still by far the best candidate.
-
I saw Paul on Cspan.org talk about his book "End the Fed" the other day (not sure when it was filmed).
I found myself nodding more & more as it went on, I got a crick in my neck.
He still has a few problems:
1. He has reverted to libertarian cultural suicide with support for open borders.
2. Still naive on foreign policy.
Rand Paul has been a consistent voice of reason on facebook, though. Maybe he can drive home the nail Ron started.
Open borders work fine with the elimination of the welfare state. They come for the work. They stay for the free *expletive deleted*it.
-
I respect Ron Paul but he, like Sarah Palin, only makes sense as a post-America-as-we-know-it Presidential aspirant. He can never be President of the unified U.S.A. we have now any more than she can. If he runs as a third-party candidate--and he is not going to get the GOP nomination--he will most likely hand Obama another term. What comes from that is the subject of nightmares.
-
I like Paul...but he doesn't have a snowball's chance. Neither do any of the others IMO. Obama will be a 2 termer unless something really unexpected happens.
-
It's important to not put too much stock in polls or funding, they don't reflect the other portion of the electoral/nomination process in terms of the power politics and gladhanding among the various state primaries and caucuses.
In other words, our votes don't mean a damn thing :mad:
-
I like Paul...but he doesn't have a snowball's chance. Neither do any of the others IMO. Obama will be a 2 termer unless something really unexpected happens.
What a pessimist! ;/
It's said the only president to win reelection with the unemployment rate as high as it is was FDR. I hate to glom onto a really depressing statistic as a reason to be optimistic, but politics is a nasty business.
I know that the republican candidate is going to have a tough fight ahead but it's nowhere near hopeless.
-
Far from hopeless. Is the issue, though, what a victorious Republican will (or can) do to stop the insanity? It will be enormously difficult for any Republican President to achieve a consensus at this point in our cultural devolution. That is the boulder we are going to have to roll aside somehow.
-
Far from hopeless. Is the issue, though, what a victorious Republican will (or can) do to stop the insanity? It will be enormously difficult for any Republican President to achieve a consensus at this point in our cultural devolution. That is the boulder we are going to have to roll aside somehow.
Well, that is THE issue.
During the 2000 election I was discussing Bush's election with a coworker. She pointed out that Bush the Younger was not going to be able to stop the mad expansion of the government.
"STOP THE MAD EXPANSION? ? ? ? ? "
Ha ha. Little did we know........ Well, that isn't really true, I sorta hoped he'd slow it down.
No wait, he didn't really do THAT.
I hate politicians. [tinfoil]
-
It's said the only president to win reelection with the unemployment rate as high as it is was FDR
Then BO will have that bragging right as well. I'm not a pessimist...I'm a realist....well maybe somewhat pessimistic after seeing what we've been offered. I was hopeful about Cain...but he's toast. The rest (except for Paul) are a bunch of empty suits. I like Paul, but he is just not electable IMO.
-
Then BO will have that bragging right as well. I'm not a pessimist...I'm a realist....well maybe somewhat pessimistic after seeing what we've been offered. I was hopeful about Cain...but he's toast. The rest (except for Paul) are a bunch of empty suits. I like Paul, but he is just not electable IMO.
As long as the MSM keeps skipping over him in polls, what do you expect? RP is like the 800 pound elephant in the room. He says the things that should be said, that nobody wants to hear.
If we manage to nominate another (R) who is just like Bush or McCain, we're hosed. Either way.
-
RP is like the 800 pound elephant in the room.
I think you inadvertently described him correctly.
He's the 800lb elephant. Kind of interesting, but not of much use except as an oddity. (Elephants weigh ~250 at birth and fully grown they weigh 4+ tons.)
-
Then BO will have that bragging right as well. I'm not a pessimist...I'm a realist....well maybe somewhat pessimistic after seeing what we've been offered. I was hopeful about Cain...but he's toast. The rest (except for Paul) are a bunch of empty suits. I like Paul, but he is just not electable IMO.
Let me say it now:
The only way to solve the problems with the entrenched welfare/police state system, is, like with any other entrenched system of anything, to attack it, to attack viciously and relentlessly.
If a candidate is not willing to do that, he's on the same side as Obama. Does anybody think Romney is willing to do it? People will now (unfairly in my mind) abandon Cain, who might have done. If people will not vote for Ron Paul because of things like the fictional "Islamic Threat", then who is left?
-
Let me say it now:
The only way to solve the problems with the entrenched welfare/police state system, is, like with any other entrenched system of anything, to attack it, to attack viciously and relentlessly.
If a candidate is not willing to do that, he's on the same side as Obama. Does anybody think Romney is willing to do it? People will now (unfairly in my mind) abandon Cain, who might have done. If people will not vote for Ron Paul because of things like the fictional "Islamic Threat", then who is left?
More like, "what is left?"
Taking what small comfort you can in the fact that after 500 years as a nominal Republic, Rome lasted a few hundred years more as an Empire, without a huge difference to the day-to-day lives of the bulk of it's citizenry, at least in the core. =(
-
Short of someone finding a pile of dead transvestite hookers in his basement, Romney is going to get the nomination- he was picked by the GOP machine from the start.
-
The only way to solve the problems with the entrenched welfare/police state system, is, like with any other entrenched system of anything, to attack it, to attack viciously and relentlessly.
I agree ...but Ron isn't the guy who can pull that off. The rest of the pack is just plain hopeless. Like it or not, the candidate of today has to have charisma and be able to make people feel like he/she is in charge. People like Reagan or JFK..and even Obama had/have the cult of personality, that at a minimum, causes people to stop and listen to them. They may not agree with everything they say, but there is something about them that appeals to people. Then of course, they have to be fairly smart (or not say anything blatantly stupid) - which has doomed most of the recent candidates.
As my old boss used to say, "crap in one hand and wish in the other - and see which get's full first". Our hands are going to be brown and smelly until the GOP (or a third party) gets their crap together. How do we fire those people?
-
You're trying to save a country that stopped being one nation indivisible some time ago. Americans were asleep when the charges were planted that tore apart the legacy culture of the nation. What we can do is save the viable part and let go of the diseased part. That's realism. It isn't going to happen until Romney wins and fails to change the basic direction or Obama wins and precipitates a major collapse.
-
Rome lasted a few hundred years more as an Empire, without a huge difference to the day-to-day lives of the bulk of it's citizenry, at least in the core. sad
Bread and circuses in the capitol, and the gross debasement of the currency. And, arguably the empire lasted into the 15th century, in the East.
(I'm currently taking a stab at Augustine's City of God (http://www.amazon.com/City-God-Modern-Library/dp/0679600876), written in response to the sacking of the capitol in the early 5th century. )
-
The things I like about Ron Paul, are the things that also kill his chances to be elected. His support here is kind of ironic in many ways.
"In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[17]
What...and kill the worlds largest government job creations program in the history of the world? How does that fly with conservative right wingers who detest government funded job creation? Throw in the "War on Some Drugs" and you're talking trillions of $ and millions of jobs.
-
The things I like about Ron Paul, are the things that also kill his chances to be elected. His support here is kind of ironic in many ways.
"In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[17]
What...and kill the worlds largest government job creations program in the history of the world? How does that fly with conservative right wingers who detest government funded job creation? Throw in the "War on Some Drugs" and you're talking trillions of $ and millions of jobs.
Yeah... conservatives favor a strong military because of all the jobs it provides...
-
The War on Drugs is a heinous form of tyranny, but it does not cost trillions of dollars, nor take millions of people to enforce. Sadly.
-
The things I like about Ron Paul, are the things that also kill his chances to be elected. His support here is kind of ironic in many ways.
"In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[17]
What...and kill the worlds largest government job creations program in the history of the world? How does that fly with conservative right wingers who detest government funded job creation? Throw in the "War on Some Drugs" and you're talking trillions of $ and millions of jobs.
When you have open borders and flaccid leadership you don't need a great military to undo the greatest society on earth. As we are learning.
-
When you have open borders and flaccid leadership you don't need a great military to undo the greatest society on earth. As we are learning.
America is not being undone.
Even in the present crisis, economic growth remains positive (if amazingly slow), crime is falling, lifespans are improving.
-
Ah. That's not "America." You could cite the same things about a number of countries who, in the midst of the pockets of progress (we agree it's not all negative by any means), are, yes, decadent.
-
America is not being undone.
Even in the present crisis, economic growth remains positive (if amazingly slow), crime is falling, lifespans are improving.
Your first sentence has nothing at all to do with your second sentence. We ARE being undone. That economic growth is a + is only a testament to the greatness that remains in our country, not what we'll have remaining in five or ten years.
Crime is falling, I suppose because the bad guys can't afford ammo due to the recession, or gas to get around, or things have gotten so bad other BGs have offed them already and they can't commit crimes because they are DEAD.
Lifespan improving? Given what's to come .... that may be a curse.................... :'( >:D :mad: :mad:
-
There are many Americans doing their best, trying to keep America moving forward, but that doesn't change the fact that there are forces in play deliberately trying to subvert this country and that, unfortunately, they are succeeding. We may still be better off than most of this planet, but we are not as strong as we used to be or as confident.
-
The 1012 DOD and related areas budget is $1.0-1.5 Trillion. You could give every American household a million bucks over a 30 year period with that amount, and still have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) military budgets in the world. It's ridiculous.
-
If a candidate is not willing to do that, he's on the same side as Obama. Does anybody think Romney is willing to do it? People will now (unfairly in my mind) abandon Cain, who might have done. If people will not vote for Ron Paul because of things like the fictional "Islamic Threat", then who is left?
You don't understand. People won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't inspire confidence. To most people, he's just an old man with some curious ideas.
-
The 1012 DOD and related areas budget is $1.0-1.5 Trillion. You could give every American household a million bucks over a 30 year period with that amount, and still have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) military budgets in the world. It's ridiculous.
No, you couldn't.
The Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) tells us there are 131,704,730 households in America. At $1,000,000 each the bill for your fantasy would be $131,704,730,000,000. Using your upper estimate of the DOD budget for all 30 years would be $45,000,000,000,000.
So not even close. Stupid regurgitated soundbite.
-
You don't understand. People won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't inspire confidence. To most people, he's just an old man with some curious ideas.
You may be right, but that damns the American electorate not Ron Paul, no? What is Barack Obama except a middle-aged man with some VERY curious ideas? Barack has better teeth and a more sonorous voice, I'll grant you that.
-
....except a middle-aged man with some VERY curious ideas?
I resemble that remark and I bet a lot of people here do.
-
You don't understand. People won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't inspire confidence. To most people, he's just an old man with some curious ideas.
I disagree. He's not full of empty platitudes, unlike nearly every other person in the race. The average American has stooped to a level of idiocy that demands platitudes, and free *expletive deleted*it. And more laws.
-
You don't understand. People won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't inspire confidence. To most people, he's just an old man with some curious ideas.
Then they will get the government they deserve, no?
-
I resemble that remark and I bet a lot of people here do.
I'm not so curious anymore. I've found out more than I want to know and most of it is awful. =(
-
Then they will get the government they deserve, no?
Problem with that is, the rest of us get that same government too, despite deserving better. [barf] [ar15]
-
I apologize. Clearly, Ron Paul is special, and deserves to have us vote for him, regardless of his personal inadequacies. Though he doesn't seem like much of a leader, I should go ahead and follow him anyway. After all, I should be doing his job for him, right?
-
I apologize. Clearly, Ron Paul is special, and deserves to have us vote for him, regardless of his personal inadequacies. Though he doesn't seem like much of a leader, I should go ahead and follow him anyway. After all, I should be doing his job for him, right?
Clearly, you prefer to follow some leader right off of a cliff. =D
-
I apologize. Clearly, Ron Paul is special, and deserves to have us vote for him, regardless of his personal inadequacies. Though he doesn't seem like much of a leader, I should go ahead and follow him anyway. After all, I should be doing his job for him, right?
You go ahead and vote for Mr. MoreOfTheMcSame, if you truly believe he's better. And don't complain when you get the government you ASKED FOR.
-
The 1012 DOD and related areas budget is $1.0-1.5 Trillion. You could give every American household a million bucks over a 30 year period with that amount, and still have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) military budgets in the world. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, wrong. The DOD budget is no where close to 1-1.5 trillion. Even if you include "related" areas.
The presidents 2012 budget request was:
Discretionary spending: $1.344 trillion (-3.1%)
$553.0 billion (+0.7%) - Department of Defense
$118.0 billion (-26.0%) - Overseas Contingency Operations
$79.9 billion (-1.8%) - Department of Health and Human Services
$77.4 billion (+6.2%) - Department of Education
$58.8 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
$49.8 billion (+0.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
$50.1 billion (-0.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
$43.2 billion (-0.9%) - Department of Homeland Security
$29.6 billion (+4.2%) - Department of Energy
$28.2 billion (-7.2%) - Department of Justice
$23.8 billion (-7.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$18.2 billion (-6.7%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.4 billion (-4.1%) - Department of Transportation
$14.0 billion (+0.8%) - Department of the Treasury
$12.1 billion (+0.3%) - Department of the Interior
$12.8 billion (-8.3%) - Department of Labor
$8.8 billion (-2.3%) - Department of Commerce
$4.6 billion (-6.2%) - Army Corps of Engineers
$9.0 billion (-10.3%) - Environmental Protection Agency
$7.8 billion (+4.6%) - National Science Foundation
$1.0 billion (-1.0%) - Small Business Administration
$1.3 billion (-11.1%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
$6.0 billion (+200%) - Disaster costs
$44.9 billion (-3.9%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
So, let's add DOD, VA, and overseas ops together: $730 billion. Or less than half of your upper bound, and 25% less than your lower bound? Throw in dogmush's response, and your soundbite holds even less water. Besides, if giving money to people from the govt was all that would be required to eliminate poverty, you would think the $10+ trillion we have already spend (which IS close to a million each for the lowest 10%) would have done it.
-
Yeah my numbers are bad...I admit that. So we're "only" talking $730 billion a year...Chump change. You pay for it. I was trying to illustrate the immense number, not suggesting that we redistribute wealth...because we are already doing that with the $730 + Billion. What's the CIA budget running these days (or does anyone really know)? What are we sending to Israel...and Egypt and the other hundred countries we ship our hard-earned money to. It's all well and good when some conservatives bitch about the government spending too much money, and taxing us too much, and creating jobs in other sectors, yet, they have no issue with spending ridiculous amounts of money that belongs to the other 75% of the population. How many trillions will it take to stop the next wave of box cutter wielding Arabs from attacking us...since evidently we will be required to pay to bring their countries into the 21st century as a result?
BTW- I grabbed to original Budget from WIKI.
Budget Breakdown for 2012
Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[18][19] Calculation[20][21]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion
-
To get back to the Ron Paul topic -that's why he will never be elected. He believes that you don't spend money you don't have....regardless of the sacred nature of the prime beef.
-
You go ahead and vote for Mr. MoreOfTheMcSame, if you truly believe he's better. And don't complain when you get the government you ASKED FOR.
I didn't say any candidate is better, and I didn't say who I was voting for. Possibly no one. The point is, Ron Paul has failed us just as surely as the RINOs have. Those of us who oppose the Left are in desperate need of a leader, and he has failed to be that, just as much as Romney has. That's just the way it is.
-
I'm not sure we need anymore "great leaders"
Seems like all the great leaders that we have had have gotten us into multiple wars and nearly ruined this nation: Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, ... :(
I'm ready for a non-leader like Coolidge, who shut down DC for the summer and went to Vermont on vacation :lol:
-
I didn't say any candidate is better, and I didn't say who I was voting for. Possibly no one. The point is, Ron Paul has failed us just as surely as the RINOs have. Those of us who oppose the Left are in desperate need of a leader, and he has failed to be that, just as much as Romney has. That's just the way it is.
There is a vast, unbridgeable, philosophical gap between people like Ron Paul and people like Romney.
Ron Paul is imperfect due to his views on the fictional terrorist threat, I get it.
Romney may be right on foreign policy, but he's not only wrong on pretty much every other issue, but more importantly, he's philosophically headed in a completely wrong direction. Even if he happened to agree with us on some issue by accident - he could not be trusted at all to actually act on it. Even his attempts to "tack right" betray a deep misunderstanding of what is going on.
Paul, Herman Cain, Bachmann, all of these are quite reasonable candidates. But Romney and Perry are not because they simply have no understanding of the issues at hand.
Moreover, Paul would of course be the best candidate simply because he's the most radical candidate.
-
How is Romney even right on foreign policy?
Angling for war on Iran is insane - I doubt any policy maker wants it. Using the threat of it to get political benefits is a good way to have an accidental war. And an accidental war on Iran is probably the surest way to destroy our economy at the moment (besides that it's grossly immoral to start wars because of polling).
Ron Paul is the only candidate with a coherent worldview, and that's why the media won't make sense of him. They can't grapple with anyone who refuses to parrot corporate/security sound bites.
-
Ron Paul is imperfect due to his views on the fictional terrorist threat, I get it.
No you don't.
He also has become a born-again open borderer, but that is almost incidental to the greatest indictment of Paul...his near-complete ineffectiveness.
Gotta be able to make stuff happen. Paul has failed at that. Were he to miraculously be elected POTUS, I doubt he'd be able to do anything with it.
Wish it were otherwise.
-
No you don't.
He also has become a born-again open borderer, but that is almost incidental to the greatest indictment of Paul...his near-complete ineffectiveness.
Gotta be able to make stuff happen. Paul has failed at that. Were he to miraculously be elected POTUS, I doubt he'd be able to do anything with it.
Wish it were otherwise.
As a practical matter, we also have to remember the context of our system. In order for RP to BE effective if elected, one of two scenarios must exist.
a) a fundamental philosophical shift toward libertarianism by the American people
b) RP granted near-dictatorial powers a la Cincinnatus to bypass Congressional inertia and Constitutional legal challenges
NGH.
-
No you don't.
He also has become a born-again open borderer, but that is almost incidental to the greatest indictment of Paul...his near-complete ineffectiveness.
Gotta be able to make stuff happen. Paul has failed at that. Were he to miraculously be elected POTUS, I doubt he'd be able to do anything with it.
Wish it were otherwise.
Even at the barest minimum, the executive order power, the pardon power, and the Presidential bully pulpit are there.
If anything, Ron Paul has been extremely effective in the past few years [raising his popularity from the 1-3% mark to around 10-12%, and with it, the popularity of his ideas] and enabling libertarianism to box beyond its weight class in electing officials like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and others.
-
I'm not sure we need anymore "great leaders"
Seems like all the great leaders that we have had have gotten us into multiple wars and nearly ruined this nation: Lincoln,¹ Wilson, FDR,² ... :(
I'm ready for a non-leader like Coolidge, who shut down DC for the summer and went to Vermont on vacation :lol:
¹ Lincoln got us into a war? Uh uh; the south started the war; Lincoln was trying to keep us intact as a union. Blaming Lincoln for the Civil War is bass akwards.
² I am no fan of FDR, but again, he didn't get us into a war. Remember Pearl Harbor? Those were Japanese planes, not Us Army Air Corp planes.
Now, as for Wilson, you're on your own there..... [popcorn]
-
IMO, the Paulians are just as bad as the rest of the "conservatives" in that we are all looking for the perfect candidate who will come in and take over and make everything right like some mythical libertarian Super Reagan who can speak perfectly, put the media in their place, and convince everyone our side is right. Few realize that guy does not exist and no one person will fix everything. You can look at a lot of the commentary about the Repub candidates. It seems that everyone of them has done something that ticks off someone. I see so many people that have focused on their "man" and won't vote for anyone else or think we are doomed to reelect Obama. We haven't even had a primary yet.
-
No you don't.
He also has become a born-again open borderer, but that is almost incidental to the greatest indictment of Paul...his near-complete ineffectiveness.
Gotta be able to make stuff happen. Paul has failed at that. Were he to miraculously be elected POTUS, I doubt he'd be able to do anything with it.
Wish it were otherwise.
As opposed to electing someone (anyone) who will be effective at doing all the wrong things ???
He could just veto virtually everything that Congress passes, for starters :P
Won't happen though ... if he actually starts doing well (first and second place) in the primaries, somebody will have him taken out. :(
-
Lincoln was trying to keep us intact as a union.
So was King George III :lol:
-
But Georgie Boy lost and Lincoln won. [popcorn]
-
There is a vast, unbridgeable, philosophical gap between people like Ron Paul and people like Romney.
Ron Paul is imperfect due to his views on the fictional terrorist threat, I get it.
Wow, you really don't. You just can't or won't realize that elections aren't won by platforms. It might be nice if they were, but they aren't. And I wasn't talking about any of Paul's or Romney's policy ideas, foreign or otherwise. I said that neither, as a man, is the leader we need right now.
-
Wow, you really don't. You just can't or won't realize that elections aren't won by platforms. It might be nice if they were, but they aren't.
That's really really not what I was talking about.
And I wasn't talking about any of Paul's or Romney's policy ideas, foreign or otherwise. I said that neither, as a man, is the leader we need right now.
We need a leader? Do go on?
At the very least I can identify several positive personal qualities in RP that would enable him to do what is to be done.
-
the leader we need right now
Too bad old Uncle Adoph isn't around anymore - I hear he did a pretty good job turning around the German economy =D
-
Too bad old Uncle Adoph isn't around anymore - I hear he did a pretty good job turning around the German economy =D
For
the
win.
Evil loves to take root in bad times.
-
Evil loves to take root in bad times.
That's how we got FDR.