Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

RichieC · 20-12-2011 6:49pm

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

"hey folks, I just got cancer anybody spot me $500,000"?

Did you see rhe republican debate? the crowd cheered when the moderator said to paul (parap) if someone cant afford treatment shiuld they be left to die.

I try to keep my debates with these people to a minimum.
my faith in humanity is low enough as it is :-{

FreudianSlippers · 20-12-2011 6:52pm

RichieC wrote: »

Did you see rhe republican debate? the crowd cheered when the moderator said to paul (parap) if someone cant afford treatment shiuld they be left to die.

This is an interesting area, namely because I actually don't agree necessarily with the whole medical care approach. I believe that there should be a medical care tax taken out of welfare to cover the people on welfare - i.e. that the government should effectively force those on welfare to pay for medical care.

Also, the idea that people are left to die is bull**** both in theory and in practice. The way it works in the US is that the uninsured are treated, then billed. When they cannot and do not pay their $500,000 bill, the hospital "absorbs" that cost, passes it on in higher charges to insurance companies for procedures on the insured, who pass it on to the insured themselves in higher premiums and deductibles.

Nobody in the US is being "left to die" and I think anyone who states that Dr Paul believes they should be so left, is attempting to undermine his position with emotive attacks.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 20-12-2011 7:00pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is an interesting area, namely because I actually don't agree necessarily with the whole medical care approach. I believe that there should be a medical care tax taken out of welfare to cover the people on welfare - i.e. that the government should effectively force those on welfare to pay for medical care.

Also, the idea that people are left to die is bull**** both in theory and in practice. The way it works in the US is that the uninsured are treated, then billed. When they cannot and do not pay their $500,000 bill, the hospital "absorbs" that cost, passes it on in higher charges to insurance companies for procedures on the insured, who pass it on to the insured themselves in higher premiums and deductibles.

Nobody in the US is being "left to die" and I think anyone who states that Dr Paul believes they should be so left, is attempting to undermine his position with emotive attacks.

I read somewhere that 10% of cancer sufferers in the US need to declare bankruptcy as do many other people who lose their homes so it's not quite as simple as you're portraying there. "You can't pay your bill? No problem, we'll aborb it"...

RichieC · 20-12-2011 7:19pm

my point is the creeping inhumanity on the right in the US.

why would anyone cheer that question?

Suryavarman · 20-12-2011 11:01pm

American Research Group brought out a new poll last Thursday indicating that Ron Paul is now second in New Hampshire. Romney is in first with 35%, Paul follows with 21% and Gingrich takes third with 16%.

In a separate poll by Public Policy Polling the positions remain the same. The percentages are slightly different with Romney remaining at 35%, Paul dropping to 19%, Gingrich rising to 17% and Huntsman getting 13% of the vote.

It will be interesting to see how Huntsman's numbers perform as he is competing for much the same voters as Romney is. New Hampshire is also a very important state for Romney. If he were to finish second in Iowa and New Hampshire it could do huge damage to his campaign. Despite the fact that delegates will assigned proportionate to votes, the lack of a win would take a lot of steam out of his run.

Ron Paul is also getting a lot of negative attention in the media since the latest poll figures came out. The importance of the Iowa caucus is now being downplayed too. The racist newsletters are being brought back up again which he has done a poor job of explaining. The following are some of the recent articles on Paul:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/ron-paul-s-ascent-won-t-last-or-help-his-cause-ramesh-ponnuru.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SimonConwayPaulIowa/2011/12/20/id/421629

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/ron-pauls-un-electability-will-be-his-undoing/2011/12/20/gIQAC70t6O_blog.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/269993/20111220/ron-paul-pirate-2012-republicans-iowa-gop.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/chris-wallace-iowa-wont-count-if-ron-paul-wins/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Back to the positive and Paul has a new ad out that will run in Iowa and New Hampshire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESux7oFMDY

FreudianSlippers · 20-12-2011 11:24pm

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I read somewhere that 10% of cancer sufferers in the US need to declare bankruptcy as do many other people who lose their homes so it's not quite as simple as you're portraying there. "You can't pay your bill? No problem, we'll aborb it"...

If you can afford to buy a home you can afford a basic health insurance plan. I'm assuming these people have cars and insure those cars as well, since it is the law. Equally, it should be the law to have health insurance; if you genuinely cannot afford it, you're likely on welfare and it should be taken out at the source and redistributed to some scheme which the state government has negotiated with private insurers a good rate.

Declaring bankruptcy is no big deal in the US and it doesn't mean the hospitals are not "absorbing" the cost... in essence they don't absorb anything since the added costs are passed onto the insured.

simplistic2 · 21-12-2011 12:27am

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

And why don't you start asking the question of why these people are in poverty in the first place?

Because they are ground into the pavement by regulations, a brain scarring public education, a "war" waged against them for taking drugs, a mass dumping of currency inflating prices far beyond what they should be, theft in the form of taxes...the list goes on...they don't have a damn hope, and you expect the same government that dumps this waste on them to gallantly come to their rescue with trinkets and plasters...

Christ even in Ireland if a poor person tried to make a living selling cookies door-to-door he could be arrested, in America he'd probably get 15 years in a orange suit and lectured to about respecting the law...

simplistic2 · 21-12-2011 12:37am

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Who will pay for the schools and roads then?

Let's say that the government pays for all cloths that children wear right now, every home is sent shiny new cloths every year for the kids to wear. What happens if the government stops paying for those cloths? Do the kids just idle about naked?

Same for the roads...people have gone into space(private people), I'd hope we could figure out how to pave a road or two also.

RichieC · 21-12-2011 1:32am

simplistic2 wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

And why don't you start asking the question of why these people are in poverty in the first place?

Because they are ground into the pavement by regulations, a brain scarring public education, a "war" waged against them for taking drugs, a mass dumping of currency inflating prices far beyond what they should be, theft in the form of taxes...the list goes on...they don't have a damn hope, and you expect the same government that dumps this waste on them to gallantly come to their rescue with trinkets and plasters...

Christ even in Ireland if a poor person tried to make a living selling cookies door-to-door he could be arrested, in America he'd probably get 15 years in a orange suit and lectured to about respecting the law...

quite a scattershot argument youre making. Im not getting into a taxes are theft argument for a start. its a childish position.

Regulating food resale is also imo right and proper.

we both agree the war on drugs, more accurately the war on the poor is a crime against humanity.

it is not the poor I'm talking about re insurance. the poor qualify for medicare.

I do not expect the US gov to gallantly do anything. I'm addressing Mr Pauls policy position.

simplistic2 · 21-12-2011 2:58am

RichieC wrote: »

we both agree the war on drugs, more accurately the war on the poor is a crime against humanity.

Great, so why not extrapolate this principle of not interfering, restricting or dictating with how another chooses to live?

If you think it is wrong to pat someone down for a baggy, why not also their wallet, or even for a cookie?

Just let people be, they are geniuses, herding them about like cattle is fruitless. The problems of poverty, of crime, of human suffering are just waiting to be solved. We just need to get goddamn state out of the way and let the individual thrive.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 21-12-2011 1:42pm

simplistic2 wrote: »

Let's say that the government pays for all cloths that children wear right now, every home is sent shiny new cloths every year for the kids to wear. What happens if the government stops paying for those cloths? Do the kids just idle about naked?

Same for the roads...people have gone into space(private people), I'd hope we could figure out how to pave a road or two also.

Great, they cost millions, who is going to pay for them? Will they be built by a private company as a charitable act to society? No you'll have roads with tolls at the end of them and people spending a fortune to pass through them.

SupaNova · 27-12-2011 7:27pm

Un-cut interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0

CNN cut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgGKWmw8HI

Previous interview with Blitzer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

Watching the first you see Ron give a good interview where he keeps his cool pretty well when pressed on the newsletter issue, which he has responded to in interviews with Wolf Blitzer before. The CNN cut creates a different impression.

Silvio.Dante · 27-12-2011 8:56pm

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

He'll forever be a busted flush in the Presidential race but I'm happy for him to do well in the Republican race as hopefully it wll encourage him to run as a 3rd candidate, hence ensuring 4 more years of an O-Bot Oval Office...

SupaNova · 29-12-2011 6:46pm

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

A few sentences in decades of material. I wonder what % of words published the racist comments constitute, 0.000.... %, but don't let that stop you from creating your fantasy image of racist right wing libertarian nuts paying for a racist newsletter. Maybe you can tell me why a man out to line his own pocket gave back $100,000 in congressional allowance, all part of his evil libertarian master-plan? Or maybe you can explain how his consistent stance against the American government going deeper into debt is against the common good of all American citizens?

RichieC · 29-12-2011 7:07pm

read on twitter that Bachmans iowa campaign chairman defected to the paul camp. interesting.

Suryavarman · 29-12-2011 8:29pm

RichieC wrote: »

read on twitter that Bachmans iowa campaign chairman defected to the paul camp. interesting.

Here he is making the announcement yesterday:

Jaafa · 29-12-2011 10:39pm

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

He'll forever be a busted flush in the Presidential race but I'm happy for him to do well in the Republican race as hopefully it wll encourage him to run as a 3rd candidate, hence ensuring 4 more years of an O-Bot Oval Office...

In his early years Mahatma Gandhi used to be extremely racist towards black south Africans.

RichieC · 30-12-2011 2:37am

haha the rats are abandoning uss bachmann. shes just lost her campaign manager

AhSureTisGrand · 30-12-2011 1:12pm

Ron Paul got an endorsement on Twitter from Kelly Clarkson yesterday. Judging by the reaction she got from her followers, very few Paul supporters listen to Kelly Clarkson

Overheal · 30-12-2011 2:37pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXVD7uBU2s

Is this a ticket we will see in November?

RichieC · 30-12-2011 5:57pm

That ticket is pure fantasy. The republican establishment would be lost to history before they let that happen.

matthew8 · 30-12-2011 6:47pm

RichieC wrote: »

That ticket is pure fantasy. The republican establishment would be lost to history before they let that happen.

I agree for once. Paul will probably pick some tea partyer if he somehow gets elected.

Paul seems to be slipping in Iowa in the polls, but I still think he'll get the vote out very well and win.

cristoir · 30-12-2011 11:25pm

There's an old saying "Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents".

Paul is putting a lot of money and energy into Idaho (which he will probably win). Will he do as well in NH and South Carolina? Without strong performances there he will run out of steam fast.

20Cent · 31-12-2011 2:41am

Paul has zero chance of even getting the republican nomination. If he runs as an independent then he has even less chance of being president.

Question for the Ron Paul Supporters.
If Obama with a majority couldn't even get near to passing the health care bill he wanted to why do you even think that if elected Ron Paul could even get near to passing his any of his ideas?

20Cent · 31-12-2011 3:28am

Ron Pauls racist views will sink him anyway. How someone who claims to be for freedom could support white only restaurants !

matthew8 · 31-12-2011 4:00am

20Cent wrote: »

Ron Pauls racist views will sink him anyway. How someone who claims to be for freedom could support white only restaurants !

Just because he wouldn't ban them wouldn't mean he supports them.

20Cent · 31-12-2011 4:13am

matthew8 wrote: »

Just because he wouldn't ban them wouldn't mean he supports them.

rons newsletters would suggest otherwise.

Decent people would want to ban it.

FreudianSlippers · 31-12-2011 3:14pm

20Cent wrote: »

rons newsletters would suggest otherwise.

Decent people would want to ban it.

I get Ron Paul's newsletters (email) and that's factually incorrect. I suppose you have support for this claim though?

FreudianSlippers · 31-12-2011 3:56pm

22 Facts that don't jibe with Ron Paul being a racist.

I see that the newsletter mentioned is from 1996 or so, they have also been debunked in multiple places including the Snopes forum. One of their contributors posted an FAQ: Ron Paul "racist" newsletters FAQ

Suryavarman · 31-12-2011 4:57pm

This ad from his Super Pac would also seem to contradict the claims that he is a racist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Comments