Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Suryavarman · 21-08-2011 1:29am

deepertheroots wrote: »

Another poll win for the Paulmeister

http://hampton-northhampton.patch.com/articles/nh-straw-poll-winners

Hate to be a killjoy but it was only 300 young Republicans. Considering Romney got 30% of the vote in the last primary it is unlikely that this poll means too much. It does however give a good indication of where the Republican party is heading in the future, especially in New Hampshire.

Overheal · 21-08-2011 1:50am

imported_guy wrote: »

nope it all goes to the so called poor black and hispanic folk who eat from gold pots rather than living on food stamps. :rolleyes:

matthew8 wrote: »

So only blacks and hispanics are people now? If the money doesn't go to them then it doesn't go to people is what you seem to be saying.

Carcharodon wrote: »

Jebus, come back when you actually see and I mean really really see how the world works, some people just seem to be oblivious to it.

Yeah about that...

The top 2% vs. the Bottom 50%, and the $700 Billion figure being thrown about in the media. Rightwing media pundits are saying when its taking the Rich to raise that figure "It's only a tiny fraction of the govt's deficit" and saying tax the bottom 50%.

Well Jon took some time out to do the math: raise the tax rate on the top earners, or take Half of the Wealth of Half of the Nation to raise the same dollar figure:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

ascanbe · 21-08-2011 1:57am

No. As things stand, he's fairly damn unlikely to win.
Long may he and his ilk somewhat prosper, though; it's always amusing to read the self-styled libertarians on here.

rocksteady36 · 23-08-2011 1:44pm

I would love to see RP win, not because I agree with all he says but because the alternative is more American Colonialism and poliicng the world.

Having ssaid that I don't want China or Russia taking over there surrounding terrritories through war...So we need a certain amount of protection for smaller weaker countries..

Anyways, at least you get the truth, check out Geroge Bush before his bid for the presidency...

Humble foreign policy,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

At least some of the other republicans openly state they will keep policing the world lol, like Pawlenty, Romeny and the likes..The rest are just lying like Bush above..How can Americans not be ashamed at the lies and the bull**** and vote ron paul..Whos mad, the nation builders are the Ron Pauls of the planet...

Suryavarman · 23-08-2011 7:31pm

Came across this article today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-does-ron-paul-scare-you/243987/

Makes the point that if you look at what is the worst a candidate could do as President, Ron Paul is probably the best/least worst option

rocksteady36 · 23-08-2011 10:31pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Came across this article today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-does-ron-paul-scare-you/243987/

Makes the point that if you look at what is the worst a candidate could do as President, Ron Paul is probably the best/least worst option

Makes sense,but it doesn't mention issues like federal reserve, just that he wont pass laws regarding these issues.

If he abolished the federal reserve then he will have destroyed a hornets nest. He will have taken back the central bank. If this turns out to be a great move then no other country will allow a private bank act as a central bank. So lots of powerful bankers wont want thisat all costs.

Then the neocons and those who know that China and Russia are a serious threat in the future will find Ron Paul's plans a threat to national security. They need the bankers..and Fiat monetary system to print money to keep military tooled up.

From that perspective hes got a lot to battle..

I really didnt think he had a chance, but things look a lot different now,if his message actually got around Americans could support him. Lots of people like the idea of no wars and no debt..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6DjvhVcVRk

Suryavarman · 24-08-2011 10:05pm

Ron is polling in third in the latest Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx

He has the most support from the young vote also.

matthew8 · 24-08-2011 10:51pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ron is polling in third in the latest Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx

He has the most support from the young vote also.

Some polling firms don't seem to be giving Paul much support. McClatchy/Marist hardly show him with any support and with PPP he always does poorly. However he performs well with Rasmussen and Gallup.

It would be very interesting to see how the Irish media react to Ron Paul if he is the nominee because of course they are democrat bias but how will they be able to spin the chosen one bombing children in the middle east against the guy who's been outspoken against it for 30 years.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 12:14am

Obama can't seem to get anything he wants through congress. Say Ron Paul gets the nomination and wins, chances are close to zero imo how is he going to implement his agenda?

Hasn't he already sold out by running as a republican instead of a libertarian.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 12:47am

20Cent wrote: »

Obama can't seem to get anything he wants through congress. Say Ron Paul gets the nomination and wins, chances are close to zero imo how is he going to implement his agenda?

Hasn't he already sold out by running as a republican instead of a libertarian.

It's a 2 party system, he knows he can't win libertarian.

Ron Paul would do a far better job of getting what he wants through congress because he won't compromise.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 10:22am

matthew8 wrote: »

It's a 2 party system, he knows he can't win libertarian.

Ron Paul would do a far better job of getting what he wants through congress because he won't compromise.

Its not a two party system there are other parties its just that the big two are so big that they monopolise the money and debate. He'e a republican because he wants access to the party money and election machine. If he does win he will be knocking out someone who runs for the actual libertarian party.

Not compromising is a dangerous thing to have as a president. If he did get elected he would be going against many in his own party as well as most of the democrats. He wouldn't be able to pass anything. If he uses vetoes and executive orders then he's ignoring the voters who voted for other parties. Obama who is the biggest compromiser ever imo can hardly get anything to pass. How would not compromising get him anywhere?

hooradiation · 25-08-2011 11:34am

20Cent wrote: »

Its not a two party system there are other parties its just that the big two are so big that they monopolise the money and debate. He'e a republican because he wants access to the party money and election machine. If he does win he will be knocking out someone who runs for the actual libertarian party.

Not compromising is a dangerous thing to have as a president. If he did get elected he would be going against many in his own party as well as most of the democrats. He wouldn't be able to pass anything. If he uses vetoes and executive orders then he's ignoring the voters who voted for other parties. Obama who is the biggest compromiser ever imo can hardly get anything to pass. How would not compromising get him anywhere?

Having seen that the tea party 'won' the whole debt ceiling fiasco by stamping their feet and whining like children some people are assuming that "no compromise" is the way to go.

Because intractable adherence to items of dogma is the hallmark of a rational person, after all.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 12:22pm

Its not a two party system there are other parties its just that the big two are so big that they monopolise the money and debate. He'e a republican because he wants access to the party money and election machine. If he does win he will be knocking out someone who runs for the actual libertarian party.

The libertarians won't run anyone if Paul is the nominee. If Palin gets the nod don't be surprised for Paul to run independent. It is EXTREMELY hard to get elected outside of the 2 main parties if you're not in a gubernatorial election.

Not compromising is a dangerous thing to have as a president. If he did get elected he would be going against many in his own party as well as most of the democrats. He wouldn't be able to pass anything. If he uses vetoes and executive orders then he's ignoring the voters who voted for other parties. Obama who is the biggest compromiser ever imo can hardly get anything to pass. How would not compromising get him anywhere?

Gary Johnson, governor "veto", despite a democrat legislature vetoed 750 bills and by doing this he managed to get his budgets through that left a surplus and lowered taxes, and he is still very popular in New Mexico, with a 44/32 approval rating in the last poll a few months ago.

Having seen that the tea party 'won' the whole debt ceiling fiasco by stamping their feet and whining like children some people are assuming that "no compromise" is the way to go.

Did you not hear? The debt ceiling was raised and there were no cuts. How is that a win for a group who don't want it raised and want cuts?

Because intractable adherence to items of dogma is the hallmark of a rational person, after all.

Gary Johnson showed this as governor of New Mexico.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 1:23pm

matthew8 wrote: »

The libertarians won't run anyone if Paul is the nominee. If Palin gets the nod don't be surprised for Paul to run independent. It is EXTREMELY hard to get elected outside of the 2 main parties if you're not in a gubernatorial election.

You are arguing that libertarianism is growing and very popular. Yet the libertarian candidate can't run as a libertarian but has to join another party which he disagrees with on most issues. Then ye argue that he does not compromise!!

matthew8 wrote: »

Did you not hear? The debt ceiling was raised and there were no cuts. How is that a win for a group who don't want it raised and want cuts?

Any idea what would have happened if the debt ceiling was not raised? Nobody wanted that scenario. The shock to the system and the devastation it would cause would be massive. Anyone calling for such would be certifiable. Troops in Iraq not getting paid!!

There are cuts 1.3 trillion to be decided by a "super committee". Even if you want all this stuff how can one claim to be for democracy when the nuclear option is used to go against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens. This is where ideologies get very dangerous following one and ignoring the consequences.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 1:35pm

You are arguing that libertarianism is growing and very popular. Yet the libertarian candidate can't run as a libertarian but has to join another party which he disagrees with on most issues. Then ye argue that he does not compromise!!

I think that libertarianism is growing. If Ron Paul is president then we can be sure that it is growing. He does not compromise, it's one or the other over there and you know that. There is no real official republican opinion on things anymore because there are so many different groups.

Any idea what would have happened if the debt ceiling was not raised? Nobody wanted that scenario. The shock to the system and the devastation it would cause would be massive. Anyone calling for such would be certifiable. Troops in Iraq not getting paid!!

Did you not hear what happened after it was raised? The US credit rating was downgraded and the stock markets crashed! What a magnificent vote of confidence.

The reason nobody wanted that scenario was because the media commentators wanted the debt ceiling raised. What's the point in having a debt ceiling if it's constantly raised. The troops in Iraq would be brought home immediately and paid what they were promised. Military spending would be halved at least, the rotten social security system would be dismantled and everyone given back what they put into it, EPA scrapped, medicare, medicaid cut or handed over to the states, but no way would troops who signed up willing to die for their country not be paid.

Here's Obama on debt:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/24/flashback_obama_adding_4_trillion_to_debt_is_unpatriotic.html

There are cuts 1.3 trillion to be decided by a "super committee". Even if you want all this stuff how can one claim to be for democracy when the nuclear option is used to go against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens. This is where ideologies get very dangerous following one and ignoring the consequences.

The supercommittee is a sham, there won't be a balanced budget.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 2:06pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Did you not hear what happened after it was raised? The US credit rating was downgraded and the stock markets crashed! What a magnificent vote of confidence.

It was downgraded because of the tea party shenanigans. If the debt ceiling was not raised the problems would be many times worse. The tea party are using brinkmanship to overturn the wishes of the majority.

matthew8 wrote: »

The supercommittee is a sham, there won't be a balanced budget.

I agree. But balancing the budget in one go and the US would be like a mad max movie on speed within the year.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 2:17pm

It was downgraded because of the tea party shenanigans.

Then why was it raised after the debt ceiling was raised and the tea party "danger was averted".

20Cent · 25-08-2011 2:26pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Then why was it raised after the debt ceiling was raised and the tea party "danger was averted".

Here's a quote from the S&P memo.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

The tea party danger has not been averted they are still there making threats and being unwilling to compromise.

Can you tell me what you think would have happened if it was not increased?
Do you think the consequences justify having a balanced budget?

hooradiation · 25-08-2011 3:43pm

matthew8 wrote: »

The troops in Iraq would be brought home immediately and paid what they were promised. Military spending would be halved at least, the rotten social security system would be dismantled and everyone given back what they put into it, EPA scrapped, medicare, medicaid cut or handed over to the states,

Then I am thankful that even in spite of the childish nonsense the debt ceiling was raised.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 4:23pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Then I am thankful that even in spite of the childish nonsense the debt ceiling was raised.

Well, thinking about it, Obama would much rather default so he could childishly blame it on someone else.

Why is it childish to spend only as much as you take in? I would call it most businessmanlike.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 4:30pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Well, thinking about it, Obama would much rather default so he could childishly blame it on someone else.

Why is it childish to spend only as much as you take in? I would call it most businessmanlike.

A country is not a business. Its childish to think you can inflict cuts of that size onto a society and everything will be happy clappy afterwards.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 4:55pm

20Cent wrote: »

A country is not a business. Its childish to think you can inflict cuts of that size onto a society and everything will be happy clappy afterwards.

I think we ought to stop using the word childish here because I don't think that's childish and it doesn't contribute to discussion.

It is silly to think that we can inflict 3 trillion debt onto a society and everything will be happy clappy afterwards.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 5:44pm

Its so tedious arguing with a bumper sticker. Suffice to say Paul won't get the nomination hopefully he'll run as an independent and split the right wing vote. Even though Obama has been a crushing disappointment he's lightyears ahead of the current crop of republican contenders.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 6:07pm

20Cent wrote: »

Its so tedious arguing with a bumper sticker. Suffice to say Paul won't get the nomination hopefully he'll run as an independent and split the right wing vote. Even though Obama has been a crushing disappointment he's lightyears ahead of the current crop of republican contenders.

I think he has around a 5% chance and just to make the republicans not bitter when Rand comes around wanting a nomination he won't go independent. Though if Palin gets the nod he would have a chance as an independent.

imported_guy · 25-08-2011 6:26pm

LMAO someone needs a reality check if they think america was actually going to default...

america cant default since their debt is fictitious, they control how much their dollar is worth, in turn, controlling how much their debt is worth. macro economics 101.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 7:07pm

imported_guy wrote: »

LMAO someone needs a reality check if they think america was actually going to default...

america cant default since their debt is fictitious, they control how much their dollar is worth, in turn, controlling how much their debt is worth. macro economics 101.

I would call dollar hyperinflation a form of default. An extremely cowardly one at that.

Also, the government doesn't control the federal reserve so they don't technically control how much the dollar is worth. They're best friends though.

sarumite · 25-08-2011 8:30pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Well, thinking about it, Obama would much rather default so he could childishly blame it on someone else.

Why is it childish to spend only as much as you take in? I would call it most businessmanlike.

I notice you have two sides to that equation. How much you take in = How much spend on outgoings. Both sides need to balance. A business person will know that at times they need to increase their incomings to meet outgoings. Focusing on one side and ignoring the other, hell actively trying to reduce the other doesn't help

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 9:44pm

sarumite wrote: »

I notice you have two sides to that equation. How much you take in = How much spend on outgoings. Both sides need to balance. A business person will know that at times they need to increase their incomings to meet outgoings. Focusing on one side and ignoring the other, hell actively trying to reduce the other doesn't help

A business can't just click its fingers and take in more money. On balance I would not decrease tax revenue because I would close many tax loopholes.

I think it is more just give out less money than to confiscate more money.

lagente · 25-08-2011 10:31pm

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to SOME OF the people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

rocksteady36 · 25-08-2011 10:39pm

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

I think if more people with influence like Jon Stewart come out and back him or help advertise him, he may have a shot. But Americans have been conditioned into thinking they can not say something negative about their wars or there unpatriotic...etc

There are lots of reasons he will not get through. I think the main thing is that he is spreading the message of liberty and less wars etc..Also that the moneatary system is fixed to serve the elite.

So thats great anyways...Most people who have stated here and other boards that he has no chance and he is a kook are now half wrong..He is not a kook fringe candidate... He is getting a lot of support and his message is mainstream...Hopefully Ron proves them wrong and gets nominated

20Cent · 25-08-2011 10:46pm

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 10:47pm

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

I wouldn't say they're the most stupid country, because if they are extremely stupid they must have been very very lucky to be that rich. I think that they have the same proportion of idiots (look at ourselves and the people voting for parish pump politicians and FF) but it's on a larger scale.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 10:47pm

20Cent wrote: »

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

20Cent · 25-08-2011 10:50pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

The libertarian parties election results.

Results in US presidential elections
Year Candidate Popular Votes Percentage Electoral Votes
1972 John Hospers 3,674 <0.1% 1
1976 Roger MacBride 172,553 0.21% 0
1980 Ed Clark 921,128 1.1% 0
1984 David Bergland 228,111 0.3% 0
1988 Ron Paul 431,750 0.5% 0
1992 Andre Marrou 290,087 0.3% 0
1996 Harry Browne 485,759 0.5% 0
2000 Harry Browne 384,431 0.4% 0
2004 Michael Badnarik 397,265 0.32% 0
2008 Bob Barr 523,686 0.4% 0

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 10:52pm

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and most libertarians vote either democratic or republican. Also, simply not voting for someone doesn't make you abhorrent to them. The vast majority of Americans have some libertarian sympathies.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 10:54pm

matthew8 wrote: »

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and libertarians vote either democratic or republican.

So even Libertarians don't even vote for the libertarian party thats encouraging.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 10:56pm

matthew8 wrote: »

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and most libertarians vote either democratic or republican. Also, simply not voting for someone doesn't make you abhorrent to them. The vast majority of Americans have some libertarian sympathies.

I have libertarian sympathies, still wouldn't vote for them though.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 10:57pm

20Cent wrote: »

So even Libertarians don't even vote for the libertarian party thats encouraging.

It's pointless trying to engage with you, you know how people vote over there and that the most prominent libertarians are republicans.

Masked Man · 25-08-2011 10:59pm

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.

There is just no logic in this post.

lagente · 25-08-2011 11:21pm

matthew8 wrote: »

I wouldn't say they're the most stupid country, because if they are extremely stupid they must have been very very lucky to be that rich. I think that they have the same proportion of idiots (look at ourselves and the people voting for parish pump politicians and FF) but it's on a larger scale.

They we're lucky. They we're not attacked big time in ww2, so they we're the epicenter of wealth after it. Thing is they didn't establish a decent education system. We have bad politicians, but these guys voted BUSH twice. TWICE! The 2nd after the weapons of mass destruction lie.

20Cent · 25-08-2011 11:23pm

Masked Man wrote: »

There is just no logic in this post.

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

Masked Man · 25-08-2011 11:29pm

20Cent wrote: »

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

Why are you trying to change what you said?

20Cent wrote: »

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

matthew8 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.

Results in US presidential elections
Year Candidate Popular Votes Percentage Electoral Votes
1972 John Hospers 3,674 <0.1% 1
1976 Roger MacBride 172,553 0.21% 0
1980 Ed Clark 921,128 1.1% 0
1984 David Bergland 228,111 0.3% 0
1988 Ron Paul 431,750 0.5% 0
1992 Andre Marrou 290,087 0.3% 0
1996 Harry Browne 485,759 0.5% 0
2000 Harry Browne 384,431 0.4% 0
2004 Michael Badnarik 397,265 0.32% 0
2008 Bob Barr 523,686 0.4% 0

20Cent · 25-08-2011 11:32pm

Masked Man wrote: »

Why are you trying to change what you said?

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the point you're trying to make, too subtle for me.

matthew8 · 25-08-2011 11:46pm

lagente wrote: »

They we're lucky. They we're not attacked big time in ww2, so they we're the epicenter of wealth after it. Thing is they didn't establish a decent education system. We have bad politicians, but these guys voted BUSH twice. TWICE! The 2nd after the weapons of mass destruction lie.

We voted Ahern, Britain voted Blair, Frenchies voted Sarkozy, Greeks voted Papandreou, we all make bad decisions. George Bush was a highly intelligent and was charismatic when he needed to be, he was smarter than John Kerry and Al Gore really should've been elected.

America has had a history of positive immigration and economic development and by 1918 they were unquestionably the biggest power in the world with empires decimated. The history of avoiding major foreign wars and imperialism allowed them to focus on the economy. Their economic dominance is shown by how badly affected Germany was by the stock market crash and great depression.

I don't think education has anything to do with voting Bush in. They had a decent education system whereby student numbers in private schools were rapidly increasing towards the end of the 19th century and they did fine with a 7% top tax rate.

20Cent wrote: »

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

The notion of their vote making a difference to the result and not splitting the economically right wing vote, however, if a neo-conservative stands it's the social liberal vote that they don't want to split. Bush ran on humble foreign policy in 2000 and got libertarians, many left him when John Kerry stood but Kerry was quite economically left so he kept a few libertarians. Libertarians went for Obama in 2008 becuase it was 2 similar economic policies and a choice between "bring the troops home" and "1000 years war".

If you're a libertarian it's a Hobson's choice really when voting.

Masked Man · 25-08-2011 11:48pm

20Cent wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the point you're trying to make, too subtle for me.

You said most people find Libertarian views "abhorrent" and your evidence for this was the Libertarian Party's election results. This makes no sense because you ignore every other reason why people might not vote for the Libertarian Party and assume that you know why people vote a certain way.

I pointed this out and you said something about libertarian's not voting for the Libertarian Party, which had nothing to do with the post I quoted and was a separate point you were arguing.

You also completely contradict yourself later just to argue.

20Cent wrote: »

I have libertarian sympathies, still wouldn't vote for them though.

lagente · 26-08-2011 12:03am

matthew8 wrote: »

We voted Ahern, Britain voted Blair, Frenchies went Sarkozy, Greeks went Papandreou, we all make bad decisions. George Bush was a highly intelligent and was charismatic when he needed to be, he was smarter than John Kerry and Al Gore really should've been elected.

Yes , I think that Bush was faking simplicity too. Further reason not to elect him, but yet they did. As for the above politicians? yep, messed up, the lot of them except Papandreou, who i know nothing about, but greek economy is based on fantasy, so you are probably right there too.

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't think education has anything to do with voting Bush in. They had a decent education system whereby student numbers in private schools were rapidly increasing towards the end of the 19th century and they did fine with a 7% top tax rate.

Anything? Come on.
19th century? we need statistics A LITTLE more recent than then

Asides from this, Do you really think Paul can be elected? How come the republicans did not focus on him last time around? He dosen't seem well liked in that party. Obama's support would also crush him.

matthew8 · 26-08-2011 12:29am

lagente wrote: »

Yes , I think that Bush was faking simplicity too. Further reason not to elect him, but yet they did. As for the above politicians? yep, messed up, the lot of them except Papandreou, who i know nothing about, but greek economy is based on fantasy, so you are probably right there too.

Anything? Come on.
19th century? we need statistics A LITTLE more recent than then

Asides from this, Do you really think Paul can be elected? How come the republicans did not focus on him last time around? He dosen't seem well liked in that party. Obama's support would also crush him.

I would heavily favour Ron Paul to beat Obama in the GE because not only would he capture the obvious GOP vote, but he would take all libertarians and he is held in very high regard by many on the far left.

For getting the republican nod, the party elite don't like him, but no one cares what the party elite say any more (Mitch McConnell endorsed a primary candidate in his own state and a tea partier beat the candidate handily) but the problem is that he is downright ignored with MSNBC and CNN while Fox News make it clear that most don't like him (Though he's endorsed by Glenn Beck and I suspect John Stossel) but he gets coverage there.

To win the nomination one of a few things must happen:
1. Palin quits, endorses Paul, it makes no sense to me but on American political forums they discuss the possibility.

2. Snow. Heavy snow in the primaries and primaries being held in Winter (incl. some being moved up) is a possibility and will favour Paul no end because his suppporters will show up.

3. He captures the Bachmann anti-establishment vote, grows his own vote and reaches 25% nationally while other candidates scrap it out. He won't need to win NH this way.

4. He captures Iowa (I think 25-30% is in the bag for him because it's a caucus and I think 30% will win it) and wins NH and gets momentum though the media headlines if he won both would be something like:
Perry 2nd, Romney 3rd in caucus result
Bachmann loses New Hampshire
The media decides who has momentum and he needs the media to be even slightly favourable to him. They ignored his result at the Iowa straw poll.

lagente · 26-08-2011 12:50am

matthew8 wrote: »

Are you Irish matthew8? Where did you get all this information?

matthew8 · 26-08-2011 1:13am

lagente wrote: »

Are you Irish matthew8? Where did you get all this information?

I am Irish.

I post on an American forum dedicated to elections and there is a thread on Paul's path to the nomination, the snow one isn't insider information, Palin quitting and endorsing Paul, I don't buy it but others do so I posted it. I talked about taking the Bachmann votes because they are one of the few anti-establishment votes he can take, while simply winning Iowa/NH is the conventional approach. No insider information.

20Cent · 26-08-2011 8:39am

Masked Man wrote: »

You said most people find Libertarian views "abhorrent" and your evidence for this was the Libertarian Party's election results. This makes no sense because you ignore every other reason why people might not vote for the Libertarian Party and assume that you know why people vote a certain way.

I pointed this out and you said something about libertarian's not voting for the Libertarian Party, which had nothing to do with the post I quoted and was a separate point you were arguing.

You also completely contradict yourself later just to argue.

To find out the popularity of a party the logical thing to do would be to look at their election results. The claim is that libertarians mostly vote democrat and republican instead of libertarian because the libertarian party have so little support contradicts the argument that libertarianism is popular. Can you name any more prominent libertarians besides Ron Paul? If its such a popular ideology then there should be loads surely?

I think a lot of people like the whole "do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others" bit and also the less gov meddling idea. But having no regulations to keep companies in check, no social welfare and legalising drugs probably turns a lot of people off.

Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Comments