Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Suryavarman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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