Ron Paul is getting trounced in yet another state (Washington)

[GuyPinestra]

Guy, I'm a Reagan Republican.

Now, I know this confuses you, because some of you right wing loons have created this mythical Reagan, as opposed to the real Ronald Reagan who was president from 1981-1989.

the one I voted for supported Amnesty for illegal aliens who were otherwise decent people.

He raised taxes to assure that we would have Social Security for future generations.

He appointed moderates to the Courts on the basis of their skill, not their idealogy.

he did the pragmatic things that needed to be done to get the job accomplished. And he looked out for the middle class, being of a middle class background himself.

Unlike this piece of shit Romney who is a tool of Wall Street.

Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty because of the promise of future ENFORCEMENT. Of course, THAT never happened, and now when people scream for enforcement they're labelled 'RACISTS'.

Reagan was 'middle class'? He was a fucking ACTOR, for chrissakes! He might have started out middle-class as a child, but you're trying to paint him as something he wasn't. ALL of our politicians are 1%'ers...

I do agree with your opinion of Romney, though...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Guy, I'm a Reagan Republican.

Now, I know this confuses you, because some of you right wing loons have created this mythical Reagan, as opposed to the real Ronald Reagan who was president from 1981-1989.

the one I voted for supported Amnesty for illegal aliens who were otherwise decent people.

He raised taxes to assure that we would have Social Security for future generations.

He appointed moderates to the Courts on the basis of their skill, not their idealogy.

he did the pragmatic things that needed to be done to get the job accomplished. And he looked out for the middle class, being of a middle class background himself.

Unlike this piece of shit Romney who is a tool of Wall Street.

Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty because of the promise of future ENFORCEMENT. Of course, THAT never happened, and now when people scream for enforcement they're labelled 'RACISTS'.

Reagan was 'middle class'? He was a fucking ACTOR, for chrissakes! He might have started out middle-class as a child, but you're trying to paint him as something he wasn't. ALL of our politicians are 1%'ers...

I do agree with your opinion of Romney, though...

Actually Reagan gave amnesty to people who were fleeing a country controlled by a dictator. It wasn't his intent to do it for re-election purposes. I guess the left was bitter why so many people were risking thier lives to leave such a wonderful contry as Cuba.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I should rep Joeb for taking all the heat for me. Too bad he is a religious bigot or I would actually do it.

Ps. Gary Johnson? Really? LOL

 

[JoeB131]

Your numbers are screwed up, Joe. Turnout for the caucus was much higher this year. A little over 12K turned out in 2008. You're confusing the caucus with the primary, which was held a week later and drew 500K.

In 2008, they held a Caucus AND a Primary. There year, no primary because of budgetary reasons. So if you were a republican, the only place you could have your voice heard was in the Caucus.

And most of them didn't give a shit or even try.

That's not surprising. Caucuses are a lot more work than a primary.

true enough, they are.

And the guy who isn't going to try very hard to do a caucus isn't going to try all that hard in November, is he?

You see, this has always been my complaint against the stupid people who support Romney because he's "Moderate" and he can win "Independents", so it's okay that we can't really trust him on anything because at some point, he's held the oppossite opinion.

The thing is, he doesn't inspire, either.

Now in the cosmic scheme of things, Washington State was never going to be a state Romney had any realistic chance of flipping. He probably won't spend any capital there in November. But it does illustrate the overall problem that he inspires no one.

He might get your hard core republican out there to vote for him, but not to campaign, not to go to the rest home and drive granny to the polling station, not to take a day off to get people out to vote.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In 2008, they held a Caucus AND a Primary. There year, no primary because of budgetary reasons. So if you were a republican, the only place you could have your voice heard was in the Caucus.

And most of them didn't give a shit or even try.

That's not surprising. Caucuses are a lot more work than a primary.

true enough, they are.

And the guy who isn't going to try very hard to do a caucus isn't going to try all that hard in November, is he?

You see, this has always been my complaint against the stupid people who support Romney because he's "Moderate" and he can win "Independents", so it's okay that we can't really trust him on anything because at some point, he's held the oppossite opinion.

The thing is, he doesn't inspire, either.

Now in the cosmic scheme of things, Washington State was never going to be a state Romney had any realistic chance of flipping. He probably won't spend any capital there in November. But it does illustrate the overall problem that he inspires no one.

He might get your hard core republican out there to vote for him, but not to campaign, not to go to the rest home and drive granny to the polling station, not to take a day off to get people out to vote.

Short version:

Romney is a Mormon

 

[Paulie]

Of course, they don't want libertarians.

The GOP has as much invested in an overbearing, intrusive Washington as the Democrats do. It's just they are fighting for different special interests.

Still doesn't make Ron Paul any less of a loon.

I will probalby vote for Gary Johnson in November if he's the libertarian candidate, but that's mostly because I hate Romney so much and can't really bring myself to vote for Obama.

It doesn't have to always be about Paul and whether he's crazy or not.

We're all going to continue fighting for individual liberty and less overseas empiricism long after Ron Paul is gone. He simply planted a seed.

Then come up with someone less crazy.

I personally like Gary Johnson. Nice, sensible guy, real crediblity in that he's been a governor and got things done in office. (Unlike Paul, who has been nothing but a pain in the ass in Congress for 20 years or so.) Why are you not building a movement around him?

Maybe we will. Right now, the movement is building around Paul. Again, it's not about Ron Paul. Not all of us agree with him on everything. He's not perfect. No one is. But for now, the movement towards liberty and less interventionism is culminated around Paul. When he's done, which will probably be after this cycle, the movement will carry on.

I don't think you really understand the fundamentals of a movement though, to ask this. It takes painstaking efforts, a lot of time and patience, money, motivated people, etc, to grow a movement like this. You don't just decide one day to switch it over to something brand new and expect it to seemlessly transition. After Paul, there will be a lot of uncertainty about the direction of the movement, and it remains to be seen if it culminates around Johnson. Paul usually isn't one to endorse people flat out, so it's anyone's guess whether he does so in this case.

I agree though, Johnson would probably be the best successor.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty because of the promise of future ENFORCEMENT. Of course, THAT never happened, and now when people scream for enforcement they're labelled 'RACISTS'.

Reagan was 'middle class'? He was a fucking ACTOR, for chrissakes! He might have started out middle-class as a child, but you're trying to paint him as something he wasn't. ALL of our politicians are 1%'ers...

I do agree with your opinion of Romney, though...

Well, here's the thing about illegal immigration. Why do we have illegals? Because there are rich douchebags who don't want to pay Americans a fair wage to do undesirable jobs.

You could end the illegal immigration problem in ten minutes. Go after the employers with a vengence. Zero tolerance. No "his papers looked okay". If there's an illegal on your worksite, you are going to pay for it, dearly. The problem with Simpson-Mazzoli was that it relied on employers to do the enforcing, which is kind of like asking the foxes to watch the henhouse.

But oppossition these days aren't based on the common sense complaint that they are driving down wages. They are based on some very racist fears, and that's the problem. The latino who came here legally might not like HIS wages being undercut by an illegal, but when you get some of the nasty language coming out of the right on this issue, he takes it personally.

Which is why Romney is polling at about 25% with Hispanics right now.

As for Reagan, you do realize that while he was an 'actor", he wasn't a star living in a big mansion. He's referred to as a "B-Movie" actor, but what you forget back in them days, "B-Movies" were not where the money was made. Reagan was the president of Screen Actors Guild and fought for the rights of Actors to not be abused by the studios. Even as president, he sought the support of unions. We remember he fired the PACTO guys, but forget the Teamsters backed him to the hilt.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe we will. Right now, the movement is building around Paul. Again, it's not about Ron Paul. Not all of us agree with him on everything. He's not perfect. No one is. But for now, the movement towards liberty and less interventionism is culminated around Paul. When he's done, which will probably be after this cycle, the movement will carry on.

I don't think you really understand the fundamentals of a movement though, to ask this. It takes painstaking efforts, a lot of time and patience, money, motivated people, etc, to grow a movement like this. You don't just decide one day to switch it over to something brand new and expect it to seemlessly transition. After Paul, there will be a lot of uncertainty about the direction of the movement, and it remains to be seen if it culminates around Johnson. Paul usually isn't one to endorse people flat out, so it's anyone's guess whether he does so in this case.

I agree though, Johnson would probably be the best successor.

I understand the fundementals of the movement entirely.

It's John Anderson in 1980.
It's Ross Perot in 1992.

It's stamping your feet like a petulant child while the grown ups are having a serious discussion.

That's why I don't take it seriously, even when I agree with Paul on some issues, like Israel.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not surprising. Caucuses are a lot more work than a primary.

true enough, they are.

And the guy who isn't going to try very hard to do a caucus isn't going to try all that hard in November, is he?

You see, this has always been my complaint against the stupid people who support Romney because he's "Moderate" and he can win "Independents", so it's okay that we can't really trust him on anything because at some point, he's held the oppossite opinion.

The thing is, he doesn't inspire, either.

Now in the cosmic scheme of things, Washington State was never going to be a state Romney had any realistic chance of flipping. He probably won't spend any capital there in November. But it does illustrate the overall problem that he inspires no one.

He might get your hard core republican out there to vote for him, but not to campaign, not to go to the rest home and drive granny to the polling station, not to take a day off to get people out to vote.

Short version:

Romney is a Mormon

That's the reason I won't vote for him. It isn't just about me, man.

I don't live in Washington State, but clearly, no one out there was thrilled with any of these jokers to get off their butts and show up to a caucus, were they?

So you will all get behind ROmney with a collective shrug because you aren't all that thrilled with him, and Obama's peeps will be all thrilled about him.

I wish I had an answer. Santorum isn't much better, Newt is a disaster looking for a place to happen, and Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

These were really the best for guys the GOP could come up with? Seriously?

 

[JoeB131]

I should rep Joeb for taking all the heat for me. Too bad he is a religious bigot or I would actually do it.

Ps. Gary Johnson? Really? LOL

Why not. At least I know where he stands.

Oh, it isn't bigotry to call batshit crazy beliefs crazy.

And batshit crazy beliefs don't become less silly because you put vestments on them and call them "religion".

You know how I can tell the GOP is really in trouble?

not a one of these guys is out there condemning Rush Limbaugh. When your trying to be the leader of the free world, and you can't condemn a Talk Radio Rodeo Clown, you cease to be a serious political party.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I should rep Joeb for taking all the heat for me. Too bad he is a religious bigot or I would actually do it.

Ps. Gary Johnson? Really? LOL

Why not. At least I know where he stands.

Oh, it isn't bigotry to call batshit crazy beliefs crazy.

And batshit crazy beliefs don't become less silly because you put vestments on them and call them "religion".

You know how I can tell the GOP is really in trouble?

not a one of these guys is out there condemning Rush Limbaugh. When your trying to be the leader of the free world, and you can't condemn a Talk Radio Rodeo Clown, you cease to be a serious political party.

A true liberal at heart and at work^^^^^^^^

 

[JoeB131]

You'd call Ronald Reagan a liberal.

Or just pretend he was a mythical figure that had nothing to do with what he was as president.

And just because you believe in silly fairy tales called Religion doesn't mean I have to.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You'd call Ronald Reagan a liberal.

Or just pretend he was a mythical figure that had nothing to do with what he was as president.

And just because you believe in silly fairy tales called Religion doesn't mean I have to.

I call it like I see it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You'd call Ronald Reagan a liberal.

Or just pretend he was a mythical figure that had nothing to do with what he was as president.

And just because you believe in silly fairy tales called Religion doesn't mean I have to.

Your lack of respect for others beliefs only illustrates your own bigotry. It's comments like this that break the lines of communication between people who otherwise might share some common goals.

You sir, are a BIGOT.

 

[JoeB131]

You'd call Ronald Reagan a liberal.

Or just pretend he was a mythical figure that had nothing to do with what he was as president.

And just because you believe in silly fairy tales called Religion doesn't mean I have to.

Your lack of respect for others beliefs only illustrates your own bigotry. It's comments like this that break the lines of communication between people who otherwise might share some common goals.

You sir, are a BIGOT.

Guy, there are only two intellectually honest positions you can take towards Mormonism.

1) Joseph Smith was talking to God, where do I sign up.

2) Joseph Smith was a lying sack of crap who was making up bullshit to sleep with 14 year old girls.

Assuming you don't believe 1) any more than I do, then you accept 2) as true.

There really isn't a third position here, Guy.

Now, you can be a whipped dog of political correctness and say that "Well, I don't share your beliefs, but I respect them... blah,blah,blah".

I don't do that. If something is ridiculous, I say so. If someone believes something ridiculous, I judge them on that. Even if they call it "religion".

 

[GuyPinestra]

You'd call Ronald Reagan a liberal.

Or just pretend he was a mythical figure that had nothing to do with what he was as president.

And just because you believe in silly fairy tales called Religion doesn't mean I have to.

Your lack of respect for others beliefs only illustrates your own bigotry. It's comments like this that break the lines of communication between people who otherwise might share some common goals.

You sir, are a BIGOT.

Guy, there are only two intellectually honest positions you can take towards Mormonism.

1) Joseph Smith was talking to God, where do I sign up.

2) Joseph Smith was a lying sack of crap who was making up bullshit to sleep with 14 year old girls.

Assuming you don't believe 1) any more than I do, then you accept 2) as true.

There really isn't a third position here, Guy.

Now, you can be a whipped dog of political correctness and say that "Well, I don't share your beliefs, but I respect them... blah,blah,blah".

I don't do that. If something is ridiculous, I say so. If someone believes something ridiculous, I judge them on that. Even if they call it "religion".

You have a problem with Mormons. Fine. You also seem to have a problem with every other religion on the planet. That's fine, too, you're entitled to believe or not as per your own conscience.

But when you start telling people that belief in God is nothing more than "fairy tales", you're insulting an awful big majority of the world's population.

I think when Jesus comes back you're going to regret your choice of 'secularism' as a religion.

 

[JoeB131]

You have a problem with Mormons. Fine. You also seem to have a problem with every other religion on the planet. That's fine, too, you're entitled to believe or not as per your own conscience.

But when you start telling people that belief in God is nothing more than "fairy tales", you're insulting an awful big majority of the world's population.

I think when Jesus comes back you're going to regret your choice of 'secularism' as a religion.

How can Jesus come back when he never existed to start with?

Also, honestly, how can you respect someone who is so insecure he has to punish people who didn't believe in him.

But this is the bible God in a nutshell. First four commandments are about how this omnipotent being is so insecure.

On the off chance I am wrong and there actually is a Sky Pixie, if there is any justice, he would judge me on what I did.

Did I help people when they needed it. Yup. Lots of times. Even people who've wronged me in the past.

Did I ever really harm anyone? Other than maybe saying things they didn't want to hear, not really.

If God isn't judging me on anything but that, but is concerned about what chruch I went to or whether or not I believed in improbable stories like the whole human race being descended from two people made of mud, he really wouldn't be worthy of my worship.

My fear, maybe. Not my worship, my respect or my admiration.

And jesus, if he really wanted Joseph Smith to have sex with 14 year old girls, what does that say about him?