Ron Paul's influence going forward

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[Romney] is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

With the same result as McCain in 2008.

No, Obama's a fascist. Just like Bush, Romney, and Santorum.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Liberty]

[Romney] is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

With the same result as McCain in 2008.

No, Obama's a fascist. Just like Bush, Romney, and Santorum.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

RuPaul couldn't win a single primary or caucus, but he'd "win" a brokered convention?

Why?

How the fuck do you guys "figure" that?

Because Ron Paul supporters are positioning themselves as delegates even in states where the delegates are bound to other candidates, this means that in a brokered convention where the delegates become unbound they can vote for their candidate of choice. The caucus states are also sending many many delegates his way but shhhh don't tell anyone.

Bullshit.

The CLAIM that Paul supporters are "positioning themselves as delegates" has no factual underpinning.

There is no way the GOP convention would allow a guy who is openly considering going 3P to get their nod.

Ron Paul has not a chance in the universe.

Yeah, because "I have no intention of doing that" is "openly considering" the possibility of going third party.

 

[elvis]

Nuns vote for Ron?

Nope. They don't either.

They vote Santorum. They Have a lot of power to gain if he wins.

 

[Liability]

Because Ron Paul supporters are positioning themselves as delegates even in states where the delegates are bound to other candidates, this means that in a brokered convention where the delegates become unbound they can vote for their candidate of choice. The caucus states are also sending many many delegates his way but shhhh don't tell anyone.

Bullshit.

The CLAIM that Paul supporters are "positioning themselves as delegates" has no factual underpinning.

There is no way the GOP convention would allow a guy who is openly considering going 3P to get their nod.

Ron Paul has not a chance in the universe.

Yeah, because "I have no intention of doing that" is "openly considering" the possibility of going third party.

Yeah because that's his "position."

NASHUA, N.H. -- Ron Paul inched further away on Friday from any unequivocal promise not to run under a third-party banner if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination.

In a brief interview with The Huffington Post on Friday, Paul acknowledged he will have a decision to make if he loses the GOP bid come August.

In his conversation with HuffPost, Paul noted that he had won nearly as many delegates in Iowa as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum had, and that he was likely to pick up a good share here in New Hampshire and -- having hauled in $13 million last quarter -- in other contests to come.

With many delegates in a bloc heading into the convention in Tampa, didn't that mean he would remain committed to the GOP and not run an independent candidacy in the fall, even if he did not secure the nomination?

"I'll decide that later," Paul said while he was waiting for his son Rand Paul, a GOP senator from Kentucky, to finish an interview with the press.

When asked whether it would be difficult to run independently with a son who might want to run for the GOP nomination some day, the senior Paul said again, "I'll decide that later," before being hustled to a press event.

In the past, Paul has sounded more certain that he wouldn't seek an independent presidential run, though he has not flatly denied the possibility.

"I have enough on my plate right now," Paul said in a mid-December interview with "Meet The Press," according to the Boston Globe. "We have a lot of campaigning to do. We're going to be very busy the next couple of weeks. That’s what I’m concentrating on, and we’ll see what happens."

And last Monday before the Iowa caucuses, he told CNN's Dana Bash, "I have no plans of doing that [running for a third party]. Tomorrow's a big day. We're going to see what happens, but I have no intention of doing that. No plans, and no desire. Flat out, I don't want to."

Still, he added then, "I've never spoken in absolutes."

-- said as recently as JANUARY and it's now only mid March. Ron Paul Suggests Third Party Presidential Run Still An Option

 

[Liability]

Nuns vote for Ron?

Nope. They don't either.

They vote Santorum. They Have a lot of power to gain if he wins.

And the Pope, too.

Oh wow.

Deja vu.

 

[sealybobo]

You liberals agree with us on the Fed, huh? More like you personally, and a few other liberals agree with us partially on the Fed. If liberals in general agreed with us libertarians on the Fed then something would have been done about the Fed.

As for corporate corruption, no libertarian denies it. We just realize that when it comes to an alliance between big business and big government, big government is always in charge. Without the government your robber barons wouldn't exist.

Ha! The Robber Baron's were there waiting for the Revolution to end to pounce on whatever government came out on top. The Robber Baron's are the cause of the American Revolution. The tax England put on our tea was on behalf of the Great India Tea Company. I may have gotten the name wrong, but I find it hillarious that you think the Robber Baron's wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government.

Our fucking government is the first EVER that was to be run by and for WE THE PEOPLE. Until our fucking government, governments were run by Lords, Popes or Kings. Our founding fathers even warned us about massive wealth and corporations. But Ron Paul doesn't tell you about that.


You think government shouldn't exist? This is why us liberals will never agree with Libertarians. No need to even discuss. I've heard it all before and you are out of your minds. That's like saying lets play basketball and have no referees.

And yes, us liberals agree with you on the Fed. I said Libs, not Democrats. The modern day Corporate Democrats are GOP light. They too serve the corporate master. But they also represent the middle class. Just ask the unions. Just ask teachers, police and firefighters.

You don't get ahead taking on the Federal Reserve. In this respect, yes, Democrats are just as blind to the corrupt federal Reserve, but that's the way it is and has been since 1913 and anyone who has ever tried to change it has been ruined. So either you get marganalized like Ron Paul or you don't get a second term like Bush 1 or you get killed like Kennedy if you try to take on the Robber Baron's too much.

I didn't say robber barons wouldn't exist without the U.S. government. I said they wouldn't exist without government.

I'll never convince you that your wrong. BUT, if anyone is on the fence about Ron Paul or voting Republican, these two op ed's might help change your minds

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

 

[Liability]

Look at the delegate count.

Election 2012 - Estimated Republican Delegate Scorecard - CBS News

Ron Paul is fucked.

Any questions?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

the majority of Ron's supporters will vote republican in November no matter who the nominee is.

I don't think the majority is going to vote for the GOP nominee if there's no bone thrown to them. I could see it if Rand were the VP, but I can't see it otherwise. Certainly a good number of them will, but I don't see a majority.

That's my read on it too. Some of the Paul supporters (Paulitician here for example) are GOP partisans and will vote GOP regardless, but many are fairly independent voters who would vote third party first.

A lot of Paul's influence will come from how close the Primary, and then the General turn out to be. If we're headed for a brokered convention (unlikely) the "stealth strategy" that Paul supporters are running is likely to make them a force at Convention.

In the general, if we're looking at a 49/51 race in the polls, I guarantee that Romney reaches out to the Paul supporters in some manner.

However, I'll warn you, both scenarios are unlikely. Romney is heading for a mathematically certain win in the Primary unless Newt drops out tomorrow. I doubt we see a brokered convention. Santorum just is not that organized or well funded. In the General, the actual election is going to have an enormous margin depending on the economy. If it's getting stronger, Obama is going to walk to a win. If it isn't, then Romney is going to clobber Obama.

The election is the only real issue in November, especially if Romney is the nominee. Obama and Romney have taken too similar stands for Romney to convincingly paint himself as being that ideologically different.

 

[sealybobo]

You liberals agree with us on the Fed, huh? More like you personally, and a few other liberals agree with us partially on the Fed. If liberals in general agreed with us libertarians on the Fed then something would have been done about the Fed.

As for corporate corruption, no libertarian denies it. We just realize that when it comes to an alliance between big business and big government, big government is always in charge. Without the government your robber barons wouldn't exist.

Ha! The Robber Baron's were there waiting for the Revolution to end to pounce on whatever government came out on top. The Robber Baron's are the cause of the American Revolution. The tax England put on our tea was on behalf of the Great India Tea Company. I may have gotten the name wrong, but I find it hillarious that you think the Robber Baron's wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government.

Our fucking government is the first EVER that was to be run by and for WE THE PEOPLE. Until our fucking government, governments were run by Lords, Popes or Kings. Our founding fathers even warned us about massive wealth and corporations. But Ron Paul doesn't tell you about that.


You think government shouldn't exist? This is why us liberals will never agree with Libertarians. No need to even discuss. I've heard it all before and you are out of your minds. That's like saying lets play basketball and have no referees.

And yes, us liberals agree with you on the Fed. I said Libs, not Democrats. The modern day Corporate Democrats are GOP light. They too serve the corporate master. But they also represent the middle class. Just ask the unions. Just ask teachers, police and firefighters.

You don't get ahead taking on the Federal Reserve. In this respect, yes, Democrats are just as blind to the corrupt federal Reserve, but that's the way it is and has been since 1913 and anyone who has ever tried to change it has been ruined. So either you get marganalized like Ron Paul or you don't get a second term like Bush 1 or you get killed like Kennedy if you try to take on the Robber Baron's too much.

I didn't say robber barons wouldn't exist without the U.S. government. I said they wouldn't exist without government.

Ron Paul's ultimately no different than Romney. Let me ask you this. Should we have a government of, by, and for We, the People or should we have one that is governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding? Because if we went with Ron Paul's no regulations and free trade, that's exactly what we would get.

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Ron Paul or Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Sounds like Ron Paul and Romney.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ha! The Robber Baron's were there waiting for the Revolution to end to pounce on whatever government came out on top. The Robber Baron's are the cause of the American Revolution. The tax England put on our tea was on behalf of the Great India Tea Company. I may have gotten the name wrong, but I find it hillarious that you think the Robber Baron's wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government.

Our fucking government is the first EVER that was to be run by and for WE THE PEOPLE. Until our fucking government, governments were run by Lords, Popes or Kings. Our founding fathers even warned us about massive wealth and corporations. But Ron Paul doesn't tell you about that.


You think government shouldn't exist? This is why us liberals will never agree with Libertarians. No need to even discuss. I've heard it all before and you are out of your minds. That's like saying lets play basketball and have no referees.

And yes, us liberals agree with you on the Fed. I said Libs, not Democrats. The modern day Corporate Democrats are GOP light. They too serve the corporate master. But they also represent the middle class. Just ask the unions. Just ask teachers, police and firefighters.

You don't get ahead taking on the Federal Reserve. In this respect, yes, Democrats are just as blind to the corrupt federal Reserve, but that's the way it is and has been since 1913 and anyone who has ever tried to change it has been ruined. So either you get marganalized like Ron Paul or you don't get a second term like Bush 1 or you get killed like Kennedy if you try to take on the Robber Baron's too much.

I didn't say robber barons wouldn't exist without the U.S. government. I said they wouldn't exist without government.

Ron Paul's ultimately no different than Romney. Let me ask you this. Should we have a government of, by, and for We, the People or should we have one that is governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding? Because if we went with Ron Paul's no regulations and free trade, that's exactly what we would get.

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Ron Paul or Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Sounds like Ron Paul and Romney.

No government is, ever has been, or ever will be "We, the people."

 

[sealybobo]

I didn't say robber barons wouldn't exist without the U.S. government. I said they wouldn't exist without government.

Ron Paul's ultimately no different than Romney. Let me ask you this. Should we have a government of, by, and for We, the People or should we have one that is governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding? Because if we went with Ron Paul's no regulations and free trade, that's exactly what we would get.

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Ron Paul or Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Sounds like Ron Paul and Romney.

No government is, ever has been, or ever will be "We, the people."

And that's why you only get 8% of the vote nutjob.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul's ultimately no different than Romney. Let me ask you this. Should we have a government of, by, and for We, the People or should we have one that is governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding? Because if we went with Ron Paul's no regulations and free trade, that's exactly what we would get.

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Ron Paul or Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Sounds like Ron Paul and Romney.

No government is, ever has been, or ever will be "We, the people."

And that's why you only get 8% of the vote nutjob.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Look at the delegate count.

Election 2012 - Estimated Republican Delegate Scorecard - CBS News

Ron Paul is fucked.

Any questions?

You need to read your own links. The logic of these estimates is extremely suspect, case in point is the Iowa delegates. Ron Paul was only 2% or so behind Romney and the delegates are awarded proportionately in theory. In actuality none have been awarded because the state convention hasn't been held yet. The site claims that santorum has 13 and Romney 12 though? That alone invalidates their entire premise.

 

[dblack]

Look at the delegate count.

Election 2012 - Estimated Republican Delegate Scorecard - CBS News

Ron Paul is fucked.

If those numbers are accurate, and predictive - it's not Ron Paul who is fucked.

It's all of us.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Is Paul still running?

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Congrats to Obama on four more years. I'm hoping he breaks the US credit line and spirals us into a liquidity trap. This country will never fix itself up until it's completely broken.

 

[Liability]

Look at the delegate count.

Election 2012 - Estimated Republican Delegate Scorecard - CBS News

Ron Paul is fucked.

Any questions?

You need to read your own links. The logic of these estimates is extremely suspect, case in point is the Iowa delegates. Ron Paul was only 2% or so behind Romney and the delegates are awarded proportionately in theory. In actuality none have been awarded because the state convention hasn't been held yet. The site claims that santorum has 13 and Romney 12 though? That alone invalidates their entire premise.

Blather.

Your irrationally petty quibble is that RuPaul MIGHT have a few more delegates than the estimates.

Let's say you are correct in that?

So what?

He's still far far behind. Fact. And he isn't going to win any primary. Fact. And he isn't going to win any caucus (however binding or non-binding it is). Fact.

Actual facts invalidate your wishful thinking.

 

[GuyPinestra]

At this point there are over 200 unpledged delegates, and chances are that Ron Paul is going to take about 80% of them. This alone is going to screw up most everyone's 'estimates' and will put Ron Paul in 2nd place behind Mitt.

You don't have to like it, Liability, but you WILL see it play out in Tampa.

I think it's going to be a HOOT!!

 

[Liberty]

Ha! The Robber Baron's were there waiting for the Revolution to end to pounce on whatever government came out on top. The Robber Baron's are the cause of the American Revolution. The tax England put on our tea was on behalf of the Great India Tea Company. I may have gotten the name wrong, but I find it hillarious that you think the Robber Baron's wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government.

Our fucking government is the first EVER that was to be run by and for WE THE PEOPLE. Until our fucking government, governments were run by Lords, Popes or Kings. Our founding fathers even warned us about massive wealth and corporations. But Ron Paul doesn't tell you about that.


You think government shouldn't exist? This is why us liberals will never agree with Libertarians. No need to even discuss. I've heard it all before and you are out of your minds. That's like saying lets play basketball and have no referees.

And yes, us liberals agree with you on the Fed. I said Libs, not Democrats. The modern day Corporate Democrats are GOP light. They too serve the corporate master. But they also represent the middle class. Just ask the unions. Just ask teachers, police and firefighters.

You don't get ahead taking on the Federal Reserve. In this respect, yes, Democrats are just as blind to the corrupt federal Reserve, but that's the way it is and has been since 1913 and anyone who has ever tried to change it has been ruined. So either you get marganalized like Ron Paul or you don't get a second term like Bush 1 or you get killed like Kennedy if you try to take on the Robber Baron's too much.

I didn't say robber barons wouldn't exist without the U.S. government. I said they wouldn't exist without government.

Ron Paul's ultimately no different than Romney. Let me ask you this. Should we have a government of, by, and for We, the People or should we have one that is governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding? Because if we went with Ron Paul's no regulations and free trade, that's exactly what we would get.

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Ron Paul or Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Sounds like Ron Paul and Romney.

We should have a government that follows the CONSTITUTION...that is what ron paul says. You make yourself look like a moron...maybe you are but seriously consider reading up before posting stupid shit...it is embarrassing for you. Ron Paul is against CORPORATISM and for CAPITALISM...the two are different...sigh you know what I am wasting my time trying to educate another moron on this board. No thanks.