America's Repudiation of Ron Paul's Unelectability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwesnoth

Bush would have won a third term if there was the rule only allowing 2 terms. Obama would have been smoked by Bush because no matter how many times people make fun of Bush, he was still a damn good president.

---

yeah my imaginary chinese cat could have beaten Shrub in 2008. 25% approval rating ring a bell?

=============================================

I've said it before- RP is the most honest person in the GOP field. (Huntsman is a close 2nd)

He's not bought and paid for, he's not telling you what he thinks you want to hear.

That said- I doubt very much that he has any chance of actually winning the nom- he's simply not crazy ENOUGH and his ideas are too far out of line with what the people who historically decide the nom look for.

Would be interesting though. He could follow an Obama 2008 strategy and get is "small" but active base to earna few victories.

Here's an article I read on Politico the other day- thought it was interesting.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Who will pay for it then? My state has a surplus, but almost every state in the country has huge debts, they'd get even larger debts and underfunded schools if left to the states. I'm a small government guy, but education is the foundation of the future, it is compelling interest to the government to promote robust education opertunities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Who will pay for it then? My state has a surplus, but almost every state in the country has huge debts, they'd get even larger debts and underfunded schools if left to the states. I'm a small government guy, but education is the foundation of the future, it is compelling interest to the government to promote robust education opertunities.

---

Believe it or not, there is a simple solution to this as well. The thing you have to understand is, the federal government is not entitled to all the funds it receives from the tax payers and corporations. By eliminating the federal income tax from personal incomes, that is money you don't give to the federal government thus, that is money that can used by the state or local communties whichever is preferred by a given state's citizens. All these freed up funds or at least a portion of them, can be used for education I would go further and say that you can eliminate the state income tax if your state has it and go right down to funding education at the local level.What you have to understand is the current system of taxation implies that the government somehow owns your money and it allows you to keep a portion of it so you may sustain yourself. This simply is not true. This kind of mentality has to change. You are entitled to the fruits of your labor, not the government. You have to accept responsibility for where you wish your income is applied or kept. If you wish to invest in the educational system of your community or state, you take responsibility and apply it how you wish. This, like every other issue, boils down to personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

More money does not necessarily equal a better quality education.

---

Very true, but no money equals no education. What about California for example. Think they can muster up the funds to run a single school let alone the whole state with the size of the hole there in?

@morganator: with money, it's never. Simple. I agree that the government is entitled to very little. Schools are largely paid for by property taxes, refocusing the allocation of the income tax will do little for education unless it is suplamental to the existing funding system. If that's the case then, you'd just shift the burden from one body to another. Charter schools and vouchers are the best option in my opinion to increase the quality of education in current budget constraints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

@morganator: with money, it's never. Simple. I agree that the government is entitled to very little. Schools are largely paid for by property taxes, refocusing the allocation of the income tax will do little for education unless it is suplamental to the existing funding system. If that's the case then, you'd just shift the burden from one body to another. Charter schools and vouchers are the best option in my opinion to increase the quality of education in current budget constraints.

---

It's actually much more simple to allow your money to be used at the local level. The higher up in government you go, the more bureaucracy you have to deal with and that negates the value of education. Funding for education at the local level and instituting charter schools and vouchers is the best route to a better education and it's cheaper too. You are right about difficulties concerning budget constraints but I don't think it's insurmountable like it is at the federal level.

Welp... he did well... but IMO Iowa was probably the only place he had a chance of gaining momentum...

Santorum? seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

Welp... he did well... but IMO Iowa was probably the only place he had a chance of gaining momentum...

Santorum? seriously?

---

I mentioned this in the 2012 election thread too. Santorum won because of the strong evangelical presence in Iowa but he does not have the money or campaign organization to run a national campaign without that vote which isn't as strong in other states at all. As for Paul, the nomination process is against him. He got the young vote, not republican vote because the caucus process works for him. Most states use primaries, and most states require voters to register as either democrat or republican in their primary. Paul will struggle in the primaries becuase of the party registration in most primary states.

the reason why he isn't going to get it is because people want someone that will lie, they want someone that will say one thing and do another, it's almost always been that way. The masses usually vote for the biggest gimp and they are usually very happy with such votes. The masses (the people) want everything sugar coated. I noticed this when listening to past debates from other presidents when they were speaking before becoming president. People don't want to hear the good, bad, and ugly, they want to hear the good only, even if it's a lie. It almost goes along the lines of, If I don't hear it, it wont happen. It's stupid.

If RP would have busted out complete lies and sugar coat every single thing, I will bet you anything he would have made it on the top. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

Welp... he did well... but IMO Iowa was probably the only place he had a chance of gaining momentum...

Santorum? seriously?

---

Santorum is just another corporate and media backed shill propped up to distract voters away from Paul while they backdoor Romney in. New Hamphire will not go well for Santorum though he will have an "elevated" showing since his very close second place finish. The Media did very well in manufacturing a surge for Santorum, just in time for the caucus elections. Ironically, had the media not done so, Ron Paul would have had over 40% of the vote in Iowa and would have owned it as well as owned New Hamphire. Paul still has a solid chance and he's doing extremely well considering the media's bias against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganator

Santorum is just another corporate and media backed shill propped up to distract voters away from Paul while they backdoor Romney in. New Hamphire will not go well for Santorum though he will have an "elevated" showing since his very close second place finish. The Media did very well in manufacturing a surge for Santorum, just in time for the caucus elections. Ironically, had the media not done so, Ron Paul would have had over 40% of the vote in Iowa and would have owned it as well as owned New Hamphire. Paul still has a solid chance and he's doing extremely well considering the media's bias against him.

---

Can you substantiate any of those claims with any evidence at all? Paul isn't a republican, he is Libertarian. Some of his policies are not popular with republicans. Fact is, in Iowa, Paul got youth vote and libertarian vote, not republican votes. The caucus process benifits him because they don't require registration its more of an open forum. There is no conspiracy against Paul. I don't know why people always assume something like that. He has radical ideas, that don't sit well with a majority of people because he challenges the status quo. His ideas put people off, not some fictitious ominious hand to "distract voters away from Paul"

To call Santorum a corporate shill is laughable. Have you seen his budget? He drove around in a freaking Chevy truck with 1 other dude all across the state. Surely a "corprate shill" could afford a bus with his picutre on it. There a a ton of evangelicals in Iowa. What one might call the "hardcore conservatives" Santorum did well in Iowa because he spent almost 2 weeks driving around to every county, more than once and spreading the "born again Chrisitian, Conservative values" campaign. I will admit, the media did help boost Santorum. Once he became a story, it raised his name recognition. Paul got the vote he was ever gonna get. Think the person who voted for Santorum would vote for Paul if Santorum were not there? Hell no!

every GOP primary needs a "dirty-jesus" candidate. I give you santorum.

The only impact Paul can have at this point going forward is to run as an indy ticket.
And I am not sure he was enough money to do that... he's not Ross Perrot or... whats his face from 2000 rich is he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DayWalker

every GOP primary needs a "dirty-jesus" candidate. I give you santorum.

The only impact Paul can have at this point going forward is to run as an indy ticket.
And I am not sure he was enough money to do that... he's not Ross Perrot or... whats his face from 2000 rich is he?

---

i don't belive so. he was a doctor and has been in congress for god knows how long now. Hes is better off than the average man. but i don't believe he is what one would call rich.

Edit: what do you mean by dirty Jesus btw? Not sure what you are talking about.

RP is rich but he is obviously a frugal spender himself. He doesn't have to buy every single thing and I am sure that all of his money is what he actually worked for. He is rich, but he doesn't portray a rich person. it's quite humble in my opinion. he doesn't have that rich attitude that you see from rich people, yes, they do have that special attitude where you know for a fact they were born with that silver spoon and didn't have to work for jack shit. I mean honestly, you are looking at a guy that grew up close to times that my grandpa grew up in. My grandpa was a frugal spender and when he retired he had enough money to be called rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Edit: what do you mean by dirty Jesus btw? Not sure what you are talking about.

---

the candidate who is adamant about shoving his own personal religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdoggy

RP is rich but he is obviously a frugal spender himself. He doesn't have to buy every single thing and I am sure that all of his money is what he actually worked for. He is rich, but he doesn't portray a rich person. it's quite humble in my opinion. he doesn't have that rich attitude that you see from rich people, yes, they do have that special attitude where you know for a fact they were born with that silver spoon and didn't have to work for jack shit. I mean honestly, you are looking at a guy that grew up close to times that my grandpa grew up in. My grandpa was a frugal spender and when he retired he had enough money to be called rich.

---

I just meant- is he rich enough to finance his own race?
And I think the answer is "no"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Can you substantiate any of those claims with any evidence at all? Paul isn't a republican, he is Libertarian. Some of his policies are not popular with republicans. Fact is, in Iowa, Paul got youth vote and libertarian vote, not republican votes. The caucus process benifits him because they don't require registration its more of an open forum. There is no conspiracy against Paul. I don't know why people always assume something like that. He has radical ideas, that don't sit well with a majority of people because he challenges the status quo. His ideas put people off, not some fictitious ominious hand to "distract voters away from Paul"

To call Santorum a corporate shill is laughable. Have you seen his budget? He drove around in a freaking Chevy truck with 1 other dude all across the state. Surely a "corprate shill" could afford a bus with his picutre on it. There a a ton of evangelicals in Iowa. What one might call the "hardcore conservatives" Santorum did well in Iowa because he spent almost 2 weeks driving around to every county, more than once and spreading the "born again Chrisitian, Conservative values" campaign. I will admit, the media did help boost Santorum. Once he became a story, it raised his name recognition. Paul got the vote he was ever gonna get. Think the person who voted for Santorum would vote for Paul if Santorum were not there? Hell no!

---

Here. Eat your heart out.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...4YKl6h4R8tiYDw

My assertions were not only correct but understated. He's a fucking serial hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganator

Here. Eat your heart out.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...4YKl6h4R8tiYDw

My assertions were not only correct but understated. He's a fucking serial hypocrite.

---

Ok you explain how he is a bad candidate, but not how he is backed by the media and corporations to distract people from Paul. The conspiratorial aspect of you post is what needs evidence. Otherwise just empty claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Ok you explain how he is a bad candidate, but not how he is backed by the media and corporations to distract people from Paul. The conspiratorial aspect of you post is what needs evidence. Otherwise just empty claims.

---

Oh for fuck sake. Here's some evidence.


Here's something to chew on.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ising-in-iowa/
http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-santo...antorum-surges
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...owa/52260172/1
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/28/the_...surge_is_here/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...NNP_story.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/santo...urges-in-iowa/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...owa-caucus-win
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/ri...p-in-santorum/

Now. It would be prudent read the substance of each link because I have more to correlate my assertion

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...torum-surging/
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...oines_reg.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...grich-falling/

You're Welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganator

Oh for fuck sake. Here's some evidence.


Here's something to chew on.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ising-in-iowa/
http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-santo...antorum-surges
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...owa/52260172/1
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/28/the_...surge_is_here/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...NNP_story.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/santo...urges-in-iowa/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...owa-caucus-win
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/ri...p-in-santorum/

Now. It would be prudent read the substance of each link because I have more to correlate my assertion

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...torum-surging/
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011...oines_reg.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...grich-falling/

You're Welcome.

---

I'm sorry, but you havn't proved anything. Here is your claim. it is a direct quote.

"Santorum is just another corporate and media backed shill propped up to distract voters away from Paul while they backdoor Romney in."

You state that the media and corporations are propping up Santorum to steal votes from Paul. Since Santorum is not a viable candidate, its to shoehorn Romney in. This is what i'm refuting. It does not stand to logic. In fact, the links you provided seems to prove my assesment. That Santorum's county by country trip and evangelical support caused his victory in Iowa. You also state that Paul would have gotten 40% of the vote, but in the links you provide, he was only polling at 22% and actually got pretty close to what he polled for.

And what you fail to realize is that CNN came out with reports detailing a Santorum surge before the new polls came. Guess what, when they did do the polls, it had shown Santorum surge by more than 15 points. Furthermore, the polls were only of REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. They didn't include independents or crossover democrats, along with libertarians like polls should. You think Santorum's surge wasn't manufactured, Go through all the links again and see if all likely voters were counted, not just registered republicans. Also, I gave you links to prove that Santorum is a corporate backed shill. Your failure to read up on the information provided to you is your fault, not mine. Santorums has taken mountains of endorsement and voting cash in exchange for his voting record as a senator in Pennsylvania, which you can look up yourself. Now, I've backed myself up on numerous occasions. You can either take the information provided to you or you can ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganator

And what you fail to realize is that CNN came out with reports detailing a Santorum surge before the new polls came. Guess what, when they did do the polls, it had shown Santorum surge by more than 15 points. Furthermore, the polls were only of REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. They didn't include independents or crossover democrats, along with libertarians like polls should. You think Santorum's surge wasn't manufactured, Go through all the links again and see if all likely voters were counted, not just registered republicans. Also, I gave you links to prove that Santorum is a corporate backed shill. Your failure to read up on the information provided to you is your fault, not mine. Santorums has taken mountains of endorsement and voting cash in exchange for his voting record as a senator in Pennsylvania, which you can look up yourself. Now, I've backed myself up on numerous occasions. You can either take the information provided to you or you can ignore it.

---

Those are two different issues. When he was a senator, he took money from lobbyists, that much is a fact. That does not mean he is backed by corporations now, if he was he might have had a budget. The links that you provide show the networks reporting on the surge after it started, including the CNN article. Still the most flagrant logical fallacy in your argument is that santorum distracts voters away from Paul. This assumes the person who voted for santorum would vote for for Paul had he not surged. That is completly false. They are entirely different on just about every issue. The only things your links prove is that a surge occured and the news networks reported on it. The do not prove the corporations and media manufactured the surge in some convoluted plot to oust Paul and shoehorn romney into victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btbam

Those are two different issues. When he was a senator, he took money from lobbyists, that much is a fact. That does not mean he is backed by corporations now, if he was he might have had a budget. The links that you provide show the networks reporting on the surge after it started, including the CNN article. Still the most flagrant logical fallacy in your argument is that santorum distracts voters away from Paul. This assumes the person who voted for santorum would vote for for Paul had he not surged. That is completly false. They are entirely different on just about every issue. The only things your links prove is that a surge occured and the news networks reported on it. The do not prove the corporations and media manufactured the surge in some convoluted plot to oust Paul and shoehorn romney into victory.

---

The problem is, you haven't delved deeper. Have you noticed that just about every candidate has had their surges and in perfect timing? The media always has a flavor of week or month and they always fall just before major events such as primaries. Just look at how consistent Romney's poll numbers have been in comparison to everyone else with exception of Ron Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganator

The problem is, you haven't delved deeper. Have you noticed that just about every candidate has had their surges and in perfect timing? The media always has a flavor of week or month and they always fall just before major events such as primaries. Just look at how consistent Romney's poll numbers have been in comparison to everyone else with exception of Ron Paul.

---

Think you might have delved too deep. I really just see it as paranoia. That being said, i believe we are at an impass. Until one of us finds compelling evidence to convience the other, i move we drop the issue in favor of other discussions.