In the upcoming 2012 Michigan Primary, I encourage all people to vote for Ron Paul!
He is the best logical choice for the Republican Nomination.
1. He is a true conservative.
2. He is not a Mormon.
Attachment 11835
Printable View
In the upcoming 2012 Michigan Primary, I encourage all people to vote for Ron Paul!
He is the best logical choice for the Republican Nomination.
1. He is a true conservative.
2. He is not a Mormon.
Attachment 11835
No !!!!!!!
So you would vote for a the Moderate Mormon?
What's wrong with a moderate Mormon or a moderate Catholic or a moderate Muslim or a moderate Budhist or a moderate Atheist, etc?
If the Republicans want to win they surely will not vote for Ron Paul.
So the Republicans are to follow the who the Republican Establishment put before them without any scrutiny?
Even if the guy does not line up with the ideas of Ronald Reagan...
Ron Paul has come in second place on every primary. If Newt gets out of the way, Mr. Paul wins the nomination.
Republicans can do whatever they want.
Ron Paul was third in Iowa.
Did you see the numbers?
By all means my good man it was a three-way tie!
You sound like man pandering to the liberal media.
I'm a Paul supporter but I think that being Mormon is a little bit of a plus and don't see that as a negative. Paul and Romney are the only two Republican candidates getting the independent vote which is needed to win the general election.
Doing the math, we have four Republican candidates and Obama with a belligerent foreign policy. Meanwhile 70% of Americans and Ron Paul want to get out of Afghanistan. Ron Paul's numbers have over doubled in the last four years while Romney's have been stagnant and Obama's followers have lost some of their enthusiasm.
If 'conservative' is meant to mean neocon, then Ron Paul is not a conservative. However, he is more of a fiscal conservative than any of the neocons.
HistoryNotHisStory
Romney--- 30,015---25%
Santorum--30,007---25%
Paul---------26,219---21%
I took these numbers off of the Fox News Site just for you.
Still looks like Paul ran third.
Do you have different numbers than Fox News?
The Republican ballot in Michigan includes Obama. I say bunches of Dems switch over and vote for Obama!
Here is my opinion and prediction: Mitt Romney wins Republican nomination, Ron Paul runs as Indepenent and splits Republicans, Obama wins general election.
Ron Paul has a Snowballs chance in Hell of winning the Republican nomination, much less a general election.
Jump on my all you want....its an opinion and prediction. In November I will either be right or wrong.
People should reject this notion.
The name of the "game" should be to support one another for a better country. All we see people do these days, worse than ever, is to hold America hostage while they play partisan games. November 2012 suddenly we will see Congress start to do their job? Please fire all of them of all parties.
Yeah, let's vote for the guy who wants to bring back the gold standard, which would send inflation through the roof and send the global economy into a [[possibly irrecoverable) tailspin. We'll be living in caves before you know it, which it seems, is exactly the kind of society Dr. Paul wants.
"The name of the game is to win!!!"
I agree with that objective depending on what you mean by "win". In the current political climate "winning" for me would be dumping Obama and not having Paul replace him. And I think there's a reasonable possibility of that "winning" combination happening.
From a vetalalumni post found on the Republican candidate thread,
Ron Paul walks the walk. How has that hurt him? While your candidates keep printing money and telling us the economy is turning around and Social Security recipients received no cost of living increases for three years because the government said there was none, Ron Paul put his money where his mouth was. In the last ten years, gold has increased 5x in value as measured in dollars or the dollar buys only one-fifth as much gold. Take your pick. Had the government bought gold with its social security taxes instead of paying for wars and Wall Street bailouts, Social Security recipients could potentially be receiving five times as much as they are and enjoyed some of the prosperity Ron Paul has chosen.Quote:
“Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different,” said an astonished Journal, “it’s shockingly different.” Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these “short,” betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.
Inflation is when the government or Fed inflates the money supply so that more dollars are chasing roughly the same amount of goods and services resulting in higher prices which we call inflation. This is supply/demand 101. Big government types prefer fiat currency such as our Federal Reserve notes backed by nothing because the fiat money system allows politicians to buy votes with a hidden inflation tax. I realize the difficulty you would have financing unpopular wars and plumping up Wall Street if you couldn't print money. Self discipline is such a drag.
semi related and edited to add: Ron Paul returned over $148,000 of his congressional budget to the Treasury. Senator Rand Paul turned over $500, of his Senate office budget back to the Treasury. Ron Paul left the campaign trail to vote against SOPA in the House and Sen. Rand Paul said that he intends to filibuster PIPA in the Senate. Your revered former Senator Dodd is leading the charge for SOPA/PIPA. If it passes, say goodbye to this forum.
Never won one state' never will. He's like that crazy old uncle you keep at the bottom of the state.
You are probably referring to the $500,000 Rand Paul Refund to the U.S. Treasury.
Quote:
Sen. Rand Paul Refunds $500,000 of His Budget to U.S. Treasury
By Dave Bohon
Monday, 16 January 14:28
In a political culture based largely on hollow promises, it’s nice to know that there are some in Washington determined to follow through on their commitments. On January 12 U.S. Senator Rand Paul [[R-Ky.), who was elected in 2010 on his promise to do his part to reduce federal spending by shrinking big government, announced that his Senate office would return a whopping $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury — federal funds left over from his official operating budget.
The money represents around 16 percent of Paul’s Senate office’s official budget.
"I ran to stop the reckless spending,” said Paul at a press conference announcing the return. “And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork.”
What make’s Paul’s actions so refreshing is that he was able to record the half-million-dollar federal savings while pursuing one of the most energetic [[albeit conservative) legislative agendas of any freshman U.S. Senator. Focusing on his promise of fiscal responsibility, the Kentucky Senator offered spending cut amendments to nearly every relevant bill that came across his desk, while still representing his own constituency’s needs — working, for example, to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s assault on Kentucky’s crucial coal industry.
...
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...to-us-treasury
RE: GOod ol' Rand's pro-coal; bill
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/15/...own-by-senate/
"...Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and Tea Party favorite, proposed a bill to kill the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that the EPA finalized in July. The EPA rule is designed to slash air pollution from coal-fired power plants east of the Rocky Mountains. It would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent by 2014, from 2005 levels. It would cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent by 2014.Source: Clean Technica [[http://s.tt/13OJl)..."
Aaah, Paul represents good old unregulated capitalism that allows each of us to say FU to anyone else as we pursue our own interests.
maxx, The President just redirected Canadian oil to China. Our coal is also being diverted to China thanks to our President's policies. With our potential oil and coal supplies headed to China, our jobs go with them. This is ok because Nancy Pelosi explained that unemployment checks create jobs. If you live in Michigan, most of your electricity is generated from coal. My suggestion is for you to stop using electricity or you will be complicit with still employed Kentucky miners. Also, stop buying stuff from China because, so far, their pollution control is not up to our own level and China's pollution gets caught up in the jet stream and dumped on us as a byproduct of a poorly written bill. I'm not particularly against that EPA bill but it shouldn't have been passed without some import taxes or other compensation for Americans who lose jobs because of it.
There were two other Rand Paul issues mentioned.
1) He returned $500,000 [[$16%) of his Senate office budget to the Treasury which is better than Obama did with the federal budget.
2) He plans to filibuster sopa/pipa so we can continue to have forums like this. Sen Reid [[D) is still planning to go forward with this censorship bill being pushed by former Senator Dodd [[D).
How so? by saying no to a pipeline that was headed not to American refineries but to a PORT? That oil wasn't coming here, period. And how would your idol feel about the "eminent domain" being handed over to the pipeline company, essentially allowing them to demand land at fire-sale prices?
got back-up for that?Quote:
Our coal is also being diverted to China thanks to our President's policies.
Last I heard, Obama was threatening to veto it, granted that was a while ago. regardless, it would have exactly ZERO impact here.Quote:
2) He plans to filibuster sopa/pipa so we can continue to have forums like this. Sen Reid [[D) is still planning to go forward with this censorship bill being pushed by former Senator Dodd [[D).
And that crazy old man said SS was illegal.
The Prime Minister of Canada had indicated that if Keystone was interfered with, he would entertain running a pipeline to the west cost to export oil elsewhere.Quote:
rb336: How so? by saying no to a pipeline that was headed not to American refineries but to a PORT? That oil wasn't coming here, period. And how would your idol feel about the "eminent domain" being handed over to the pipeline company, essentially allowing them to demand land at fire-sale prices?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-on-china.html
No one likes to be subjected to eminent domain. However, the Constitution requires that market prices be paid for land so used. The expressways and utilities you and i use all required eminent domain condemnation at some point.
Sure, I'm used to providing for Democrats. Obama hasn't passed Cap and trade yet but the EPA is accomplishing some of the same goals.Quote:
got back-up for that?
Obama's stated intent:
A) “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.” - Obama 1/17/2008
"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” -Obama 2008
The result of Obama's policies regarding coal:
" The Associated Press estimated that as many as 32 power plants mostly fueled with coal would be closed and 36 would be in danger of closing."
Coal keeps being excavated though even though coal plants aren't being built demand for coal is rapidly rising in Asia.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...._coal_exportsQuote:
U.S. coal exports to China surged from 2009 to 2010, jumping from 387,000 tons [[January-September) to over 4 million tons the following year. Demand for US coking and steam coal also grew rapidly in Japan, India, and South Korea. Industry forecasters anticipate a “30-year super cycle in global coal markets.” U.S. companies hope to cash in on the market and dramatically increase coal exports, especially from the Powder River Basin [[PRB) of Wyoming and Montana through ports on the US west coast.
U.S. coal exports rose 49 percent during the first quarter of 2011 compared to the previous quarter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Solution? Sell coal to China. This a good deal for China because reduced demand for coal means China can purchase it cheaper[[supply-demand) and it also allows China to further undercut US manufacturing costs.
I hope he does. He also recently promised to veto the legislation to allow indefinite detentions of US citizens without a trial but then he didn't. We'll see.Quote:
Last I heard, Obama was threatening to veto it, granted that was a while ago. regardless, it would have exactly ZERO impact here.
Your gasoline is up 83% snice 2009 so good luck.
Ola, American mining interests sending coal to Asia is capitalism, not policy. You want what China has in terms of coal plants? fine. maybe you can live with choking clouds of smoke, dioxin and mercury laden fish, trees and agricultural lands poisoned by acid rain, etc., I don't want to. Don't think most Americans would want to.
As far as Keystone goes, like I said, that pipeline was running to a port, for the oil to be sent elsewhere -- including asia -- regardless. Let's see Canada build a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies. The trip through the US was a matter of expediency. The jobs cited for the creation of the pipeline are absurd in many ways - first, TransCanada says there will only be around 6000 temporary jobs for the construction, and a few hundred permanent jobs. Right now, Canadian oil is largely refined in the Midwest for US usage. after the pipeline, it will be either shipped as crude OR refined in free-trade zones along the coast -- for EXPORT.
Let's not forget that under Obama, the US reliance on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in decades.
It was both policy and capitalism. I don't want "what China has in terms of coal plants" and didn't imply that I did. My point was that since coal use is being discouraged in the US, more of it is being burned in China; a fact you wanted me to prove. The downside of the EPA policy then is that more coal will be burned where it will put even more pollution into the sky and make it more advantageous to manufacture things in China where there aren't as many pollution rules. Since the federal government controls international commerce, it is policy. If we had socialism instead of Capitalism, perhaps there wouldn't be as much coal to sell and mining conditions would be like China's.Quote:
rb336; Ola, American mining interests sending coal to Asia is capitalism, not policy. You want what China has in terms of coal plants? fine. maybe you can live with choking clouds of smoke, dioxin and mercury laden fish, trees and agricultural lands poisoned by acid rain, etc., I don't want to. Don't think most Americans would want to.
Canada is able to run a pipeline across the Rockies along existing rail lines or the highway to Prince Rupert for instance where there is already a port. If I were Canadian, it would be a good idea to diversify customer base so the US and China would bid each other up in price.Quote:
As far as Keystone goes, like I said, that pipeline was running to a port, for the oil to be sent elsewhere -- including asia -- regardless. Let's see Canada build a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies. The trip through the US was a matter of expediency. The jobs cited for the creation of the pipeline are absurd in many ways - first, TransCanada says there will only be around 6000 temporary jobs for the construction, and a few hundred permanent jobs. Right now, Canadian oil is largely refined in the Midwest for US usage. after the pipeline, it will be either shipped as crude OR refined in free-trade zones along the coast -- for EXPORT.
Let's not forget that under Obama, the US reliance on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in decades.
I'm not necessarily even for the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know why a refinery couldn't be built in MN or ND instead of hauling it to Texas but no one has offered that option. If some of the oil was destined for export, we won't have to bother with the 6,000 temporary and permanent US jobs if Canadians are willing to provide jobs for Canadians instead. We won't have to bother using the oil Canada sends to China either. There are always other places like Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Mid-east where oil can be scored. Also Chinese supertankers can run it from e.g. Prince Rupert to Los Angeles if Chinese authorities are so disposed. The Bush/Obama recession has probably reduced our fuel consumption thereby reducing consumption.
nope, wanted you to prove that policy was sending our energy to china. Thing is, the policies to which you might refer are all related to keeping our air and water clean and our fish edible.
The fact is, there are around 400 MORE coal-fired power plants in the US today than there were 10 years ago, and 2010 was the largest build year for coal plants since 1985
[[http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf pg 10)
Have you been on the rail lines across the Canadian Rockies? some of them barely seem to have room for the train. There is a reason they want to cut through the US, and only part of it is that the route to PR cuts through a lot of protected land -- both environmentally and under Native American control. It would be a FAR shorter route. Ask yourself why they didn't just go that way to begin with. Prince Rupert is also not a foreign trade zone, at least not yet, and there is considerable resistance to making it one.Quote:
Canada is able to run a pipeline across the Rockies along existing rail lines or the highway to Prince Rupert for instance where there is already a port. If I were Canadian, it would be a good idea to diversify customer base so the US and China would bid each other up in price.
I'm not necessarily even for the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know why a refinery couldn't be built in MN or ND instead of hauling it to Texas but no one has offered that option. If some of the oil was destined for export, we won't have to bother with the 6,000 temporary and permanent US jobs if Canadians are willing to provide jobs for Canadians instead
No, My point was not to "prove that policy was sending our energy to china". My point was that coal was being shipped to China in increasing amounts as US policy became more hostile to the use of coal. [[Probable) unintended consequences of a policy are not the same as policy intent. As I mentioned before, estimates are that 33-36 US coal plants will be taken offline due to recent EPA policies. What you asked for before was evidence that more coal was being shipped to China not whether any new coal plants were being built. I didn't see anything in your link equating the energy produced by a couple of new plants compared with energy production expected to be lost by the 33-36 old plants. The last panel noted that from 12/10-7/11 175MW of new coal energy capacity was being announced and 430MW had been cancelled. It, of course, did not speculate as to why 430MW had been cancelled. Figure 10, by the way, compares the minuscule number of US coal plant startups with the number of new Chinese startups.Quote:
rb336: nope, wanted you to prove that policy was sending our energy to china. Thing is, the policies to which you might refer are all related to keeping our air and water clean and our fish edible.
The fact is, there are around 400 MORE coal-fired power plants in the US today than there were 10 years ago, and 2010 was the largest build year for coal plants since 1985
[[http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf pg 10)
Yes, I once took Canadian Pacific across Canada from the Soo to Vancouver. We went through the city of Banff. I don't think there is any need to run a line all the way across the southern Canadian Rockies though when Prince Rupert is so much closer and the E-W portion is much shorter and already accommodates the Canadian National and a highway. If they built a railroad through there, why do you suspect they are incapable of building a parallel pipeline. I suspects that Canada is capable and China has motive enough to pitch in, I suspect, to gain control of Canadian resources and deprive us of them.Quote:
Have you been on the rail lines across the Canadian Rockies? some of them barely seem to have room for the train. There is a reason they want to cut through the US, and only part of it is that the route to PR cuts through a lot of protected land -- both environmentally and under Native American control. It would be a FAR shorter route. Ask yourself why they didn't just go that way to begin with. Prince Rupert is also not a foreign trade zone, at least not yet, and there is considerable resistance to making it one.
A few years ago, I was following pipelines, oilfields , and utilities. Not to be too cynical but Native Americans often settled for jobs and cash when their sacred lands were violated with pipelines. I doubt that the 12,000 residents of Prince Rupert would be able to stop the Canada, China, and big money from doing what they want; even if the residents didn't want the jobs and opportunities. But that's speculation and British Columbia does prevent new hydroelectric projects.
re: tar sand oil
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07...pagewanted=all
"...Pipelines proposed to Canada's West Coast have run into challenges from First Nations leaders, in particular. More than 70 First Nations with aboriginal rights have spoken out against the project with concerns about oil spills and disruption of wildlife, with some pledging civil disobedience. Compared to Native Americans in the United States, First Nations in Canada can have significant influence over land-use decisions and blocking projects, Droitsch said. ..."
Thanks Maxx. I was looking for that article
From the Detroit Connections --> Paging Gazhekwe thread, here is a post [[#832) with some pertinent insight.
John Wayne anyone here ever beenon a reservation. Try Martin S.D in the middle of rosebud & pineridge. A pipeline is and improvement not a eyesore. They have to move 10 or 12 scrap cars around each house. they don't worry about utility 75% don't have them. So bring it on.
I will vote for whoever the Republicans have running against Obama, except Paul. He is a joke, and disgrace, and he is NOT a conservative or someone that I would want with the say so in defending the USA. If he wins, which he won't, I will vote for Obama. I cringe thinking that....
How is Ron Paul not a conservative?
Interesting backdrop....
http://newsone.com/files/2012/01/Screenshot.png
Politically, it is dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag. Georgia, until 2001, and three other Southern states have reminders of the confederate flag in their state flags. A main point Paul made in that speech was that 11 other countries had gotten rid of their own slavery essentially by buying the slaves from slaveholders and setting them free thus averting costlier civil wars and things like Sherman's march to the sea in which property owners were not compensated as far as I know.
I took a picture of my wife in front of Daughters of the Confederacy statue in Moultrie, Georgia the discovery of which was kind of a surprise to me a Northerner. Now I have proof that she is a neo-confederate I guess.
http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=460&h=276
I suppose the same logic could extend to every politician who stands in front of Israeli flags at an AIPAC fundraiser in NY City. There are similar photos of Republicans too. There may also be US flags on any of these stages but showing them would ruin the fun and innuendos.
With all the confliciting commercials and conflicting slanted media reporting, American voters need to fulfill their citizenship responsibilities by picking their candidates based on the summaries of the bills they have sponsored rather than vaugue soundbites they make for the cameras. Look at issue polls results and then look at legislation and ask yourself why if most the politicians claim to support what most of the people want, why so few of them vote for, let alone sponsor bills that could make it happen. Look below at the bills that Ron Paul has sponsored and decide how many of them you really oppose. If the corporate media thinks he has crazy ideas and you agree with the bills he has sponsored, what do you think the corporate media really thinks of your ideas? What makes you think the billionaire owners at Fox or NBC really have your best interests in mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Tenure_2
The fact that Paul's an outsider who's ideas don't fit well with other established Republicans is exactly why everyone, conservative, liberal, or independant, should take a short break from their busy TV watching schedule on Feb 28th and vote for him. Don't let the media talk you into staying home or voting for someone else you don't really want because they claim that Ron Paul can't win. That's want they want. You really think they could care less that there could be a President that isn't influenced by Fox's warchest or NBC Universal's warchest?
If you support Paul's ideas but think he can't win because Romney already has it in the bag, then make the effort to vote for Paul just to make Romney less smug and more willing to incorporate the views of moderates. If you think too many politicians are too hypocritical by saying one thing and voting another, then make them see that hurts their re-election chances by voting for the guy who's actions support his words. If you think the mainstream Republican party has been directed down the wrong path, then help Paul fulfill the third party role of putting new ideas into the party. This is our time to stand against politics as usual. Its our time to fight the good fight rather than call it a lost cause and play dead.
If we stand together to fight these big business, big government republicrats, we may suprise you and take back control of our government. If not, at least you know you stood up for your ideas.
Only two points I agree with Paul.
A) Legalize pot
B) He's not a warmonger like the rest of the Neo-con candidates.
Name the top three you disagree and we'll see if his record supports the opposition.
Here is video of this rare occassion in which Ron Paul was "... dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag".
http://youtu.be/ZAIEiqNO4Dc
Technically, he wants each state to determine it's own marijuana policy as they already determine alcohol sales. Paul has stood up for California's law allowing medical marijuana and opposed Bush and Obama attempts to override it.
Unlike all the other candidates including Obama, Paul wants to end corporate subsidies and bailouts, repeal the Patriot Act, end the executions of Americans abroad, close Guantanamo, reduce government snooping on regular Americans, close the bankster owned Federal Reserve, end federal involvement in most matters of marriage and abortion regulation, and end the 'war on drugs', let Americans decide if they want to put raw milk or vitamins into their bodies, bring our troop home from the unconstitutional and undeclared wars as well as places like Europe, Japan, and Korea, allow cost cutting innovations and competition in medical delivery, and end the dictatorial mis-use of executive orders. He just took a day off the campaign trail to vote against SOPA if necessary. He also rallied against provisions in NDAA that allow Americans to be incarcerated for indefinite periods without a trial.
Surely, you would also approve of his support for some of the above things. If you voted in the states, you would have the choice of four warmongers and Ron Paul. The rest, including Obama, keep prodding Iran hoping such meddling won't start WWIII. Since you are from Holland you might have other considerations such as what happens if Paul pulled US troops from Europe and Europe had to defend itself. Also, Paul is against the Fed having bailed out European banks.
Whitehouse, edited to add this very semi-related story of a Dutch girl in conflict with the nanny state in Holland. It looks like she is bailing.-Schoolgirl sailor triumphs after battle with authorities
Why would anyone want a Nanny State?
http://realrepubs.com/video/13
Why would anyone want to have a gov. that offers a social safety net when things were soooo great during the Gilded Age here and in Dickens's England?
Ron paul represents america!!
Vote for ron paul for the michigan republican nomination!
Assuming Paul runs independent and helps the incumbent win re-election in 2012, thereby he could also help Randal Howard Paul's chances in 2016. The father passes the torch, retires, and the legacy lives on.
In 2012, if Ron Paul does not run as independent, do you believe the incumbent still wins?
I agree.
The media and establishment wants Mitt Romney to win the nomination. Mitt Romney barely won New Hampshire, yet the media is portraying him as the next nominee.
Ron Paul believes in the US Constitution and personal freedoms and liberty.
Be a patriot and VOTE FOR RON PAUL FOR THE MICHIGAN NOMINATION.
The MI-GOP is so bereft of ideas they actually ripped off Obama's logo:
Attachment 11886
This pic is quite telling.
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/.../committee.jpg
:)
I'm not sure I understand what Ron Paul's supporters, here and elsewhere on the Internet, are hoping to accomplish by spamming his name everywhere. Back in '08 when nobody had heard of him yet, it still sort of made sense, but at this point I feel like pretty much everybody knows who he is, and pretty much everybody either loves him or hates him. At some point, folks are gonna start having some serious Paul fatigue, which I don't imagine would help him in an election [[not that he's running to win anyway, I guess).
antongast, It's simple. In the three primaries held so far, Ron Paul's numbers have doubled or tripled since 2008. In S. Carolina, Paul had 3.7% in 2008 and I think 14% in 2012. in IA and NH, Paul won the most votes of any candidate up to age 39 and in SC up to age 29. In 2008, his supporters were largely computer and home schooler types. This time around, the percentage of women in nearer to that of men so the message is expanding. I doubt that Paul will win in 2012. However, in two years and four years, the energy will add some more libertarian elected representatives. In 2016, I expect that the more politically savvy Rand Paul will pick up the pieces of the movement and has a chance of becoming president as older neocons are replaced with younger constitutional libertarians in the Republican party. So maybe the answer to your question is the presidency in 2016.
more related to your question at CBS;Ron Paul gears up for the long haul
Oladub- how can Paul not run in florida and be considered a serious candidate. Its looks like he just doesn't have enough money to run a serious campaign. To only run in states that have caucuses. Looks like he should just try and set up things for his son in 2016 and beyond
I think you may be misunderstanding my question. I totally get why someone would stump for a candidate they like, I've done it myself. What I don't get is why Paul supporters are so obsessive about throwing his name around in online spaces that are already Paul-saturated, and why they treat Paul-skeptics or detractors as people whose only problem is that they haven't yet heard enough about Ron Paul to become fanatically devoted to him. The only parallel I've seen is with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert me, and even they tend to lay off once I clearly express my disinterest in joining their respective religions. Paul supporters, by contrast, typically keep trying to convince me that I don't know my own political beliefs, and that if I only understood the issues better I'd be a conservative libertarian just like them, and after trying and failing to convince me a few times they conclude that I must be a rabid supporter of the drug war, since they can't possibly conceive of any other reason for continuing to dislike Ron Paul after having been thoroughly familiarized with his positions. This is, to put it mildly, really fucking annoying.
Rb, Maybe you weren’t patient enough. Eventually Trevor explains why we should vote for Obama again. His arguments remind me of some of the folks here as he lays out liberal thinking. I included the neo-con arguments also because neo-cons and liberals have much in common with regard to foreign policies.
_____
Firstandten, re-read my post #66 and the link with it. A political base is being built; hopefully a takeover of the Republican Party. You are correct that Ron Paul is not in the same league as Obama or Romney with respect to donations from Goldman-Sachs or Gingrich with $10M, so far, from Mr. Adelson of the Vegas Sands and China Sands fortune. Ron Paul only tends to bring in about $2M/month mostly in small donations. He has to make the most of what he has although he has more fervent on the street supporters holding signs for free. On the other hand, the press goes from ignoring him to calling him every sort of name for two weeks to ignoring him again.
_____
Antongast, Paul supporters are more likely to be young, INTJ personality types, and are less likely to be status quo. I would define the 2012 Ron Paul supporters to be, on average, a bit more mainstream. His campaign is more people driven and less corporate money driven. If we are to get the message out, we have to do it ourselves. Ron Paul supporters actually do believe that the result of wars, deficits, and the loss of civil liberties will not be benign. If we don't try to turn the tide, who will? Obama, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney? :) I know what you mean. When I saw McCain in person, I didn’t think he was very bright. When I saw Obama on the Oprah show, I was baffled at the audience's positive reaction to his delivered clichés; like they had lobotomies or overdosed on blue Matrix pills. [[Note: I think Oprah is very sharp but her audience is um…) From my perspective, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are politically more like Obama than Paul. We are talking about a different paradigm. When people have something to be enthused about, they act like it. Ron Paul is so far from the corporatist warmongers that there is for some sense of conversion when it all starts to fit together and make sense like going from blue pills to nibbling on the red ones.
I found this thread. Maybe it will partly answer your question. I think that you will find some notes of joy and sometimes it’s just someone rationally saying,”that makes sense”.
How did YOU discover Ron Paul?
I'm "ilk"? Somebody needs their coffee this morning. Paul Krugman might have said the same things better but if you had just watched the part from about 4:20 to 5:43, Trevor laid out the case for reelecting President Obama good enough that I think it will restore a measure of hope among some, I won't name names, who find it depressing dealing with ongoing disappointments.
Who needs coffee? I wrote "your," not "you're"
Here is what Krugman thinks of Obama:Quote:
Paul Krugman might have said the same things better but if you had just watched the part from about 4:20 to 5:43, Trevor laid out the case for reelecting President Obama good enough that I think it will restore a measure of hope among some, I won't name names, who find it depressing dealing with ongoing disappointments.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...a-romney-jobs/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ing-non-surge/
Ron Paul supporters are INTJ types? Especially the N part.
N – Intuition preferred to sensing: INTJs tend to be more abstract than concrete. They focus their attention on the big picture rather than the details and on future possibilities rather than immediate realities.[9]wiki
Details like pollution, nuclear waste, clean air and water, food inspection, etc....
As a reminder people, the michigan primary is in a few days!
Vote for ron paul!
A true american.
Big Government forcing immoral property owners to involuntarily give up their prized revenue generating property investments?
Context matters. If the statue in the background of the photograph was inadvertent, the context would disprove affinity with the Lost Cause.
What was the context of this photograph?
I didn't say that being a Mormon was 'helpful'. I was responding to a snipe at Mormons. However, the Mormons I've personally known are hard workers, take care of their bodies, take care of each other, take responsibility for their families, keep off the dole, and tend to be traveled and fairly well educated. I'm sure Mormons have their share of bad eggs too except I haven't run into that many. Not a lot of bad habits among them from what I can see. Maybe if they are helpful it is as taxpayers contributing to the general welfare for the rest of us with poorer habits and more decadent cultures.
I've also heard that in Utah, Mormons are clannish and sometimes treat non-Mormons as outsiders. Maybe that is a good reason not to move to Utah. I'm not planning on becoming a Mormon or moving to Utah.
Once, I took a Greyhound from San Francisco to Detroit. I won a significant jackpot of nickels in Reno at a bus stop. I almost missed the bus but woke up at about 6am in Salt Lake City for a breakfast stop and heard the the M.T. choir practicing although I wasn't allowed into that building. Clear notes in clear air. There was something pristine, like diamonds, in the air, music and cathedral architecture of that place that morning. It was an interesting contrast to San Francisco and Reno. Such is our country.
One other note; Mormons offer useful genealogical services for almost free to non-Mormons. I appreciate that.
I don't think that being Mormon is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate.
edited to add since this is a Ron paul thread [[warning: this is not from an rb approved source) :
Ronverts: Breaking Up with Obama, Rebounding with Ron Paul
Is this a PC test?
I don't think we have had anything but nominally religious presidents since Carter. Religion isn't a requirement and doesn't seem to correlate one way or another with a president's success. For all I know, we've had atheist presidents. I don't know if they make appearances at church because they are sincerely religious or they are trying to hit the right political notes.
Not to duck a question but it depends mostly on the individual. I could even vote for a Muslim president but being Muslim wouldn't generally be a plus. If you had asked me the question differently, "If you knew nothing about four candidates except that they were Mormon, Buddhist, atheist, and Muslim, in which order would you choose them? I would choose them in that order because of personal prejudices based on people, things I've observed, and what I think about things I've read. However, I would vote for a Muslim libertarian over Romney in the blink of an eye. "Liberty is what brings people together" as Ron Paul would say. How about you? In what order would you vote for a Morman, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a Muslim if that was all you knew about them and had to choose?
Bill Maher mentioned recently that Mitt Romney had his late father-in-law, a secularist, baptised about 14 months after his death. Maher quipped that they couldn't do it sooner because they had to wait for him to stop spinning in his grave. Mormons cling to one verse from the Bible that mentions people baptising the dead. Maher did an unbaptising ceremony for him.
There is something very arrogant and controlling about a group that thinks they can change a person's eternity
There is also something very sadistic about the belief in a hell.
I couldn't resist Googling that.
New Rule: Atheism is not a religion! Unbaptizes Mitt Romney's Dead Father-In-Law!
It was a response to rb's question " Do you think that being a Muslim, Atheist, or Buddhist is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate?" It sounded like something from a PC grand inquisitor but I played around with it as best I could. There wasn't other information to go along with that question either. You misquoted me though. The question was, " "If you knew nothing about four candidates except that they were Mormon, Buddhist, atheist, and Muslim, in which order would you choose them?"
I was in a voting booth with an aunt when I was a child in Detroit. She had a list the UAW recommended and voted for the UAW slate. She had a system for voting for other candidates she knew nothing about based on what ethnic group she thought their name was. Belgian named trumped. So I am comfortable with the question because in the real world that is often how things are done. For instance, Samuel Jackson was just quoted as saying, ""I voted for Barack because he was black. Cause that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them," " See? Not much different than my Aunt.
So there you have it. You can answer either rb's question, my question, both, or retain your purity.
edited to add: rb is correct about one thing, see next post, "It was a response to rb's question" should read "It was a response to vetalalumni's question"
first, that was vetalumni's question. second, it was a question in response to YOUR comment. Third, your question is absolutely absurd since the original question didn't limit knowledge of the candidate to his/her religion. Fourth, there are a great number of people, mostly in the republican party, who WOULD think twice, or three times, before voting for a Mormon, which makes the original question valid.
Santorum support is growing in Michigan. It would be startling if he were able to win Livingston County.
A snowball's chance in hell, but what the hell. Romney won, Gingrich won, Santorum won and now Paul?
Only outcome that is realistic:
Obama wins. So everybody wins. He's the only one not a Republican in this race.
The primary is just about which Republican will oppose Obama. It would make sense for independents and even Democrats who oppose our foreign policy and encroaching police state to at least support Paul in the primary. If Paul doesn't win, and he probably won't, at least he will have more say in the Republican platform at the expense of neocons.
There are two outcomes:
A)More deficits, more debt, more attacks on personal privacy and the Constitution, extending the Patriot Act, TSA pat downs for grandmothers, badgering Iran [[risking WWIII), internet controls, continuing middle east wars, troops stationed all over the world, one size fits all federal education policy, corporate cronyism
B)Reduce the deficit by $1T in year one, restoration of personal privacy, restoration of the fourth amendment, ending the Patriot Act, ending the war on drugs, setting aside money to pay for social security, bringing the troops home, not aggravating Iran, internet privacy and freedom, state run education, ending corporate subsidies, liberty
A) Take your choice: Romney, Gingrich, Obama, Santorum
B) Ron Paul
The choice couldn't be clearer.
Ron Paul on the Issues:Honest Money, Budget, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Immigration, Audit the Fed, End the Fed, Gold Standard, Taxes, Israel,Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Civil Liberties, Education,Abortion, Global Warming, War on Drugs, TSA, National ID
Paulites crack me up
Paulites crack me up
He's a true conservative!??! I just had a great laugh at that one!
The time is here!
VOTE FOR RON PAUL FOR THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SDQyKkp5zY