So we're back to this again, huh?
Interesting video investigating Ron Pauls newsletters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f1dhyuZdY9c
Thought you folks might like this
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-ron-paul-20120109,0,2196152.story
@BB
Certainly interesting, although no where near as conclusive as the youtube poster believes.
(the person who ran the story in the video above, excluding Ron Paul from the poll results)
Here's a gem from USA Today:
But perhaps Paul's strangest obsession — particularly in a presidential election expected to revolve around management of the U.S. economy — has to do with the Federal Reserve, the central bank created in 1913. Paul blames the Fed for the housing collapse and for debasing the value of the dollar. In each Congress since 1999, he has introduced legislation (without finding a single co-sponsor) to abolish the Fed. Instead, he'd leave economic decision-making to Congress. Never mind that without the Fed's rapid actions in the 2008 fiancial crisis, the nation would now be in a depression.
Paul blames the Fed for the housing collapse and for debasing the value of the dollar. In each Congress since 1999, he has introduced legislation (without finding a single co-sponsor) to abolish the Fed. Instead, he'd leave economic decision-making to Congress. Never mind that without the Fed's rapid actions in the 2008 fiancial crisis, the nation would now be in a depression.
On the plus side, the comments are getting better. It seems like there are more and newer, younger people who understand ATBC and defend RP in comments sections of these websites.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I love it. The desperation is getting even more comical. Wead is so damn good at these TV interviews they have no way to land any of the typical anti-Paul punches...so they have to resort to stuff like this. He throws in the gem right at the end the very end as a last ditch effort...
I agree a lot with that assessment, John. Wead is great at TV interviews and doesn't let them get in their typical mischaracterizations.
How good is RP's support in the South
Despite doing well in Iowa and NH, I have no idea what his numbers are down here (besides Florida which last I checked was abysmal), and that frankly makes me worried.
Okay I officially think MSNBC sees Paul as a serious threat to Obama.
I heard O'Reilly and Dick Morris ruminating about where Paul's supporters might go if he were to drop out and they both figured that Paul will be in it for the distance. Obviously though these guys are so out of touch since Paul's supporters aren't going anywhere. It's Paul or nobody-in-the-field for that 16%.
That sounded like a back-handed statement. You seriously think Paul only has 16% support?
John James: Okay I officially think MSNBC sees Paul as a serious threat to Obama.
Choice moment when she said "I don't think they're really concerned about his position on ending the federal reserve." Nice try lady.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
You seriously think Paul only has 16% support?
You seriously think he even has that much?
He's at 13% nationally, and though that has been pretty constant, I doubt it's all "core" libertarians. Maybe 4% are.
Wheylous: You seriously think he even has that much? He's at 13% nationally, and though that has been pretty constant, I doubt it's all "core" libertarians. Maybe 4% are.
I don't know what being "core libertarian" has anything to do with being a Ron Paul supporter, but I guess we'll see. You're looking at the results of <1000 people to determine nationwide opinion, and you're looking at them now, in the current field.
Granted Iowa and New Hampshire aren't exactly representations of the whole country either, but he was over 20% of actual voters (or perhaps I should say tallied votes) in those areas...and the whole thing about Paul is, once someone's in, they're in. And in general, once they hear the message, they're in. Hell, even a simple brochure is enough to convert people.
So if we're talking about the total percentage of voters who would vote for Paul if he were to run 3rd party, that's a tough call...but there's polls for that too.
And that was a month ago...before any primaries. The more people hear from Ron Paul, the better he does. This is the largest part of the reason I'm becoming more and more convinced Paul is the only one who can beat Obama.
Seriously, just think about it. Plasticman Mitt Romney in presidential debates against President Barack Obama. I'm sorry, I don't care how "electable" you think he is or how "presidential" he looks. He wouldn't bring any Democrats, and Independents would have a really hard time. And Obama would chew him up in debates. Really, just picture it. And this is after a billion dollars in advertising takes the largest telescope in the world, and reverses the lenses to shine the sun's light down through the largest microscope in the world, onto Willard "Mitt" Romney's slick smiley, khaki-wearing, political nepotist, flip-flopping, literally say anything to get elected life.
I don't care how bad things are, people will be scared enough to stick with Obama because if nothing else "at least we know what we're getting". If local school districts can make regular people afraid of vouchers, imagine what Barack Obama and the Democrats could do with a billion dollars and an opponant like Mitt Romney.
Why do you think he's been spending so much time attacking Obama throughout this whole process? Yes, part of it is good strategy because he's always had decent numbers compared to his competitors and hasn't needed to engage them (much). But another large part of it is because he knows he has an uphill battle in differentiating himself from Obama. That's all he ever talks about is "this president has been a failure"...."I will repeal Obamacare". "President Obama hasn't done anything right. I know the private sector. I know how to create jobs. Did I mention I would repeal Obamacare?"
He knows good and well in the world of politics, he may as well be the brainchild of Obamacare. Not only did Obama say he looked to Romney's plan, but Romney even said he was happy to hear it. Yes, there are a ton of people who are all about "anyone but Obama". But there's plenty of Democrats out there who are still "anyone but the Republicans". And there are Independents who, without Ron Paul, could go either way.
Now picture presidential debates, Barack Obama versus Ron Paul. It's like two different playing fields. Obama's rhetoric would not be able to stand up to Paul's straight talk. You get the Democrat up there trying to defend statism and the last four years, and then you have Ron Paul...with a bulletproof voting record, and a willingness to talk in actual specifics. No one, not even Democrats doubt he would end the wars and bring the troops home. And if you recall, Obama was partially elected as the "peace" candidate. He was the guy "opposed from the start." (Note that second video is on his official 2008 campaign channel). He was "the transparent government" candidate. He was the "eliminate wasteful programs" and "cut deficit" candidate.
He has no leg to stand on. I personally would get such pleasure out of watching Paul/Obama debates. Paul would take all the Independents, and even some Democrats. And remember...virtually all the Republicans are "anyone but Obama". That's their number one priority. That means, in Obama vs. Paul, they're all voting for Paul.
That should be enough right there. Paul is the GOP nominee, all Republicans vote for Paul. Automatically. But then you throw in all his supporters outside the Republican Party, and the people who otherwise wouldn't bother voting.
I'm telling you. I can't say Romney would lose for sure...because things will be pretty bad, and there will be a lot of folks looking for "change" again...but I wouldn't be making any bets on that race I can tell you for sure. Paul vs. Obama...I don't even think there's a question. A second President Ronald, who ran on conservative principles, who everyone said was too old and unelectable. He's already polling within the margin of error of defeating Obama.
John, I was only thinking national figures in Republican primaries. RealClearPolitics has him at 13 and I think that's a low-ball estimate.
Whether voters would go for Paul against Obama is certainly another matter. But for whatever reason, Republicans prefer Romney and Gingrich. Those two were on the TV ruminating about where Paul's support could go, and it probably wouldn't go anywhere within the Republicans.
Eric080: John, I was only thinking national figures in Republican primaries. RealClearPolitics has him at 13 and I think that's a low-ball estimate. Whether voters would go for Paul against Obama is certainly another matter.
Whether voters would go for Paul against Obama is certainly another matter.
And my point is national polls taken in January really don't mean a damn thing.
But for whatever reason, Republicans prefer Romney and Gingrich.
The perception is that they are the only "electible" ones.
They do decide who drops out early and to an extent to whom his supporters go.
Wheylous:They do decide who drops out early and to an extent to whom his supporters go.
Excuse me. They don't mean a damn thing to what we're talking about.
I love this. The lady makes it a point to set him straight, and he still keeps on with the same language. Notice how he never admits Ron Paul did the best. Listen to all the different ways he avoids it. It's actually kind of fun.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1389315579001/how-would-president-ron-paul-respond-to-iran/?intcmp=sem_outloud
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/libertarian-illusions_b_1207878.html
Lol, how many smear pieces have there been written with "illusion" or some other variant in the title?
Has anybody here been cataloguing these smear pieces? There have to have been over 50 smear editorials published since 2007...
Yeah that's kind of what this thread is supposed to serve as.
It makes even more sense...this asshole is married to the infamous "perfect face for radio".
Over 900 Dead People Voted in the SC Primary
No wonder Dr. Paul came in last.
That totally accounts for the 170,000 votes he didn't get.
That's just the number the Attorney General has brought up so far. It's not to illustrate that Ron Paul would have necessarily won had this particular instance not occurred...it's to show how easy it is to commit vote fraud and get away with it. Seriously, close to a thousand votes discovered already? Who the hell knows what else could have been done if they can't even prevent votes being cast in the name of dead people?
I'm afraid the report of 900 dead voters presages the announcment that the administration has set up a federal anti-zombie agency.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Proof of voter fraud in another certain state.
MSM is the enemy.
This kind of sucks, since they have published some good stuff in the past, but it now appears just about anyone can write for this site, and they'll publish just about anything.
Case in point: An entire article about a thread on RonPaulForums
Ron Paul Supporters - 'Florida Primary Was Rigged'
Seriously just read that author's bio. It basically says he's an idiot country bumpkin with no education and a PeoplePC email address (which, that alone says volumes.) He can't even put his damn banjo down for the two seconds it takes to snap his byline photo.
This really made me sick. You know what's coming from the first sentence. Literally the first statement when the show begins. You can't miss it. This complete idiot just had to make sure you were told. They're trying so damn hard it's pathetic.
And notice how the entire interview is this idiot thinking he's trapped Paul into a corner with his questions, expecting to have Paul exposed for the "uncaring loon" the establishment wants everyone to believe he is, and Paul of course responds with the rational appropriate libertarian response which completely destroys the idiot's worldview, so the idiot has to cut him off almost immediately after he asks his question.
Notice the only time Paul is actually able to speak for more than half a sentence is when the subject gets on abortion. I don't care to actually bust out the stopwatch, but you don't even need one to recognize not only how much longer Paul is allowed to speak, but also how there is considerably more time devoted to the subject than any one other topic the entire show. I'll you one guess as to why that is. (Hint: Piers Morgan is Catholic.)
Ron Paul on "Piers Morgan Tonight"
John James: This really made me sick.
This really made me sick.
I thought it was ok, actually.
z1235:I thought it was ok, actually.
You mean you thought it was a perfectly reasonable, courteous interview conducted with professionalism and no recognizable bias? ...or just that the fact that it was the exact opposite of that didn't bother you that much?
John James: You mean you thought it was a perfectly reasonable, courteous interview conducted with professionalism and no recognizable bias? ...or just that the fact that it was the exact opposite of that didn't bother you that much?
I didn't say it was "perfectly" anything. It wasn't nearly as bad as your comments prepared me to expect. The Brit was, well a Brit -- it seems debates are allowed to get more adversarial over there without anyone taking things too personally. I could also see how one would try to make his programs look more spicy and/or controversial by making the timing and content of his questions seem more "aggressive". RP was great at answering the questions, he quickly adapted to the tenor of the exchange by using "let me finish" more as the interview progressed, and most of his message did come through to the ones willing to hear it.
I never expected that RP would be exclusively interviewed by libertarians, or by people even sympathetic to the philosophy, so I set my bar for expectations lower, accordingly.
z1235:I set my bar for expectations lower, accordingly.
Like I said.
In pre-primary Florida.
Reaches a pathetic point.