Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

But yeah, if media grabs hold of his ideas and he grows popular enough to win election I can definitely see the failed expectations thing happening.

I would be surprised if Ron Paul made any promises at all as is typical of candidates. One thing people don't like is the "vagueness" of how all this stuff works, particularly people who don't follow it closely. Ron is surprisingly humble and cautious compared to pretty much all other politicians, and I expect him to campaign on his ideals as usual instead of promises he knows will probably not come to light. I think the truthfulness of the things he's said in the past and his "predictions" give him plenty of credibility to be a trustworthy candidate, besides his consistency which can't even be matched on the short-term by other politicians.

If any of these expectations to get stuck in the heads of people you can bet they'll have been driven home by media misinterpretation and speculation.

 

[Joey D]

The point I was attempting to make, and likely failed to do, is that tea party support has not historically been shown to turn off moderates. The only candidates where the tea party relationship hurt them in 2010 were the ones that acted like the loonier or more racist members. Candidates that presented things from a sensible point of view and avoided birther discussions and other wild conspiracy ideas, but also had tea party support, did well and/or won.

Gotcha, I guess that makes sense. And I would rather have a candidate that is supported by the tea party but doesn't conform to their stupidity, that way the tea party movement could shut up and the leader wouldn't be terrible.

Fortunately his base supporters are not like that, for the most part, and think of it more as step 1 in heading in the right direction. But yeah, if media grabs hold of his ideas and he grows popular enough to win election I can definitely see the failed expectations thing happening.

Same thing happened with Obama, the younger generation grab a hold of his ideas and ran with them and look how we ended up. It's almost like your supporters set up their "hero" to fail. It's kind of sad really and takes away attention from the real issues at hand.

I was just curious as I know you seem to have become disillusioned with all of politics over the past few years. I just wondered if you have found anyone you can say best represents you yet.

It's unfortunate that I haven't, which is why I said I would probably refrain from voting in the presidential election. If I don't think any of them deserve the job, should I vote? I feel voting for someone you don't agree with is just as bad as voting for someone at random. It's a vote with no substance and you are doing it just because that's what you are supposed to do. And honestly I'd rather be more involved with local politics as that has a greater impact on my life then national politics, at least in my opinion.

If you don't know what kind of policy would best achieve what you would like to see, then how do you know who to vote for?

I suppose the old saying "I know it when I see it" applies here. When a candidate comes out and starts making statements that I feel best represent me, then I will supporting them. I feel research in an election is very important so that way you can make an informed decision.

 

[SPANK]

 

[Keef]

And honestly I'd rather be more involved with local politics as that has a greater impact on my life then national politics, at least in my opinion.

That's awesome! That's awesome because it's a part of libertarian philosophy and something Ron Paul has spoken about for a very long time. Over time, local and state governments' powers getting shifted to the Federal level has ruined the effectiveness of government as a whole. Decisions are made at the highest level in DC without any influence of people from around our neighborhoods and without any communication between us and our State representatives. That's not the way it's supposed to be. The plan the Constitution laid out gave the vast majority of powers to the people and States, meaning that decisions are made on relatively local terms in a more personal way. Ron Paul supports the idea of local government, and he's been very vocal about it, whereas most other politicians have loudly voiced that the Federal government needs more power to support the country.

Like you mentioned earlier Joey, you're mostly libertarian in philosophy. Note I said libertarian, not Libertarian. I call myself a libertarian with a smile on my face, but I'm certainly not a member of any political party. Ron Paul is a libertarian labelled as a Republican. Most other Republicans are actually small, ignorant, naive children labelled as Republicans.

 

[Omnis]

Keef, there's a name for that... neo-cons.

 

[boshuter]

I fully realize that this forum has a much higher intelligence than most of the idiots on TV.

You would never know it by reading this thread. It's plain that most of you are VERY young.

 

[Villain]

As it stands today, I don't think the GOP has a candidate who can pose a serious challenge to Obama. That being said, there are two that could do it and they both held the same office under President Bush, but neither one of them will run:

It's not because they're black, it's because they're moderate. Also, watch out for General Petraeus in 2016. Trump is a joke, and Romney will get the Republican bid and lose. Ron Paul will get a lot of young people excited, but they don't vote - especially for an un-and-coming Rebublican candidate. Romney the stormin' Mormon will get that nomination. He will look great in ads and give great speaches. And he will lose to Obama.

 

[drivehard]

Hasn't the past six or seven presidents been either the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee? If the next president happens to be one of the candidates that dosen't take part in the last of the nationally televised debates, the nominee of either the dems or reps, almost no chance it's Ron Paul, I'd be suprised.

 

[BobK]

Hasn't the past six or seven presidents been either the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee? If the next president happens to be one of the candidates that dosen't take part in the last of the nationally televised debates, the nominee of either the dems or reps, almost no chance it's Ron Paul, I'd be suprised.

Heh, last six or seven? Try last 31?

Millard Fillmore was the last non-Democrat non-Republican President succeeding Zachary Taylor upon his death, who in turn was the last non-Dem non-Repub to be elected President. This was in 1848.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If Donald Trump wins by some miracle I would have to try everything in my power to move away from America.

Donald Trump is the ultimate troll. He seems to be the Marylin Manson of this political stouch - his appeal lies more in his shock factor than in his actual credentials. After all, Manson rode the wave of popularity his dark, gothic image generated for years, but if ever you go to one of his concerts, the audience is mostly made up of disaffected middle-class white teens. Trump might have money, power and an opinion, but if you really pay attention to him, he's just trolling for attention. Hell, I live on the other side of the Pacific, and even I can see it. And I'm fairly certain that openly occupying Iraq and Libya for their oil reserves (and only giving them enough to get by on their own) would start a war.

 

[Omnis]

Villain, those two are so far from moderate. Nobody from a Bush regime will ever have any traction in politics again.

 

[Keef]

Villain, those two are so far from moderate. Nobody from a Bush regime will ever have any traction in politics again.

I hate this left/right/moderate discussion. Modern Republicans lean so far of where they used to be that "moderates" are still slightly leftist. And many of them are creeping on Statism anyway, so they're on the wrong side of the chart to begin with.

 

[Villain]

Villain, those two are so far from moderate. Nobody from a Bush regime will ever have any traction in politics again.

They are much closer to the middle than you might expect. There's a lot to be said about how being an employee of a certain individual can affect your decision making. I peg them as moderate Republicans, not just "Moderate" period. Don't get me wrong, they are very much conservative -- but I do feel these two are a far cry from the Tea Party bozos.

Of course, it's a moot point. Neither would run.

 

[Keef]

They are much closer to the middle than you might expect. There's a lot to be said about how being an employee of a certain individual can affect your decision making. I peg them as moderate Republicans, not just "Moderate" period. Don't get me wrong, they are very much conservative -- but I do feel these two are a far cry from the Tea Party bozos.

Of course, it's a moot point. Neither would run.

What is your definition of "moderate"? Because I don't see anything moderate about most of our elected officials today. I see plenty of statists, but no moderates. If you think the generally accepted statism floating around DC is moderate, then you must think our Constitution is just a running extremist joke.

 

[hambone8611]

I think Obama will spend the rest of the night working on his 2012 acceptance speech.

 

[Tesla]

I suppose I'm not the only one who's thinking that Obama just got a massive leg-up in the running because of the death of Bin Laden.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I suppose I'm not the only one who's thinking that Obama just got a massive leg-up in the running because of the death of Bin Laden.

It's a damn sight more impressive than "making" a guy show his birth certificate.

 

[CAG_Theory]

Donald Triumph... you can know this guy by looking on his life. Hooking-up with a young blonde + money, concentrated into adulthood words.​

 

[Villain]

What is your definition of "moderate"? Because I don't see anything moderate about most of our elected officials today. I see plenty of statists, but no moderates. If you think the generally accepted statism floating around DC is moderate, then you must think our Constitution is just a running extremist joke.

Okay, before Glenn Beck shows up . . .

Of course, it's a moot point. Neither would run.

Does no one want to debate the points I made that were actually on-topic? I made two pretty bold claims:

• Romney will get the Republican Nomination
• Obama will defeat Romney and be re-elected.

Let's talk about the candidates and issues of the actual election, not our personal definitions of the different labels which are thrown around to describe any given politicions' general stances on issues.

 

[The Bman]

If Ron Paul runs as an Independent, Jesse Ventura is running as his Vice-President. Given the facts Ventura knows about the Government,the both of them would make America even more powerful than it already is. Not kidding.

 

[Keef]

Ron would most likely run under the Republican ticket as he did last year. That's the best way to get the exposure he needs.

 

[FoolKiller]

Okay, before Glenn Beck shows up . . .

Please, don't give Glenn Beck credit for ideas he stole and made fun of five years ago. Glenn Beck is a statist supporter and as troll. We will all benefit when he is taken off the air. He currently lowers the political IQ of this country just by existing.

Does no one want to debate the points I made that were actually on-topic? I made two pretty bold claims:

• Romney will get the Republican Nomination
• Obama will defeat Romney and be re-elected.

Let's talk about the candidates and issues of the actual election, not our personal definitions of the different labels which are thrown around to describe any given politicions' general stances on issues.

Sure:

Romney just ducked out of the South Carolina GOP primary debate this Thursday. He has to avoid facing off against mainstream Republicans and people like Ron Paul. His past is not in line with mainstream Republicans, Tea Partiers, or libertarian leaning Republicans. He has a history of being pro-choice, he wrote the blueprint for Obamacare, and the over-the-top liberal Massachusetts gladly elected him governor. No part of that screams GOP leader to me.

I completely agree with the second point. Even if his flip-flopping policies didn't kill him in the primary he then has lost his moderate (Keef, you know what is meant in the mainstream moderate context. Don't start a semantics fight at this point.) status by then because since 2008 he has been pro-life, anti-Obamacare, and trash talking liberal Democrats. I see nothing about this guy that says he should get elected, unless he can pull off one hell of a lie. But that is possible. He nearly had my mother fooled in 2008. She was ready to vote for the religious, pro-life candidate, until I told her to look into his stances as governor.

Ron would most likely run under the Republican ticket as he did last year. That's the best way to get the exposure he needs.

You referring to his Congressional reelection or the presidential run in 2008?


The Southern Avenger's latest post paints the difference between Ron Paul and the other Republican candidates pretty well.



And these videos have begun popping up from supporters:





And a quick reminder why I think none of the current candidates from 2008 want to go up against Ron Paul in a debate:

 

[Keef]

You referring to his Congressional reelection or the presidential run in 2008?

Good call. I meant his 2008 presidential run.

Nice videos, too.

 

[spiker]

Ron Paul pwns in debates. Too bad Fox News will chew him up and spit him out (again) before the majority of Republican voters. He doesn't tow the company line and FNC as an extension of the GOP is very good about hammering home their message.

Realistically, Paul is going to need an unprecedented grassroots-type break through to overcome the national media's upcoming smear campaigns. He's effectively battling both parties! Even now in 2011, when he's more recognized than ever, it's still an uphill battle for him.

 

[Joel]

Well, all I can say to Paul supporters is never give up hope. Last night in the Canadian federal election, the Liberal party who governed our country for almost all of the 20th century, and has always been a political powerhouse, lost 43 seats, and fell behind the NDP (New Democratic Party), who have always been the third party in Canada. The powerhouse party who some had suggested would win the election, finished broken and in third place, while the traditional third party, always far behind the bigger parties, rose up and finished in second place. Anything can happen come election time. I know it might not seem like a big deal that a party finished second, but you've got to understand that the NDP's record high for seats before this election was 43, and this election they finished with 102 (155 needed for a majority). This was something thought to be impossible in Canada. The Liberals have been powerful forever, and the NDP a joke. Suddenly, the roles changed, and while our Prime Minister remains the same (Stephen Harper- Conservative Party), the winds of change blew across this country. While I don't like the NDP platform at all (extreme socialism), I'm impressed at how quickly they changed the dynamic of our political landscape.


The other thing I should mention, is the primary reason for the NDP's surge in popularity is people being fed up with an old party (Liberals) doing the same thing (and the leader sucked), and the NDP was a breath of fresh air with a charismatic leader.

 

[Keef]

Well, all I can say to Paul supporters is never give up hope.

Libertarians in general tend to be some of the most optimistic people, at least politically speaking. They may be terribly cynical, but that's because they see the problems clearly. After they stop bitching they hope harder than anyone and enjoy activism and discussion and working toward fixing these problems.

And everybody says libertarians are utilitarian, ammoral assholes. People who don't even know what morality is calling somebody ammoral. Pah! Typical.

 

[Joel]

Libertarians in general tend to be some of the most optimistic people, at least politically speaking. They may be terribly cynical, but that's because they see the problems clearly. After they stop bitching they hope harder than anyone and enjoy activism and discussion and working toward fixing these problems.

And everybody says libertarians are utilitarian, ammoral assholes. People who don't even know what morality is calling somebody ammoral. Pah! Typical.

I'm just saying, that if the NDP can form the official opposition in Canada, there's no reason Paul can't win an election in the US, I'm not American obviously, but I'm certainly pulling for him.

 

[Villain]

Romney just ducked out of the South Carolina GOP primary debate this Thursday.

I think it's a little too early to worry about primary debates at the moment. The Iowa caucus is over six months away.

He has to avoid facing off against mainstream Republicans and people like Ron Paul. His past is not in line with mainstream Republicans, Tea Partiers, or libertarian leaning Republicans.

Just curious, who do you consider mainstream Republicans? Huckabee? Thompson (is that guy even around any more)? Ron Paul is a very energetic candidate and he's got quite the following among young conservatives, but that's such a small group. Even though it's probably foolish of me to say this, I still think that the Tea Partiers are a bunch of bozos and I feel like they're just a fad until the end of the 2012 election. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and the like are a living, breathing political joke.

He has a history of being pro-choice, he wrote the blueprint for Obamacare, and the over-the-top liberal Massachusetts gladly elected him governor. No part of that screams GOP leader to me.

The sad thing about the field of Republican candidates is that none of them scream GOP leader to me.

And a quick reminder why I think none of the current candidates from 2008 want to go up against Ron Paul in a debate: *VIDEO*

Ron Paul is one smart cookie. I think he makes a great leader. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

I think it's a little too early to worry about primary debates at the moment. The Iowa caucus is over six months away.

When you haven't been in office for years and your only political job has been making speeches you need to build your identity. He knows he can't build one without it being questioned. If he thinks he can start playing along halfway in and get by on name alone he might want to look at how some of the congressional races went in 2010. Ron Paul is getting his message out early, having a money bomb during the debate, and getting his base already going.

Right now Romney is treating this the same way Secretary of State Trey Grayson did the primary senate run in Kentucky. Rand Paul beat him by 15 points. There are only two reasons to avoid getting an early message out: 1) You have more ego than brains, 2) You are better off with less attention.

Just curious, who do you consider mainstream Republicans? Huckabee? Thompson (is that guy even around any more)? Ron Paul is a very energetic candidate and he's got quite the following among young conservatives, but that's such a small group. Even though it's probably foolish of me to say this, I still think that the Tea Partiers are a bunch of bozos and I feel like they're just a fad until the end of the 2012 election. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and the like are a living, breathing political joke.

Mainstream Republicans are mostly neo-cons these days, the Bush supporters. The guys that look like Democrats who traded welfare for religion. Guys like Mitch McConnell. And then when you talk about tea partiers you have to say who you mean. There are the Ron Paul supporters that were throwing tea party rallies for Ron Paul in 2007, then there are the ones co-opted by the likes of Palin that scream socialism while promoting borderline religious facism. Either way, neither group would approve of Governor Romney.

Anyway, Romney has a past that no one who would align themselves with any wing of the Republican party would be able to say they agree with. I see Romney having one bonus: This election is treated as anyone but Obama vote. And if that happens I will hear a lot of "lesser of two evils" talk. I hate that. Less evil is still evil. Less poison is still poison.

The sad thing about the field of Republican candidates is that none of them scream GOP leader to me.

Ron Paul is one smart cookie. I think he makes a great leader. 👍

I think Ron Paul can be a GOP leader, but unfortunately the number of representatives in the GOP don't reflect the people GOP he would lead.

 

[Dapper]

Ron Paul is one smart cookie. I think he makes a great leader. 👍

I like a lot of his ideas, and he may be a great leader. But when I search his name things like this show up:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html