Presidential Election: 2012

[FoolKiller]

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

You should click through their links and read what they don't say. One link attributed as Ron Paul's site, is not his site. The link is also not in the bibliography at the end, just hyperlinked in the story.

They address three points:

1) NAFTA Superhighway - the highway itself definitely sounds crazy, but former Mexican President Vicente Fox has done interviews on CNN and The Daily Show where he mentions a desire for a North American Union, as a long-term plan. But he admits speed bumps due to the immigration issue in America. It most likely won't happen, most likely would never gain traction in the US, and the superhighway idea likely is more myth than fact, but Ron Paul (and 48 other members of Congress according to FactChecks sources, but they fail to mention that detail) didn't just make this stuff up from Internet rumors.

2) $1 trillion spent on foreign affairs. One, the stuff they claim as domestic are/were all seeing increased budgets as part of the War on Terrorism. Not counting Homeland Security as part of that definition, despite their encompassing groups like the CIA is silly. Similarly they refer to the State Department. You mean, the department that oversees foreign policy? You don't see that as having anything to do with foreign affairs? Further, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do now total over $1 trillion, and none of that accounts for troops in bases overseas, things like Libya, and so forth.

3) Reagan quote. They seem to be unable to even get the Paul campaign to say when this endorsement happened. Odd, considering Paul referenced Reagan campaigning for him during the debates when a Reagan question came up. They seriously missed that, but could quote Paul in debates when it made him look bad?


And that final "Introducing Logic" section seems to make an attack on Paul supporters because they asked if the lack of previous Ron Paul coverage meant that FactCheck hadn't found anything to use against Paul. That's not an unjustified question to ask when they have pages on other candidates. But they took a snotty attitude and attacked their logic, with a fallacy of their own (point three in their logic chain).

 

[Villain]

The Tea Party bozos I generalize are of the Sarah Palin illegal-immigration group. I also have to agree with pretty much all of your assessments. I really think that Ron Paul is the most superior of all the Republican candidates, but he's not going to get anywhere unless he can get rich old people to love him.

 

[DEATHSARTHE]

It was bad enough that Oprah loves Obama.

Now our military finally tracks down and kills kills Osama Bin Laden under his administration...

Nobody stands a friggin chance.

 

[spiker]

The Tea Party bozos I generalize are of the Sarah Palin illegal-immigration group. I also have to agree with pretty much all of your assessments. I really think that Ron Paul is the most superior of all the Republican candidates, but he's not going to get anywhere unless he can get rich old people to love him.

I think it's a little more complicated then that. By and large, I think the average Republican voter views him as a lunatic. Let's face it, most people just aren't very bright. When Paul starts ranting and raving about complicated macro economics, monetary policy, foreign policy, constitutional law, etc. the simpletons among us will tune out and start focusing on the superficialities. (ie. He's not a eloquent public speaker) Combine that with the media's slant against him and he's already got one foot in the grave. As much as Dr Paul makes sense to educated and truly conservative America, the masses want someone who will speak to them, rather than above them. See Bush II and Obama for examples.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Nobody stands a friggin chance.

Every time you fill up your gas tank, Obama's chances get a little weaker. Every time you pay the new ATM/banking fees, Obama's chances get a little weaker. And with inflation on the rise, every time you buy something Obama's chances get weaker.

If you want to piss off a whole bunch of people; hit their pocket book.

Gasoline prices show no sign of coming back down to Earth and everything else is getting more expensive. People will have less discretionary spending money while their property taxes continue to climb, their workplace continues to 'downsize', and people's paychecks are smaller than they were a few years ago.

Obama can only blame everyone and everything else for so long before it all comes back to him. And when it does...the media will call everyone a racist and no one will care.

When you can't afford to travel to work b/c of $5+ gasoline, can't afford to put food on the table, and can't afford to keep your home b/c everything is more expensive while you're taking home less money - will you really care if someone calls you a name? No.

If the republican party can nominate someone who is coherent and electable; Obama should lose. Despite what the media says, things are not good out there. When you're unemployed, it's 100% unemployment. When your home is being foreclosed upon, 100% of homes are being foreclosed. When you're bouncing checks trying to buy groceries, it's 100% bankruptcy.

A lot of people have had enough of Obama. The key is to nominate someone who will bring people to the polls instead of having millions of people stay home in apathy.

Is Ron Paul that guy? No.

 

[spiker]

So you want the PotUSA to lower the cost of gas, lower bank fees, and then give you a job?

 

[FoolKiller]

So you want the PotUSA to lower the cost of gas, lower bank fees, and then give you a job?

That's not what he said. As a figurehead the president gets blame/credit for pretty much all that stuff though.

But if you will campaign for office as if you can actually affect those things you had better be prepared for the reaction when it goes bad.

 

[spiker]

That's not what he said. As a figurehead the president gets blame/credit for pretty much all that stuff though.

But if you will campaign for office as if you can actually affect those things you had better be prepared for the reaction when it goes bad.

Fair enough. Frankly, I don't see a Republican candidate who's much different than the Democratic candidate. Both sides of the aisle have spent our country into a terrible deficit. Getting the US back into a surplus is the key to economic recovery and Ron Paul is the only candidate who doesn't have any reservation about shrinking the size of the Federal government.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

So you want the PotUSA to lower the cost of gas, lower bank fees, and then give you a job?

This president is raising taxes, increasing regulations, and killing jobs. Likewise, democratically controlled states are pretty much doing the same damn thing.

You live in Illinois...your taxes have gone up. Regulations, even something as simple as acquiring a business license have become more expensive and more difficult to obtain.

When taxes go up and regulations pile up, businesses leave...and so do those jobs. There's plenty of well educated and experienced people out there taking jobs that pay them substantially less than what they were making before. How are you supposed to pay your mortgage & property tax -AND- have money left over for groceries and fill up your gas tank to drive to the miserable part-time/lower paying job you have?

You can't.

Buy a $20,000 hybrid car when you're already living paycheck to paycheck? Let them eat cake...

There are thousands, perhaps millions, of people in the situation I just described.

The question really is can a Republican nominee motivate these people to the voting booth -or- will they stay at home with the attitude that Republicans suck just like Obama sucks...so they stay home.

Things may not be bad for you, but they're bad for plenty of people out there. Property values, which is the bulk of most people's net worth, have absolutely tanked. Great if you're buying a home and have the $$$ for a sizeable down payment...terrible if your $250,000 home just had its property taxes raised b/c the local HS wants a Starbucks and the home across the street just sold for 1/2 as much. Tack on higher income taxes and inflation and you get real pain.

 

[spiker]

You don't have to rant about economics and taxes to me. You didn't know this but I'm a CPA. I understand how it all works. LOL

 

[BrutherSuperior]

You didn't know this but I'm a CPA.

My condolences.

My background is in engineering. Pigeonholed myself and tried to give the wonderful world of finance a chance...then 2008 happened & dudes with shiny badges and big guns said I didn't have a job anymore. So much for that.

Now? Working for myself...I never took orders or micromanagement very well anyway.

 

[spiker]

Anywho, it seems like you're looking for a Republican candidate that plays to the voters and to me that just smacks of a Republican-Obama. The problem is government spending needs to get cut and concessions need to be made on both sides of the aisle. Dems need to cut down the handouts and Rebs need to cut out the Cold War-esque national defense. I just don't see anyone in either party that is actually capable of walking-the-walk. Anything short of seriously cutting government spending will not change one thing.

I think the reason I latch onto a guy like Paul is because he scares both parties. To me and many others, that means he's different. I can't even really tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore. If we want a change in America, the status quo has to be threatened and that's what I take from Paul when I listen to him speak or read what he writes.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Anywho, it seems like you're looking for a Republican candidate that plays to the voters and to me that just smacks of a Republican-Obama. The problem is government spending needs to get cut and concessions need to be made on both sides of the aisle. Dems need to cut down the handouts and Rebs need to cut out the Cold War-esque national defense. I just don't see anyone in either party that is actually capable of walking-the-walk. Anything short of seriously cutting government spending will not change one thing.

I think the reason I latch onto a guy like Paul is because he scares both parties. To me and many others, that means he's different. I can't even really tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore. If we want a change in America, the status quo has to be threatened and that's what I take from Paul when I listen to him speak or read what he writes.

The issue I have with Ron Paul is that he is unelectable. What good is it to nominate someone to run in 2012 if they lost before it even began. The republicans did this with Bob Dole and most recently with John McCain. Seems they just pick the old guy who 'paid their dues' and put them on the ticket so they can get their ass kicked.

McCain, and all the RINOs like him, are a disaster. I throw our senator Mark Kirk in the same bag of useless career politicians.

Being a realist; I say nominate whoever will defeat Obama. In an ideal world, 1 man (president or not) should not have the power to significantly alter the economy of the nation through the might of 'executive powers' or through the endless maze of the Federal Bureaucracy.

Ron Paul has a 0% chance of winning b/c I really doubt he'll be nominated. His ideas and convictions are exactly what this country needs, but, the republican party will nominate a slick talker before Ron Paul.

So the question really is who is a slick talker, good on economics, good on domestic policy, has morals/convictions, and can throw Obama out of office? Basically a Ron Paul that's radio friendly...

Since not all the nominees have come forward, we won't know if this person exists.

 

[spiker]

Since not all the nominees have come forward, we won't know if this person exists.

Yeah, I haven't seen that person yet. Personally, I don't think anyone that tows the company line will fit an idealogical mold that is similar to Ron Paul.

And I agree with your assessment that Ron Paul is realistically unelectable because he won't ever be the Republican nominee.

 

[FoolKiller]

Being a realist; I say nominate whoever will defeat Obama.

And this is why our government will never change.

Vote for who best represents you as that is the purpose of voting. Voting for anyone but the current guy mentality is nothing more than a popularity pissing contest that winds up with the same crap over and over again. Why do you think we wound up with a Democrat who has almost no difference from Bush on 90% of the issues?

You will never get any actual change in government until people quit voting for the same crap because they think change won't win. These are your representatives and leaders of our government. It is not a horse race where you try to pick a winner. If you want a horse race mentality, throw your money on the long shot so that if you do win you win big.

Honestly, if everyone I knew who said, "I like Ron Paul, but he won't win" actually voted for Ron Paul he would be the most popular candidate out of all the people I know. Instead everyone in my family refers to him as "your guy."

I like to think that Rand Paul got elected because the non-stop talk by myself and other supporters was enough to get people to vote for more than the lesser of two evils.


If you like Ron Paul, stop talking about how he can't get elected and start talking about what could happen if he did get elected. Make people think they could make real change begin to take place in this country as they have a leader who wants to do more than cater to crooked corporations and increase government influence.

I mean, people are mad at GE not paying taxes, but their CEO, Jeff Immelt is the head of Obama's economic planning board. That screams of winks and elbow nudges. Point that kind of thing out and say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that would not have that happen, as Immelt's connections began in the Bush administration. Clearly none of the Bush-loving Republicans are an option to eliminate that kind of cronyism, and it is dang clear that Obama won't fix it. If someone is pissed at GE's tax situation tell them Ron Paul wouldn't do that, not that it is just how it is so vote so you can say you picked the winner.


Let me translate for you what the "Ron Paul can't win" mentality really means: We all lose.

It doesn't have to be Ron Paul specifically, either, just someone who isn't a mainstream player in either party.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

And this is why our government will never change.

Vote for who best represents you as that is the purpose of voting. Voting for anyone but the current guy mentality is nothing more than a popularity pissing contest that winds up with the same crap over and over again. Why do you think we wound up with a Democrat who has almost no difference from Bush on 90% of the issues?

You will never get any actual change in government until people quit voting for the same crap because they think change won't win. These are your representatives and leaders of our government. It is not a horse race where you try to pick a winner. If you want a horse race mentality, throw your money on the long shot so that if you do win you win big.

I completely understand where you are coming from.

The thing is, I do not believe Ron Paul will win the republican nomination. Furthermore, I believe many people will simply stay at home instead of going to the ballot box. If that happens, Obama wins.

I, nor anyone else, do not know who the republican nominees will be. In this light I can only hope someone electable will emerge. I do not believe that person to be Ron Paul.

If he was on the republican ticket, I'd campaign for him as I have done for several republican nominees going back to George Bush Sr. (showing may age here). I just hope the GOP is in it to win it and not throwing their weight behind someone b/c of their seniority (Dole).

There's plenty of republicans, who IMO anyway, can challenge the current admin and stand a good chance at winning. Rand Paul is more electable than his old man...much more electable. So is Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan. All young, well spoken, have convictions, and are conservatives with sound fiscal/domestic/foreign policies. But will they run or will we have another freak show with Romney, McCain, and Lindsey Grahm type republicans?

God help us all if we do...

 

[FoolKiller]

The thing is, I do not believe Ron Paul will win the republican nomination.

And why is that?

Furthermore, I believe many people will simply stay at home instead of going to the ballot box. If that happens, Obama wins.

So, despite recently hitting record low approval ratings you don't think people would go out to put someone new in office? The only way I can see people not getting motivated is by the Republican nominee being another traditionally "electable" candidate, aka same ole' crap.

 

[spiker]

And the media's dismissal of Ron Paul begins:

The Fox News-led GOP debate last night in South Carolina gave the first formal glimpse of the emerging 2012 GOP presidential field, though more thought was perhaps spent on the presumptive (selected & vetted by the establishment) big name contenders who have yet to enter or debate. Congressman Ron Paul was perhaps the most well-known face next to a field otherwise unseen in 2008. With him were former Senator Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman and former KC Federal Reserve chair Herman Cain and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

After the debate, an artificial-esque buzz quickly centered around Herman Cain, who has positioned himself as a Tea Party candidate and gained popularity for his ‘tough’ rhetoric.

A Fox-focus group fielded by the notorious Frank Luntz quickly established that Herman Cain had won the debate (in lieu of a poll, apparently). Cain charmed a majority of the 29 handpicked and carefully-handled likely Republicans in Luntz’s focus group. After all, he’s a fresh face, he talks about smaller government, ending the economic crisis and he’s a successful businessman.

Just as in 2008 with dud-candidate Fred Thompson, Luntz used the perception of a quick turn-around of support to promote the candidate as a possible front runner. Luntz declared the reaction to Cain as “unprecendented” and suggested a spontaneous surge in his viability.

Fox News’ website coverage of the debate features a poll– but on top issues rather than candidates. This effectively obscures the already existing base of substantial support for Ron Paul, which does not exist for the other candidates on the stage. A CNN poll released Thursday (prior to the debate) found Ron Paul did best against President Obama, garnering 10% next to potential candidates like Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, Trump and Palin.

Fox New’s hoax that Herman Cain won the debate is but an opening salvo in a familiar pattern of downplaying Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency to restore sound money and the Constitution. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul snubbed a post-debate interview with Sean Hannity, instead going to a Tea Party event.

However, a sober look at Cain’s statements tonight and his past record show little to be enthused about. He stands diametrically opposed the fundamental positions of pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul. Cain is pro-war and appears to be pro-Empire, against a Federal Reserve audit, and has been supportive and apologetic about the bailout. Free market is incompatible with crony capitalism and Fed intervention.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were distinct in their libertarian-edged stances on an immediate end to wars and the overseas empire, foreign aid, economic solutions, drug decriminalization and other issues, but received no doting from media ‘analysts’. Paul, however, drew heavy applause for most of his answers, including a call to bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Johnson had to speak out just to be fielded a question every now and then.

Cain, Santorum and Pawlenty lined up to regurgitate the typical hawkish position for war, torture, military adventures, and beyond. Big talk about budgets and deficits, but no serious talk about military spending. Typical social-wedge issues also came up including abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage.

http://www.infowars.com/post-debate-gop-buzz-surrounds-herman-cain-former-federal-reserve-insider/

If you want to know why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate Foolkiller, this is just one example. He gets this from all media outlets but Fox News is easily the worst (or best) at demarginalizing Paul.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you want to know why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate Foolkiller, this is just one example. He gets this from all media outlets but Fox News is easily the worst (or best) at demarginalizing Paul.

Rand Paul received similar treatment, including being accused of supporting racism on national television.

That is not why Ron Paul is not viable. That is why Fox News is biased. They seriously said the guy they liked had something because he reminded them of Fred Thompson in some way? Didn't he do poorly and drop out fairly early?

I haven't watched the debate yet, so I can't make any real judgments on the debate or the opinions of others.

 

[spiker]

I'm not against Ron Paul, Foolkiller, but I think you give the average voter too much credit. History has shown that voters really don't want to look past the media bias. So when we say that Ron Paul won't win the election or is not viable, it's because the average voter complicity plays the popularity contest. If the election was based on merit and idealogies, Ron Paul would win. Instead, the average American doesn't mind being told who should be their President.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not against Ron Paul, Foolkiller, but I think you give the average voter too much credit. History has shown that voters really don't want to look past the media bias. So when we say that Ron Paul won't win the election or is not viable, it's because the average voter complicity plays the popularity contest. If the election was based on merit and idealogies, Ron Paul would win. Instead, the average American doesn't mind being told who should be their President.

Again, regarding the media's effect on voters, I point you to the Rand Paul Senate campaign. It can be overcome.

But discussing electability and viability adds to that mentality. It perpetuates the cycle. If you write a candidate off as not viable, but like them the most, then you are unlikely to discuss him with people that vote like sheep, when they might just listen if they had something to listen to.

Further, so long as the viable/not viable mindset exists we will never get anything better than what we currently have. You may as well not vote. If I said I agreed and then began discussing Romney vs whoever then I achieve nothing. If I constantly argue in favor of Ron Paul, and Ron Paul loses but another 10% of the people that hear/read my comments decide they should vote for him and ignore the media stupidity then I have still achieved a victory.

I will always talk about the candidate I believe is the best candidate and why I think he/she should be president, but I will not follow that up with anything saying a vote for them is pointless.


Let me put it to you this way. Your argument would say I wasted my time and vote in 2008. In 2008 I was asked who Ron Paul was when I said his name. Today people come up to me and say they heard Ron Paul on TV/radio/whatever and they thought he made a good point. The fact that no one I know in person or online has to ask me who Ron Paul is today tells me I achieved something in 2008. If I continue to make small achievements at every election then one day the success I saw locally in 2010 I will see nationally.

 

[spiker]

I don't think you wasted your vote at all. That was not my argument.

 

[FoolKiller]

Finally finished watching the debate. Whoever said Herman Cain won has to have been trolling. I would say Santorum and Pawlenty were given plenty of opportunity to maintain their more known status, and Johnson wouldn't be on my list had he not 1) called them out after he had been ignored for close to 20 minutes, and 2) answered a question on tariffs with a straight one word answer, No, which left the the moderators sitting in silence. He gained my liking and attention last night.


But the best part of the debate was this answer by Ron Paul.

 

[Dotini]

I'm extremely satisfied with the impact Ron Paul is making on the campaign.

The fact is that he was right all along on the two most important issues: War and Debt, and now everybody knows it. Eventually, in order to secure the nomination, the other Republicans will be forced to co-opt Ron Paul's killer issues as their own. This is his victory, the best it gets. By any stretch of conventional standards, he cannot win the nomination because of his age, his cadaverous looks, his high-pitched nasal Texas twang, and his plainspoken views on "minor" issues like abortion, social security, gold and probably a few other things.

On the other hand, his son Rand is showing every sign of being more telegenic, sophisticated and nuanced - possibly enough for the average American to countenance as their President.

I will make the very bold prediction that Rand Paul will become a presidential candidate for 2012.

 

[Tornado]

So Trump isn't running for President. I think I speak for everyone when I say just how saddened I am by this.

 

[Keef]

So Trump isn't running for President. I think I speak for everyone when I say just how saddened I am by this.

Sad that we won't be able to laugh in his face, yes.

 

[buggs1a]

When was that Ron Paul.debate in the above you tube link?
Are there any debates yet this year?

I have decided that I won't vote for a president candidate if I don't like them. This means I won't vote for anyone from now on, if I don't like someone. No lesser of two evil crap. I'm going to have to like most everything about them.

I do not think well ever have a good president anymore till Jesus comes to bring us Christians home. I think the us oil only go down hill and not get better. I don't think any president will make much good difference anymore. Not with the in my opinion absolutely corrupt greedy power hungry crap terrible gov we have now.

I'm Christian so these are just my opinions based on my belief in and love for God. Also I believe in the bible and what it says about end times and America, not by name but by things that have or will happen in my opinion.

And its sad that we won't be getting better in my opinion no matter who is president. But at least right now I know who I won't vote for in 2012.

I'm not trying to start a fight or argue or a religious debate or anything.

 

[FoolKiller]

When was that Ron Paul.debate in the above you tube link?
Are there any debates yet this year?

That one was from May 5th.

I have decided that I won't vote for a president candidate if I don't like them. This means I won't vote for anyone from now on, if I don't like someone. No lesser of two evil crap. I'm going to have to like most everything about them.

I do not think well ever have a good president anymore till Jesus comes to bring us Christians home. I think the us oil only go down hill and not get better. I don't think any president will make much good difference anymore. Not with the in my opinion absolutely corrupt greedy power hungry crap terrible gov we have now.

I'm Christian so these are just my opinions based on my belief in and love for God. Also I believe in the bible and what it says about end times and America, not by name but by things that have or will happen in my opinion.

And its sad that we won't be getting better in my opinion no matter who is president. But at least right now I know who I won't vote for in 2012.

I'm not trying to start a fight or argue or a religious debate or anything.

What issues would a candidate have to follow for you to vote for them?

So far all I can tell about you is that you enjoy proselytizing. Even with that I cannot know exactly how you fall on abortion, gay marriage, and so forth as there are far more than just yes or no answers. And I definitely have no clue how you feel about taxes, security, the wars, the economy, and so on.

Before you decide you will vote for no one I suggest you actually do some research. There are multiple parties that run for office outside of Democrats and Republicans, but most people have never heard of them. There are some very religious candidates that want to base all laws on The Bible, but they won't be in the Republican or Democrat parties. And I only suggest you do some research because you were apparently completely unaware that a nationally televised debate existed, even weeks after it occurred where some of the participants were interviewed about it, or it was discussed on every major news outlet in the country.

 

[Camaroyenko]

I'm sorry but I don't like Obama.

We oughta worry about OUR country, and NOT other countries, like when the Haiti earthquake happened.

I've been Republican all 12 years I've been alive and I never plan to change!!

 

[Keef]

I would go for a compromise that eliminated military foreign aid only, and not disaster aid. At least it's a step in a right direction. Ultimately the government should not be allowed to provide any foreign aid anywhere.