Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[Londo_Jowo]

Interesting - RCP has removed the Rasmussen, Bill Shipp and Public Policy Polling polls which favored Paul and replaced them with older polls showing Paul a more distant third, rather than simply shifting them downward. CONSPIRACY! 😀

(I'm going only from your first link - my Ron Paul curiosity only extends to one link.)

No they didn't, look at the Iowa polling.

 

[Chainspell]

So you're saying he's not going to run for Congress next year? If he doesn't get the GOP nomination or win as a third party candidate he will end his public service?

I don't blame you for not knowing what you don't know. At the same time other people can't do it all for you. Google knows what you wanna know.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk

 

[werepossum]

No they didn't, look at the Iowa polling.

My bad, I guess I only looked at national polling.

Doesn't really matter. Ron Paul may well win Iowa - he's well organized and has some rabid supporters - but I don't think he's going anywhere nationally.

 

[airdata]

I still waiting for bloomberg to jump into this race.

Yes, because we need another psychopath running for the GOP nomination.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't blame you for not knowing what you don't know. At the same time other people can't do it all for you. Google knows what you wanna know.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk

One thing I do know is Ron Paul isn't the GOP frontrunner in his own district, that's very telling for his chances for the GOP nomination

 

[GaiaHunter]

One thing I do know is Ron Paul isn't the GOP frontrunner in his own district, that's very telling for his chances for the GOP nomination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

On May 13, 2011, he announced formally that he would campaign again during 2012 for the Republican presidential nomination. On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek another term in Congress in order to concentrate on his presidential bid.[7]

 

[SilthDraeth]

Let's see...

Thank you. I read what you replied, and yes it would take a lot of debate.

Since you read, and thought about it, you know that he wouldn't just get his libertarian utopian ideas through.

He also, has often said, his proposals wouldn't all happen over night with a wave of his hand, but would take time, and transition into things.

Think of it, as him tempering our country. Right now the government is so hot, that when it finally comes time to cool off, it will just shatter, but if it gets tempered, and he were able to start the transition into a more moderate spending government, somewhere in between his ideal and what it is today, then would we really be worse off?

As I stated elsewhere, you may disagree with his views and policies, but you only have him to compare to himself, since none of the other candidates even vote, or do anything they say they will unless it is self serving.

So just this once, give they guy a shot, who seems so far outside what you think will work, and know, that he won't be able to destroy 90% of government in four years, but in four years, you will know if you want four more of his years, or a new President.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

This may be the end of his public service career. His current congressional district is slated to be split up by redistricting so he may not be able to be elected again in 2014.

 

[SilthDraeth]

It would be hilarious if Ron Paul not only lost in the GOP primaries and Presidential election but in the Texas 14th Congressional district as well.

LOL You mean because he isn't running for reelection? Yeah, him not running for reelection, and not winning would be fucking hilarious.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/12/r...election-to-congress-will-aim-for-presidency/

...“Big news!” Paul wrote. “I have decided not to seek re-election for my House seat in 2012 and will focus all of my energy [on] winning the Presidency. My hometown newspaper The Facts will be running the exclusive story very shortly.”...

 

[Chainspell]

This may be the end of his public service career. His current congressional district is slated to be split up by redistricting so he may not be able to be elected again in 2014.

What part of "would not seek another term" is hard to grasp. He's retiring.... If he wins he said he would only serve 1 term as president.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk

 

[airdata]

What part of "would not seek another term" is hard to grasp. He's retiring.... If he wins he said he would only serve 1 term as president.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk

Jowo is a troll, you could safely ignore him. As you can see, he keeps posting the same thing despite 2-3 people showing him his post is irrelevant.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Oh, so what you meant is that you're insane.

EDIT: Oh, and WTF? You want Bloomberg? Look man, if there is this nefarious NWO cabal that you think exists, Bloomberg is definitely a part of it.

I can see clearly why your having problems with basic reading comprehension skills. NO were did I say. I was for a man like Bloomie.
While your working on your reading skills. Try differant word usage . A smart guy like you should beable to try to insult me Using better diction. Than what you seem to be capable of facilitating.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What part of "would not seek another term" is hard to grasp. He's retiring.... If he wins he said he would only serve 1 term as president.

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk

Well, I guess he'll be retiring at the end of his current term as he won't win the GOP nomination or become the next President.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Jowo is a troll, you could safely ignore him. As you can see, he keeps posting the same thing despite 2-3 people showing him his post is irrelevant.

Says the little pussy crybaby that placed me on ignore because he can't deal with reality.

 

[fskimospy]

I can see clearly why your having problems with basic reading comprehension skills. NO were did I say. I was for a man like Bloomie.
While your working on your reading skills. Try differant word usage . A smart guy like you should beable to try to insult me Using better diction. Than what you seem to be capable of facilitating.

Hey guy, I'm pretty sure that most people have trouble with reading comprehension when it comes to your posts.

 

[Nemesis 1]

True enough but in the case sited, Not! Nowhere did say I wanted bloomberg . I said I was waiting on him to jump in .

 

[DrPizza]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPmdKhxMfGk

Thank you. I read what you replied, and yes it would take a lot of debate.

Since you read, and thought about it, you know that he wouldn't just get his libertarian utopian ideas through.

He also, has often said, his proposals wouldn't all happen over night with a wave of his hand, but would take time, and transition into things.

Think of it, as him tempering our country. Right now the government is so hot, that when it finally comes time to cool off, it will just shatter, but if it gets tempered, and he were able to start the transition into a more moderate spending government, somewhere in between his ideal and what it is today, then would we really be worse off?

As I stated elsewhere, you may disagree with his views and policies, but you only have him to compare to himself, since none of the other candidates even vote, or do anything they say they will unless it is self serving.

So just this once, give they guy a shot, who seems so far outside what you think will work, and know, that he won't be able to destroy 90% of government in four years, but in four years, you will know if you want four more of his years, or a new President.

Okay, so two Ron Paul supporters in this thread. Neither was capable of addressing even a single issue I raised. At least you did a little better than Nemesis's reply which was simply a youtube video. Nemesis, is reading and thinking too difficult for you? Silth, it almost sounds like you're saying "his ideas are just so radically different that they just may work!" That does not address a single point that I made of ideas that will NOT work.

Selling land will not get us out of our fiscal mess. It merely kicks the can down the road. Telling the FDA and FTC to get out of holistic medicine's hair? Wtf level of ignorance from Ron Paul and his supporters on that one. One that I will concede is that perhaps corporate taxes need to be decreased in the US. Nonetheless, as a percent of the GDP, they're really not much different than other industrialized countries. But, if lowering corporate taxes, they need to close the corporate loopholes (and not create new loopholes in the process.) But, stopping all foreign aid? That appeals to rednecks. But anyone with any awareness of what's going on in the world beyond their backyard, let alone the borders of the US, knows that it's a horrible idea.

BTW, I created that entire post just by going from page to page for a couple minutes on his site before lunch. I could probably have made that post five times as long, but it seems the two of you are incapable of discussing a single one of those points.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Okay, so two Ron Paul supporters in this thread. Neither was capable of addressing even a single issue I raised. At least you did a little better than Nemesis's reply which was simply a youtube video. Nemesis, is reading and thinking too difficult for you? Silth, it almost sounds like you're saying "his ideas are just so radically different that they just may work!" That does not address a single point that I made of ideas that will NOT work.

Selling land will not get us out of our fiscal mess. It merely kicks the can down the road. Telling the FDA and FTC to get out of holistic medicine's hair? Wtf level of ignorance from Ron Paul and his supporters on that one. One that I will concede is that perhaps corporate taxes need to be decreased in the US. Nonetheless, as a percent of the GDP, they're really not much different than other industrialized countries. But, if lowering corporate taxes, they need to close the corporate loopholes (and not create new loopholes in the process.) But, stopping all foreign aid? That appeals to rednecks. But anyone with any awareness of what's going on in the world beyond their backyard, let alone the borders of the US, knows that it's a horrible idea.

BTW, I created that entire post just by going from page to page for a couple minutes on his site before lunch. I could probably have made that post five times as long, but it seems the two of you are incapable of discussing a single one of those points.

Sorry, I will address your issues a bit more thoroughly shortly. I wasn't meaning to just dismiss your responses.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Let's see... selling federal land to help balance the budget. Foolish. Debating this might take half a thread, but suffice to say, once that land is sold, it can't be sold again. One-time sell-offs are just going to kick the ball down the road.

I agree with kicking cans down the road theory, but I believe coupled with his other policies, it would be fine. However, I also believe that the Government isn't supposed to own land anyways. But hold it in trust for citizens. So, the more land the government "sells" and doesn't have, I am fine with.

Stopping foreign aid. Sounds very appealing to the ignorant masses. It completely ignores how fragile a lot of international relationships are. If you don't think what happens elsewhere can have some huge dire consequences in the future here, you're pretty naive. i.e. Pakistan.

Just adding my own conjecture here. I believe Ron Paul would be fine with emergency aid, due to natural disasters, etc. But maybe not. Also, I believe, foreign aid should be bought by other countries, ie free trade, ie what Ron Paul supports, so this falls in line with his open and free trade philosophy, as well as ending sanctions ie trade restrictions on countries we get mad at. So if we end sanctions, keep our noses out of business of what they do, and open free trade again, then I fail to see how we are really cancelling foreign aid. We are no longer giving stuff away for free. And what aid do other countries really need? We can give food to any country that is to poor to pay for aid, and needs food. Aid, as in, sending workers that want to volunteer to help build shelters, renewable water sources, etc. Fine. Not sure what else we should do.

Elimination of capital gains taxes. That would simply accelerate the concentration of wealth into the hands of the rich. History shows it's not a good thing when the vast, vast majority of wealth is controlled by just a few. People think it's bad now? This would be nothing.

Going back to the Gold standard though, would eliminate a great deal of "perceived wealth" since a lot of the money, and wealth we have in our country was printed out of thin air. The wealth would go back to less liquid assets, ie holdings in businesses, resources etc.

Oh, hurray! If you're terminally ill, you don't have to pay income taxes. Gee, what a great guy! Of course, it seems that the majority of terminally ill people (once survival rate is considered negligible) aren't working. Stage 1 cancer is not "terminally ill." Hospice care time: terminally ill. Making this part of his platform is simply pandering.

Pretty sure that Ron Paul is for the elimination of income tax. So, just if you are ill is a misnomer. He is for phasing it out, so if you are anyone and working you won't pay income tax. Income tax is a misnomer anyways. Capitol gains is income, working is wages. Wages, ie trading money for work done isn't income. But of course, according to the IRS, wages for the purpose of income is income tax.

Abolish the EPA, because landowners can just sue the polluting companies? Tell you what - let a multi-billion dollar company spill toxic waste in your back yard and see if you have the TIME and MONEY to take them to court. Good luck with that.

Wow, sounds great! <magical hand waving happening.>

I believe EPA has been bought, and is part of wasted tax payer money. I am not sure on all his reasons for EPA, but I am pretty sure that it part of his reasoning. Unfortunately, like a lot of the parts of the Government, I believe it to be a cancer, and cutting it out may be the only solution, since some things just can't be overhauled without infinitely more effort. Also, in the case you mentioned, here a multi-billion dollar agency dumps some sludge in your back yard. Well... In that case the Government should be able to go to bat for citizens without having to have an agency so large as the EPA

Get rid of the Department of Education. Hmmm... Yeah, NCLB was pretty unpopular. BUT, right now, with Race to the Top and a few other programs, a new common core curriculum that's shared by many of the states, etc., it seems that our education system might finally be set to improve. He'd rather see us continue to languish at near the bottom of the ranking of all industrialized nations? Education is probably the most important area for the future of our country.

No, he doesn't want to see us fall, he wants individual communities, and states to be in charge of education. Not the Fed.

He's just going to magically wave his hands and children of illegal immigrants born here will no longer automatically become citizens. Hey Ron Paul & ignorant followers: that's going to take a constitutional amendment.

Pretty sure he knows it would take a constitutional amendment.You see, being for the constitution doesn't mean you are against amending it. But the reason behind it would be simple. It would make the illegal alien argument easier, if you could just send the people home with their babies. VS the whole argument of separating them from their families, etc.

These forums have discussed unions ad-nauseum before. Nonetheless, his stance on his page against unions is simple pandering to those who don't like unions while unfairly, and intentionally deceiving those people by not explaining *why* unions have political motives to support particular candidates.

This may be true. But he doesn't need to explain why unions have their motives. I would give people who read his sight the benefit of the doubt, of already being on his side about unions.

I do agree that the FDA makes it too financially difficult for approval of many types of treatments, nonetheless, the FDA and FTC do help protect us from a lot of quackery. It's amazing to see someone who is an M.D. support things like holistic medicine which have zero evidence of success. Steve Jobs just might be alive today if he hadn't first attempted use of these "alternative treatments." Medical treatment should be based on evidence, not people trying to make a profit by selling the regurgitated hair balls of their cat for $500 a dose, while simultaneously claiming that big pharma is a scam because they're just trying to make a profit.

I guess this is a libertarian viewpoint, but I also support removing the warning on a jar of peanut butter, that it contains peanuts and or peanut byproducts. IE protecting people from themselves. You can extend government infinitely following this viewpoint. He has always said government needs to be a referee and step in, when peoples decisions start impacting other people's liberties. IE you can eat a coughed up cat hairball if you want, but if you give it to your kid, and make them eat it, that is crossing the line.


I could go on and on. That's not to say that I don't find quite a few things appealing about his ideas. For example, repealing income tax on social security after you're retired? Seriously? I didn't even know that income was taxed. Nonetheless, it's lunch time. A lot of his ideas are simply bat-shit insane ideas that have zero percent chance of ever passing the House or Senate. Much of his foreign policy, while saving money, puts us at much greater risk internationally.

Good discussion. Obviously we disagree on things, and I guess we disagree on how certain things would really work out. I feel that we have been on our current path long enough to know it doesn't work, and yet we know most the candidates wouldn't really change anything. Then we shoot down a guy that will try to make some changes, and make predictions on why his changes would fail, as bad or worse, without any real evidence to support it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Nothing like spreading lies. Paul never said the things you want us to believe . Paul believes in libert for everyone no matter the race or creed

Of course he didn't say those things. They were written.

Paul believes in liberty for everyone? Cool, so he supports gay marriage now?

Ron Paul is an unassimilated piece of shit who should be deported to Somalia.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Of course he didn't say those things. They were written.

Paul believes in liberty for everyone? Cool, so he supports gay marriage now?

Ron Paul is an unassimilated piece of shit who should be deported to Somalia.

Now you are trolling.

"The truth is more complex…and perhaps confusing. Congressman Paul’s view of same-sex “marriage” can best be summed up in one phrase: states rights. Ron Paul believes homosexuals should be allowed to “marry”…in states that legalize the practice.

At the same time, Paul is a lifelong Christian who says he personally believes in traditional marriage. In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” In August, Paul repeated, “I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman.”

The Texas Congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate has a consistent record of supporting each state’s right to define marriage for itself: opposing attempts to overturn state anti-sodomy laws on one hand and to implement a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage on the other.

However, Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether."

 

[Anarchist420]

Of course he didn't say those things. They were written.

Paul believes in liberty for everyone? Cool, so he supports gay marriage now?

Ron Paul is an unassimilated piece of shit who should be deported to Somalia.

Hey stupid Bitch,

Don't you dare call Dr. Paul a stupid piece of shit (he's not).

 

[Howard]

Hey stupid Bitch,

Don't you dare call Dr. Paul a stupid piece of shit (he's not).

Finally, a way to troll the troll.

 

[CanOWorms]

Now you are trolling.

"The truth is more complex…and perhaps confusing. Congressman Paul’s view of same-sex “marriage” can best be summed up in one phrase: states rights. Ron Paul believes homosexuals should be allowed to “marry”…in states that legalize the practice.

At the same time, Paul is a lifelong Christian who says he personally believes in traditional marriage. In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” In August, Paul repeated, “I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman.”

The Texas Congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate has a consistent record of supporting each state’s right to define marriage for itself: opposing attempts to overturn state anti-sodomy laws on one hand and to implement a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage on the other.

However, Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether."

Most of that supports what I said. He's not all about civil liberties, but oppression under the guise of state rights.

Ron Paul has strong support from organizations like Stormfront. Why? Because he's a crazed, vile racist. What about his statement that FAA employees don't look American to him, i.e. that they're not white? A sane person wouldn't say such a thing. He's a relic of the past, and the sane of us are just waiting for him to die with other old, crazy people.

 

[CanOWorms]

Hey stupid Bitch,

Don't you dare call Dr. Paul a stupid piece of shit (he's not).

I didn't say that he was a stupid piece of shit. I said that he's an unassimilated piece of shit.