We all know Newt is unelectable...

[Ausm]

Funny, I remember in 1978/1979 when people were saying Ronald Reagan was unelectable. We know the rest of that story.

To bad they didn't realize the damage he would reign on our economy.

 

[Ausm]

The discussion was about Ron Paul's donations from active duty military, please try to pay attention.

If you have read those charts that was included in there ...please learn how to read.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If you have read those charts that was included in there ...please learn how to read.

Again this was about Ron Paul and the other Republican candidates donations from the military.

We know you like to post the latest Left Talking Points and how Obama is the biggest fund raiser, no one other than the Left gives a fat rat's ass but keep on pumping out those Left Talking Points.

 

[Ausm]

Again this was about Ron Paul and the other Republican candidates donations from the military.

We know you like to post the latest Left Talking Points and how Obama is the biggest fund raiser, no one other than the Left gives a fat rat's ass but keep on pumping out those Left Talking Points.

But then again you haven't read my link which incorporates your Right Wing talking points on Ron Paul...color me surprised.

 

[cybrsage]

Indeed. Gingrich will of course not take the money. He has boatloads of it from all his book royalty and other enterprises. Still, you have to laugh at this:

And the race card is slowly being lifted...

 

[airdata]

Game, set, match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A&feature=youtu.be



Now, if any candidate can do this to Ron Paul.... good luck.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

And the race card is slowly being lifted...

Cry me a river. It's being "lifted" by a white, Republican talk show host, regarding a white, Republican candidate. To call your post banal and meaningless would be a high compliment.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Game, set, match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A&feature=youtu.be



Now, if any candidate can do this to Ron Paul.... good luck.

I know it won't make you happy to hear this, but no candidate would ever bother doing that to Ron Paul, because he will never be competitive in a Presidential election.

I do think his points on Gingrich are well taken, however (plus I love the public-access-TV-quality, Minority Report-style special effects).

 

[cybrsage]

Cry me a river. It's being "lifted" by a white, Republican talk show host, regarding a white, Republican candidate. To call your post banal and meaningless would be a high compliment.

Oh...so a white man using race as a factor in his denigration of another is not racial...

Interesting view.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I know it won't make you happy to hear this, but no candidate would ever bother doing that to Ron Paul, because he will never be competitive in a Presidential election.

I do think his points on Gingrich are well taken, however (plus I love the public-access-TV-quality, Minority Report-style special effects).

This tells it all. Even with Cain out of the picture Ron Paul is quite low in the polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Oh...so a white man using race as a factor in his denigration of another is not racial...

Interesting view.

When did I say it was "not racial"? There is a difference between racial and racist, however, and I don't think it's racist for one white person to call another white person white.

Honestly, what is there in this for you to get upset about? Are you somehow blaming the President for playing the "race card," when it was in fact "played" by a white person who absolutely hates the President and is offering $1,000,000 in an effort to prevent his re-election?

 

[airdata]

If everybody in America watched that... how many would even consider voting for Gingrich?

Ron Paul on the other hand... all I see is people saying he has no chance. It's really the most deceptive, and effective way you could go about smearing somebody. Just talk about it as if he obviously has no chance, why would he?

Meanwhile, that's all that people say. Nobody gives any reason why Ron Paul is unelectable. He's clearly multiple debates including the latest debate, and then main stream media doesn't show that to people who didn't watch. They make up a gingrich vs romney story line and pretend those are the only choices.

So please, come w\ some actual reasons why Ron Paul shouldn't be president... not just the assertion that he'll never get the nomination. At this point I'd honestly consider the possibility that they're pumping up the dumbest in the pack to hand over another term to Obama.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

If everybody in America watched that... how many would even consider voting for Gingrich?

Ron Paul on the other hand... all I see is people saying he has no chance. It's really the most deceptive, and effective way you could go about smearing somebody. Just talk about it as if he obviously has no chance, why would he?

Meanwhile, that's all that people say. Nobody gives any reason why Ron Paul is unelectable. He's clearly multiple debates including the latest debate, and then main stream media doesn't show that to people who didn't watch. They make up a gingrich vs romney story line and pretend those are the only choices.

So please, come w\ some actual reasons why Ron Paul shouldn't be president... not just the assertion that he'll never get the nomination. At this point I'd honestly consider the possibility that they're pumping up the dumbest in the pack to hand over another term to Obama.

As I have posted here many times, his laissez-faire foreign policy views are so extreme and, in my view, naive, that he can never achieve the votes of a significant percentage of the Republican electorate. His charmlessness and unwillingness to pander to the religious right represent real obstacles as well. Actually he might fare better in the general election than the Republican primary, since his views are anathema to modern, neoconservative Republicanism, but even there I can't imagine him getting more than, say, 20% of the vote (plus, since he will never be nominated, he will, ipso facto, never be in the general election unless he runs as a third-party candidate).

I appreciate his involvement in this process, and his authenticity and candor, but he will never be anything more than a footnote in the history of Presidential elections.

 

[airdata]

This tells it all. Even with Cain out of the picture Ron Paul is quite low in the polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I honestly can't take those polls seriously.
Even if the numbers were accurate, which I doubt they're anywhere close to perfect, Ron Paul is in 3rd with NO MEDIA COVERAGE. He's got the most consistent record. He just won yet another debate. What more can he do?

Where do you think Gingrich would be in these polls if every media outlet wasn't pretending he was the front runner?

Do you people really not see this happening? Bachman, Romney, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich. The media pumps them up until they expose themselves... So I'm guessing Newts made up #1 spot will soon be passed back to romney or to possibly huntsman even since all of the other candidates save for paul,huntsman and santorum have been exposed as beeing flip flopping, lying, slimey politicians.

 

[airdata]

As I have posted here many times, his laissez-faire foreign policy views are so extreme and, in my view, naive, that he can never achieve the votes of a significant percentage of the Republican electorate.

And it's smart to beat war drums and fabricate evidence to make a case for war w\ another country, then goto war and change the reason we went to war?

His charmlessness and unwillingness to pander to the religious right represent real obstacles as well.

Because a politician not pandering and being fake is totally against the code of being a politician... God forbid one of them was honest with people. That would be horrible.


But yeah, this is the Newt is unelectable thread. Not the Ron Paul is unelectable thread.

Ron Paul is clearly a better candidate unless you prefer your politicians to take bribes from corporations, cheat on their wives, flip flop positions on every possible issue and take bail out money from the US tax payers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I honestly can't take those polls seriously.
Even if the numbers were accurate, which I doubt they're anywhere close to perfect, Ron Paul is in 3rd with NO MEDIA COVERAGE. He's got the most consistent record. He just won yet another debate. What more can he do?

Where do you think Gingrich would be in these polls if every media outlet wasn't pretending he was the front runner?

Do you people really not see this happening? Bachman, Romney, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich. The media pumps them up until they expose themselves... So I'm guessing Newts made up #1 spot will soon be passed back to romney or to possibly huntsman even since all of the other candidates save for paul,huntsman and santorum have been exposed as beeing flip flopping, lying, slimey politicians.

If weren't "in third place with no media coverage," then Huntsman or Santorum would be "in third place with no media coverage," since somebody has to be in third place, and none of those guys has received much coverage. I would argue he has received more than his share of media coverage for a guy who typically polls at around 10%, and he's earned it - he is undeniably a more interesting candidate than either of those guys (though I think Huntsman would be a better President). I tend to think the paranoia of Paul supporters about the Paul "media blackout" actually harms him because it gives the whole campaign a slight whiff of crackpot.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

And it's smart to beat war drums and fabricate evidence to make a case for war w\ another country, then goto war and change the reason we went to war?



Because a politician not pandering and being fake is totally against the code of being a politician... God forbid one of them was honest with people. That would be horrible.


But yeah, this is the Newt is unelectable thread. Not the Ron Paul is unelectable thread.

Ron Paul is clearly a better candidate unless you prefer your politicians to take bribes from corporations, cheat on their wives, flip flop positions on every possible issue and take bail out money from the US tax payers.

I did not support the war in Iraq, nor do I support neoconservatism generally. I also don't support anything like the kind of extreme non-interventionism Paul espouses.

I agree with you that he's a better candidate than Gingrich, who is a bad guy and would almost certainly be a terrible President. My question back to you is, so what? Dr. Paul's views make him totally unpalatable as a Presidential candidate within his own party, and in a general election as well. I am not anti-Ron Paul - I am just recognizing reality. I find it mystifying that Ron Paul's own supporters are so myopic about the reality that his views are not mainstream and that they will never earn widespread support.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Gingrich is as unelectable as Obama was. We see that Americans, as a whole, are not very informed voters.

This.


haters are going to hate but really there is tons of time for anyone to the right of Obama to come together around a candidate to defeat BHO.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This.


haters are going to hate but really there is tons of time for anyone to the right of Obama to come together around a candidate to defeat BHO.

Who do you support at this point?

 

[cybrsage]

I did not support the war in Iraq, nor do I support neoconservatism generally. I also don't support anything like the kind of extreme non-interventionism Paul espouses.

I supported the war in Iraq, but not for any of the reasons the government gave. Democracies are contagious (I said this back in 2003, long before the Arab Spring democracy movements began), so putting a few inside the Arab world is a good thing in the long run.

I agree with you on Paul's view.

I agree with you that he's a better candidate than Gingrich, who is a bad guy and would almost certainly be a terrible President. My question back to you is, so what? Dr. Paul's views make him totally unpalatable as a Presidential candidate within his own party, and in a general election as well. I am not anti-Ron Paul - I am just recognizing reality. I find it mystifying that Ron Paul's own supporters are so myopic about the reality that his views are not mainstream and that they will never earn widespread support.

I think Newt would be better than a second term Obama. If Obama was this uncaring about what the people actually want while he wanted to be elected, I fear what will happen when he knows he cannot be elected again.

Be that as it may, Ron Paul is unelectable simply because of his radical views. Change is needed, but radical change (however good it may be in the long run), requires a LOT more info to be put out than he has done so far.

 

[soulcougher73]

False. You have it exactly backwards. Hilarious.

Government isn't your momma who split the food at the dinner table with love in her heart. Now if your momma was a whore and her pimp sat at the dinner table got his before the kids got theirs, then you grew up with government.

(In my best Chandler Bing impression) Could you BE more clueless?

 

[airdata]

Who do you support at this point?

Since he abbreviated Obama's name to BHO to highlight the " hussein " middle name, I'd have to assume (safely) that he's probably part of the anybody but obama crowd.

As bad as Obama has been, he's still better than a failure like Newt. Newt does provide comic relief though. You get to laugh at right wingers who legitimately support him.

 

[SilthDraeth]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/iowa/ron-paul-wins-drake-university-straw-poll/
Secure online poll just for the university students. Ron Paul wins...
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian...wins-iowa-debate-only-consistent-conservative
"...As of this morning 72.5% of those polled after last night's debate said they wanted to hear more from Ron Paul, 74% feel Ron Paul came out on top during the debate."

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

Ron Paul with almost 90%, of course, it is the largest online GOP gallup poll... So I know everyone will jump in and say it doesn't matter at all. They will claim that some Ron Paul supporters voted 30 thousand times out of the 47 thousand votes.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/iowa/ron-paul-wins-drake-university-straw-poll/
Secure online poll just for the university students. Ron Paul wins...
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian...wins-iowa-debate-only-consistent-conservative
"...As of this morning 72.5% of those polled after last night's debate said they wanted to hear more from Ron Paul, 74% feel Ron Paul came out on top during the debate."

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

Ron Paul with almost 90%, of course, it is the largest online GOP gallup poll... So I know everyone will jump in and say it doesn't matter at all. They will claim that some Ron Paul supporters voted 30 thousand times out of the 47 thousand votes.

LOL online polls. You do understand why they are completely and totally worthless, right? The fact that one was 'secure' makes it only modestly less worthless. (but still undeniably worthless)

 

[Stuxnet]

ideas have far more force than charisma

False. See also: Obama