Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you vote for Ron Paul if given the opportunity? |
| Yes |
|
41% |
[ 12 ] |
| Perhaps |
|
27% |
[ 8 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Voted : 29 |
| Total Votes : 29 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42546
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
 
   
|
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 12:07
|
 |
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
Ron Paul is invoking President Taft's son, Robert Taft (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft). This guy was an anti-new dealer, anti-FDR, anti-Truman, so anti-big government/war.
|
Well, it's not quite as sound as Taft Snr., but it's a better role-model for a politician than many I can think of. McCain verbally sounds a lot like Bush, dirty Rudy has a Donald Rumsfeld-esque abscence of intelligence or charisma; between the neo-cons not yet discredited, they could still provide a neo-conservative leadership to stand in the 2008 election. And get absolutely hammered by Obama.
Ron Paul as President is the only way I can see the Republicans beating the Democrats IF the Democrats field Obama. He's the only candidate with policies that will attract voters from every state and a wide variety of political persuations. Judging from how he deals with sympathetic media coverage, Giuliani would get slaughtered by a debater of Obama's quality. In fact, he'd have problems holding his own against Hilary Clinton, simply because he's such an idiot.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42564
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 14:06
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Note- China, when I use it, refers to the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) rather than the People's Republic of China. I don't regard the People's Republic of China as the legitimate successor state to the Chinese empire. I suppose I'm just more keen on small democratic capitalist islands rather than large undemocratic Marxist super-powers.
On the topic of the PRC attacking China, I can't see this happening short of either the Republic of China developing weapons of mass destruction (although these could only be used to repulse a conventional invasion by the PRC, the CCP has openly admitted they would attack China if the Chinese developed weapons of mass destruction) OR the upcoming Asian recession being particularly severe. The latter scenario could cause a war because, since the Chinese have already demonstrated the acumen to survive crashes better than any other major Asian economy, they would likely be looking slightly threatening to the CCP if the PRC economy suffers particularly badly. This could lead to a hard-line faction taking power in the PRC government and using an attack on the ROC to detract from the economic situation.
Unless anyone asks, the reason I think that an Asian economic crash (affecting primarily India and the PRC) is inevitable is because there has been a huge amount of investment in the cheap labour these nations offer. This naturally leads to an extensive economic expansion, similar to that experienced by China from about 1960-1990. However, the point at which the labour force growth begins to diminish (ie. the countryside migrant labour pool is exhausted) will coincide with limitations in the balanced development of the economies of India and the PRC due to structural difficulties. At a certain point, the intrinsic problems of these societies are going to prevent the further development needed to counter-act the labour peak.
I suppose a comparison would be a Bedouin hermit taking water out of a well in the desert. If the well runs out of water, then he must use the water he already has carefully, in order to survive until the next rain. To do this, he needs equipment like water storage and clothes that don't make him sweat too much. The PRC and India are in this situation, except that they lack the equipment. I suspect India to survive the recession far more competantly, because their democratic system allows for a change of government (and thus a removal of responsibility from the state commanders) and they don't have a Tibet or Xinjiang-esque separatist movement to worry about.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #42579
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
 
|
|
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 17:21
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Ron Paul the Vicious Racist? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
The following article is important, because it reveals that Ron Paul isn't some sort of a god. Aside from BB here, who is a racist, I think most of us here will find some of the comments found in Ron Paul's newsletter to be disturbing.
However, before we all claim Paul is a chauvinist David Duke, the following is important:
1. The author of the article claims Paul is being disingenuous about claiming a staff writer wrote the racist article. If anyone has ever read Paul's writing, the vocabulary and temperament of the article is not befitting of Paul's. Thus I trust Paul's explanation, and his claim that the guy who wrote the article was fired.
2. Paul's tirade against the University of Texas law professor was claimed to be likewise. It again is not typical of Paul's writing.
Paul claims: “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.”
However, was this the same staff writer from 1992, or another asshole?
Of course, whether Paul or the "staff writer" wrote the Barbara Jordan, that comment was not racist. It was mean, but not racist. Neither are his anti-zionist comments (I am a Zionist, but I can recognize the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, though most of the time they are one of the same.)
So, what we have is the 1992 article, clearly racist and clearly not written by him.
3. This does not excuse Paul. He owned the publication and it is moronic not to read what is written in your name. In my opinion, this shows that Paul agrees with the comments. I would say that 60 percent of the white people in America do. Apparently, after the emotional LA riots, Paul allowed something that you hear in a racist Thanksgiving day conversation with your uncle to slip through.
I don't care if he "hates" black, jews, italians or anyone else. By opposing the war, he opposes the slaughter of Arabs, Persians, blacks, Mexicans, whites, etcetera. You can be Hillary Clinton, sporting a beautiful "blackcent" wherever you go (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1823483/posts) or Obama, being biethnic, claiming they are not racist while supporting a war that kills people. It's elementary, what's "meaner" and more reprehensible, thinking bad things about people or actually DOING bad things to people?
If this comes up in the mainstream press to Paul and he has to respond, he should assert that he didn't write the comments and he regrets that his name has been attached to them, but that only in an election gone mad is the saying of mean things about people more reprehensible than sending them overseas to die.
| From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 |
Ron Paul, In His Own Words
by phenry
Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:57:29 PM PDT
As tonight's Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates. The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks' first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.
We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.
phenry's diary :: ::
After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories about the Federal Reserve and the money system and a tireless advocacy of a return to the gold standard—a longtime Ron Paul hobby horse. The Ron Paul Political Report would come to feature in the stable of "underground" publications and photocopied "zines" that fed the nascent "patriot movement" that arose in the early 1990s, spurred by anger over federal government actions in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and by fear of a supposed "New World Order." Indeed, Paul changed the name of the newsletter to the Ron Paul Survival Report around 1993 in what we may presume to be an effort to tap into the survivalist sentiments then peaking among the radical right wing.
It is extremely difficult to track down content from the Ron Political/Survival Report today. The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media. Lexis/Nexis is of no help, as the obscure publication largely escaped the notice of major media publications during Paul's hiatus from electoral politics. What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview.
The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):
| Quote: |
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer. |
Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it's a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists. Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of "Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers."
During Paul's 1996 Congressional run, the Houston Chronicle unearthed some additional racial comments from his newsletter (emphasis mine):
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.
And the November 1, 1996 issue of the alt-weekly Austin Chronicle offered some additional gems from Paul's oeuvre, including his thoughts about his former House colleague, the legendary Barbara Jordan (D-TX):
| Quote: |
| University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism. |
Years later, in an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about these and other racist comments: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all." Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The Ron Paul Political Report was an eight-page newsletter, not a 200-page magazine; whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents. Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.) Regardless, the fact remains that Paul suffered these words to be published under his name in his newsletter as a representation of his views, and his efforts to distance himself from them are more than a little bit disingenuous.
I understand how important, how visceral, opposition to the war is for a lot of people. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that Kossacks understand that, opposition to the war aside, Ron Paul is not our friend. |
______________
Quick comment: Who bets that in the next debate, Ron Paul is asked flat out, "Do you believe the September 11th attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda?"
If the establishment media wants to sink his campaign, they have to drag this skeleton out of the closet. He will say no, and he's finished; or he will say yes, and he will lose the tin foil hat part of his coalition.
_______________
People called John Rocker a racist for his comments against New Yorkers..well look who he's fucking now!
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Last edited by sorianofan on Fri 2007-06-01 21:21; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoon
Minister of Truth
Post #42599
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 22:19
|
|
| Politics: Crusader |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| From Ron Paul News Letter |
May 22, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.
"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:
Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.
"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president." |
_________________
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #42614
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
Total Words: 124,012
Average words per post: 224.66
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 03:15
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
No offense Tritsan, but you should have more allegiance to a particular ideology than a Partty. I see no reason why we must worship the party.
Then again, I am very biased. I find the war and the consequent murdering of thousands to be so reprehensible, thaty I would vote for any left or right candidate that represented a true opposition to it...only if more Christians and Jews took thou shalt no kill to heart... |
Heh, no offense taken, it's not that I worship the party. I part with it on a bunch of particulars and I simply don't like many Republican candidates. Particularly the congressmen. Most Republican congressmen are oathbreaking swine that run their election campaigns as conservatives, then end up governing like liberals. I'm not saying liberals are swine--- I'm saying people like those in the late Republican congress, those who ran on a set of political beliefs and then governed on a set of political conveniences-- they're swine. Things like Medicare, Social Security, and education department reform are not politically expedient things to deal with. They were all things the Republican congress had the chance to affect, but they decided not to partake of the opportunity because it just wasn't convenient. It's easier to side with Democrats, promise not to touch these horribly broken, debt-piling programs, blame their existence on someone else, and go on your way. It's harder to take a stand.
So naturally, when November 2006 rolled around and the Republican congress had nothing to show for itself, the Democrats took charge of the election. All the passion was on their side, and all the dissatisfaction was on ours.
The reason why I'm coming across as a party loyalist here is because I'm just doing the game theory. Odds between the Democrats and Republicans are a tight 50/50. The Democrats aren't going to do anything I like. The Republicans might do something. Might. It's the best I can hope for, as a single, individual guy pitted against millions of others. An idealist would throw his vote and support away on an independent candidate who had no chance in hell. I'm a realist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mao Zedong
Committee Leader
Post #42617
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 663
Total Words: 67,090
Average words per post: 101.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 03:30
|
|
| Politics: Meritocratist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| One Of The Few wrote: |
Note- China, when I use it, refers to the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) rather than the People's Republic of China. I don't regard the People's Republic of China as the legitimate successor state to the Chinese empire. I suppose I'm just more keen on small democratic capitalist islands rather than large undemocratic Marxist super-powers.
|
The ROC has hardly been democratic until late 1980s after Chiang Kai-shek and his corrupt followers died or became senile. The cause to Formosa's economic success is the fact that it is small, has a tiny population which consists of mainly rich Chinese families that left the Mainland because they didn't want to divide their wealth with the peasants during the Communist reign. Also, they get a huge economic boost from the US. If it werent for that, the island would have easily collapse.
_________________
We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42637
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-23 10:37
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mao Zedong wrote: |
The ROC has hardly been democratic until late 1980s after Chiang Kai-shek and his corrupt followers died or became senile. The cause to Formosa's economic success is the fact that it is small, has a tiny population which consists of mainly rich Chinese families that left the Mainland because they didn't want to divide their wealth with the peasants during the Communist reign. Also, they get a huge economic boost from the US. If it werent for that, the island would have easily collapse. |
I didn't say it always was democratic, only that it is more or less democratic (at least in a pathetic US-style two-party monopoly kind of democracy). All things considered, the Kuomeindang autocracy has probably benefited China in the long run, since they were able to pursue economic growth with a ruthlessness that a democracy cannot match.
Arguing that the economic strength of the Chinese migrants to Taiwan was the cause of the ROC's miraculous growth is insane. Not only could such a bubble of income-raising be unable to sustain itself for decades (or even years), but the ROC didn't experience shocking growth until over a decade AFTER the 1949 establishment of the PRC. One could argue that the reasons for their success was an influx of highly educated immigrants from the mainland, but this also has a fallacy in that the education of the migrants would have been in subjects that wouldn't be useful for accomplishing export-driven trade surplus growth (mastering Chinese caligraphy is not going to solve problems in the manufacturing sector), and at any rate the best and brightest Chinese mainlanders were for a generation attracted to the political rather than economic sphere.
What did help the ROC was the utilising of an industrious labour force and the pursuit of sensible capitalist economic policies, coupled with an astute adaptation of their economy once the manufacturing sector had had its best days. Thanks to this method, they not only (like their fellow Asian capitalist states) grew at a faster rate than the developed world, but also other nations aspiring to development (like the Eastern block). Not without good reason did Deng's government base many of their reforms on the methods of the East Asian Tigers. In the end, even Asia's communists were converted.
They did get an economic boost from the US, but I challenge you to find any country which has had sustained economic success purely as a result of US-aid (or any foreign aid). Latin America has had all the help it could have expected in the form of foreign loans and the like, but because of its cumbersome statist behaviour and reluctance to adopt free-market mechanisms, it has sucked relative to the best developing states. US-aid does not build powerful economies.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenos
Spy
Post #44048
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 93
Total Words: 20,638
Average words per post: 221.91
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-06-30 16:23
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The 2nd Debate |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| From Faux News |
FOX News asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night's First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina's Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.
You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results
— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter
— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson
The poll was conducted between 9 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, and 12:30 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, May 16, 2007. The poll reflects the opinions of those who choose to participate and may not reflect a scientific sampling of the population.
|
Interestingly. Paul was leading the poll for some time after the debate with 30%. I guess Mitt Romney's supporters are just a little slow.
In any case, 25% is hardly a dismal performance. If you’re looking for a "willowing of the field", I don't think I'd include Paul in the list of candidates who should throw in the towel.
It's getting late, so I guess I'll just have to wait till tomorrow to see how this plays out in the media. |
Silly question really, but if you add up these numbers they only go to 94% instead of 100%... what's the deal with that? Undecideds or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #44272
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-07-07 18:41
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| Re: The 2nd Debate |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Kenos wrote: |
Silly question really, but if you add up these numbers they only go to 94% instead of 100%... what's the deal with that? Undecideds or something? |
Yep. I think it's more or less customary in these kind of polls to have an undecided option. Since the most significant part of any voting population is the swing voter section, it's this 6% which are often key to winning campaigns. "Mobilising the dedicated" only works if the dedicated are sometimes a bunch of lazy old gits.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orwelliantherye
Filthy Animal
Post #44309
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-07-07 22:04
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| Re: The 2nd Debate |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| Kenos wrote: |
Silly question really, but if you add up these numbers they only go to 94% instead of 100%... what's the deal with that? Undecideds or something? |
Yep. I think it's more or less customary in these kind of polls to have an undecided option. Since the most significant part of any voting population is the swing voter section, it's this 6% which are often key to winning campaigns. "Mobilising the dedicated" only works if the dedicated are sometimes a bunch of lazy old gits. |
Fortunately, with numbers like this, it seems likely that someone like Ron Paul will, in fact, get the Republican nomination, and overtake Romney, who seems like a more blatant flip-flopper than people accused John Kerry of being in the last election, since he went from a staunch pro-choicer to a militantly pro-life politician in recent years. Indeed, if the Democratic choice is not satisfactory to me, I may even actually vote for him when the time comes, which may even make me the only person in my family in a long time to vote Republican in an election.
_________________
| Rev. Ted Haggard wrote: |
| If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant. |
| Eddie Murphy wrote: |
| I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis |
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Orwelliantherye; As Harmless as Kitchen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #44373
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-07-08 12:23
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| Re: The 2nd Debate |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| Fortunately, with numbers like this, it seems likely that someone like Ron Paul will, in fact, get the Republican nomination, and overtake Romney, who seems like a more blatant flip-flopper than people accused John Kerry of being in the last election, since he went from a staunch pro-choicer to a militantly pro-life politician in recent years. Indeed, if the Democratic choice is not satisfactory to me, I may even actually vote for him when the time comes, which may even make me the only person in my family in a long time to vote Republican in an election. |
I find it unlikely that Paul will get the nomination. As for the race as a whole, it seems that neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party have a particularly strong candidate, at least in a horse-race sense. I think the 2008 election will be a case of which side is the least hopeless: which side can actually put forward a cadidate that the average American wants to vote for. Every major candidate is seriously flawed in such a way that they'd lose against pretty much every previous President.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ygeon
Committee Member
Post #44561
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 421
Total Words: 39,238
Average words per post: 93.2
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-07-11 09:46
|
|
| Politics: Green |
Country: Netherlands |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I wouldn't vote for the sucker in a thousand years. I'd love to see Nader in the White House, but any party except the big two never stands any chance - that's one of the biggest disadvantages of the consticuency voting system.
Anyways, I'd vote for Obama if I had the chance. Such a bad thing that he's likely not to be fielded... 
What do you all - well, some of you - have against Hillary? At least she had some sane ideas on your FuBAR health care system...
_________________
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #44579
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-07-11 14:36
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ygeon wrote: |
| I wouldn't vote for the sucker in a thousand years. I'd love to see Nader in the White House, but any party except the big two never stands any chance - that's one of the biggest disadvantages of the consticuency voting system. |
Not necessarily. Over the last 150 years, Britain has had Liberal governments, Conservative governments and Labour governments. There have been, at various points in time, the potential for either the Social Democrats or the Liberal Democrats to supplant one of the "big two", at least in order to form a new opposition party.
However, I do think proportional representation (except the Party List system) are fairly good ways to handle party politics. In Presidential politics, I think the Australian system (the Majority Voting system) is probably the best.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ratseyesoup
Junior Spy
Post #45555
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 52
Total Words: 5,146
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-07-25 20:52
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: United States |
|
| H.R.2424 |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I think Dr. Paul is a breath of fresh air in the rat infested world of Washinton politics. I do have a problem with H.R.2424.
H.R.2424
Title: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/22/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.2424:
No matter how Constitutional it may be I don't believe armed teachers should police the schools. Educators should educate and police should police. Would this also make it legal for students to carry arms to protect themselves to ?
Still a vote for Ron Paul is not as much of a waisted vote as voting for any of the other canidates at this time- Rep. or Dem.
_________________
If you can't think out side of the box, then break the box.
- unknown
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/pct07.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
