Not sure if this is the forum this belongs, but I am not really putting anything up for debate, just sharing my observations, and making my predictions.

I have been going around reading the positions on all of the Republican candidates, and I like some of what I see on many of them. The one that I think is the best candidate is only at 4.0% in the national average polls. I have heard some that oppose Paul claim that his supporters make him appear more prominent than he really is by spamming the internet with support. I can't disprove that, so I will give that to them. One thing I can say, though is that you can't spam dollars. In the last three months of the year, Paul has raised over $18 million, and $6.2 million came in one day. With those types of dollars, the question is this: Where is all that money coming from if his supporters are just spamming the internet? According to www.opensecrets.org, nearly all of his contributions come from individual donors. In order to raise nearly $9 million (the amount is from the first three quarters, fourth quarter has not been reported yet) from individual contributions, the candidate would have to have a lot of supporters.

Here is my prediction for the primary season for Dr. Paul. Even though his current polling position is only at 4%, I think he will get at least 15% after the polls close. I don't predict that he will win the nomination, but I think he will take a lot of people by surprise. I would like for him to get the nomination, but I doubt it will happen. What will happen is a lot of Libertarians will come out on caucus/primary day and register as a Republican and vote for Dr. Paul. I also know that many Republicans will vote for Dr. Paul. I know of some Democrats that are going to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul on their caucus/primary day. In Iowa, you can change parties at the caucus, but I don't know if that is legal in every state.

When the votes get counted, I think Dr. Paul will have and idea as to how many people are really supporting his campaign and will decide to run as an independent. I don't think he should run as a Libertarian simply because that will polarize too many voters. If he were to run as an independant, he will earn more votes. Democrats that don't get their horse nominated might take another look at Paul because of his foriegn policy position. Republicans might look at him if their horse isn't nominated because of his voting record on taxes. We all have the candidate that we absolutly won't vote for. Mine on the right is less defined at this point, but on the left, Hillary. I know many democrats that will never vote for her. So, in the scenario that Romney gets the Republican nod, and Hillary gets the Democratic nod, many from each party will be looking for a third choice. Paul might be that choice that will change the face of the election completely. He would actually have a fighting chance given the wide selection of candidates, and the division of the nation this election cycle.

Does anyone have any other predictions that are not running concurrent with the media's interpretation of what is yet to come?

Republicans in general do not like Ron Paul, with few exceptions. Im convinced he gets the attention he does primarily from 3 sources.

Source 1__ Believe it or not is from the Democrats and/or liberals, who like him because he is anti war.

Source 2__ Is from independents, who also in many cases like him because he is anti war.

Source 3__ Is the attention he gets from Republicans who were previously registered as independents or democrats but registered as republicans, primarily because again Ron Paul is anti war.

The rest are republicans and conservatives who have been registered that way for a long time, but I believe that makes up a very small percentage of Ron Paul supporters, and most the polls reflect this as well.

The republican base does not want a wimp or a flake who plays the same finger pointing game the democrats do to earn votes. Thats why he isn't winning, and will not win. Personally I cant stand him but thats me, He reminds me of Hillary without the dress, if he were running as an independent he would have a better chance.

So will Ron Paul surprise anyone? Well he already has by being the candidate to give us a laugh or two during debates, but other than that he will lose and lose big. whether or not he scrapes up a few extra votes than many predict i couldn't say, but whats important to me is that he will lose just like he should.
Sorry to come down on your candidate like that, but I dont like him, not just because he says most of our activities across the world have been mistakes, but also because of his personality.

Well in any case Merry Christmas.

Whimp or not, I think many Republicans do like him because of his record on taxes. No other candidate has the long running record that Paul does, McCain is a close second. I think taxes are a larger issue than Iraq right now, especially with the threats from our current congress to repeal the Bush tax cuts.

I have missed the fingerpointing game that Paul has played, but would be interested in seeing the stories on it. I also don't see the connection between Paul and Hillary since the two are vastly different on just about every issue, but maybe you are referring to something else. With the monetary surge, I still have to believe that you are wrong in your prediction that he will lose big. I think there are other candidates with higher polling numbers that are going to drop to the single digits while Paul will get into the double digits. I know money isn't everything (look at Huckabee) but it has to turn into something since all but a small pile of cash came from individual contributors.

The name calling against Ron Paul as a 'wimp' is sour grapes. He is taking more courageous stands on issues than any other candidate. Paul and Kucinich aside, you could take quotes on the same topic from them all, and without putting a face or name to them, couldn't tell who said what. The mainstream candidates aren't showing courage, they're showing fear. Fear of saying something controversial. Fear of being unsafe. Fear of having a position on any issues that alienates corporate dollars or votes from their 'base'.

If Paul can at least remind the Republican nominee, that conservative values used to mean smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedoms......issues that plenty of conservatives and liberals care about.........then he has won.

The name calling against Ron Paul as a 'wimp' is sour grapes. He is taking more courageous stands on issues than any other candidate.

Lol, why am I not surprised you would take that stance on Ron Paul DTOM? Its certainly not my charming psychic ability thats for sure.

Scubatim Ron Paul bases his campaign on the failure of the Bush administration to boost his campaign just like most Dems, but I dont have time to discuss at the moment, at a party but merry Christmas ho ho ho, or ha ha ha if your politicaly correct,

Ron Paul has not come out of the blue with his positions. He had them long before the current Bush administration. Any references to the Bush administration by Paul are pointing out the continued problem with government. It is not just Bush. It is not just Republicans. It is not just Democrats.

If you spend a bit more time looking, you will see that Ron Paul's positions are not based on the failure of the Bush administration. He has had them consistently in the past.

As an aside, I do believe that things have to get 'bad enough' for voters to wake up and realize things have not been going very well for a long time. Is it 'bad enough' now with the Bush administration? The running over of the constitution did not begin with him and the current congress but they sure seem to be perfecting it.

Why, that's because you erroneously believe that I am anti-war, and that I support Paul because he is anti-war. You are sadly mistaken. I support Paul because I believe in conservatism, not the faux-conservatism that the Republican Party espouses today.



Amen. Paul has had Libertarian and Liberty Caucus support for years. With the now complete sellout of the Republican Party, he is attracting true conservatives from the Republican ranks, as they have no other candidate worth voting for. The folly of military adventurism is just as harmful as the folly of appeasment diplomacy. Democrats and Republicans today are two sides of the same coin.

I am amazed at the fear and reluctance of so many people at the prospect or hope of a third way. It says volumes about the mind numbing stranglehold that the two parties have on America.

This is truly the area that bums me out about the majority of voters- I mean, have we become such a nation of lazy fat complacent cowards that we are afraid to turn down a different path that the destructive one we have been living?

Like you said- you can't distinguish one candidate from any other of the MSM declared "front runners"- Ron Paul is the only one standing, at the end of the day, that is an actual conservative- funny how that scares so many declared Republicans

Don't forget the lazy, fat voters who tried out Ross Perot and ended up with Clinton. There's a residual from that experience with an alternative party candidate, so I figure that the lazy, fat voters would rather have GWB than any Democrat. At least the lazy, fat voters get their ever-precious tax cuts. Then they can hire illegal aliens to do their manual labor, thus maintaining the laziness, and pork out at expensive restaurants, thus keeping the fat. I know it doesn't make sense. So?

Libertarians certainly love Ron Paul. He's picking up the younger voters too, which makes sense. His Web campaign is a success, an idea that the Democrats spawned and proved. No, not the Web itself but the notion of campaigning and fundraising on it.

I'm pretty sure he's not going to get very far. It's worth a try though. Libertarians running as Republicans have got in at the local level in Colorado, although now that the state has turned Democratic, that's not such a good idea any longer. But Libertarian philosophy can be cherry-picked to come out as pseudo-Democrat as well as pseudo-Republican. It just takes a little creative marketing, as they say.

Well, good luck with the Ron Paul Revolution. I'd advise not getting too zealous about politics, but then what the heck. Get the experience of feeling your guts dissolving as the lazy, fat voters once again get their way. The time is not right for a revolution.

However the time does seem right to wrap up Iraq. Even the lazy, fat voters are sick of this thing. They're losing the illegal aliens, which makes those expensive restaurants even more so. Go for another tax cut? Life is just so tough for lazy, fat voters.

I agree that the Perot precedent hurts Ron Paul's chances in this election race. At the end of the day, Republicans will vote for the candidate that they feel has the best chances of winning over a Democrat, because the average Democratic candidate is the least representative of their politics. In particular, they want someone who has a large enough voter base to beat Hillary because they fear a Hillary presidency.

And frankly, I can sympathize. I fear a Hillary presidency too. I'd vote for Ron Paul if I felt he had a chance. I will vote in the primaries for Obama as I am a registered Democrat now. But I do remember the 1992 elections with trepidation. I would have been a Perot supporter myself if my mother in law hadn't worked for years for his company and knew precisely what a whack job he was...but he took enough votes from a relatively strong candidate otherwise (Bush senior) to change the course of history. If I were a Republican, I would likely vote for McCain or Giuliani over Ron Paul...not from the perspective of ignorance, but rather from experience, even though Ron Paul is more representative of my politics.

Well before we start calling Paul Perot we might want to wait and see if he splits off and goes independent. He may gracefully drop out after losing the Republican Nomination. Although it's possible he believe the hype of the internets The real problem with the internet base is that it thinks it is all encompassing. A little like the anecdote of the college professor saying, "But I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon. How could he have won?" When you have 2 million friends on MySpace I see how you can be confused but believe me when I tell you there's a whole country of people who have no idea about this series of tubes that brings information to your screen! Oh and they're not only registered to vote - they do.

I also think Hillary is imploding. If the NYT is saying it, she's probably been dead for two weeks With the Clinton tailspin and Obama running hard I think Republicans think '08 is a lock. And don't kid yourself there's as many racist Dems as there are Repubs - and ain't a one of them wants a black man in the Oval Office. So the Republicans are in disarray trying to figure out who gets what from the Clinton scraps since no one else from that side could possibly win all the while the Republicans are forgetting they actually have to win the election.

I say let's try 8 years without a President. Let's just see what happens.

I wonder when the time will be right for stopping the problem of big, corporate, special interest government ?

There is some hope by me that the polls showing low favorable rating for both the legislative and executive branches will carry over to how the public votes. As long as thinking voters do not think they have the power to change things by voting their conscious, I doubt it will happen. Getting people to vote for the best candidate instead of who the media has presented as your only possible choice has to part of the equation for change.

Iraq is such a huge issue which could unite the voters against the two big government parties. For some reason, the leading primary candidates do not see to reflect this discontent. Polls are an inexact tool. So many voters are not paying attention yet and have not figured it out that many of these front runners either: 1) want to stay in Iraq 2) are not definitely getting us out of Iraq and just pander.

There may yet be an awakening which will propel Ron Paul. It is unlikely. Impossible? No. Not impossible.

--------------

I may be alone with this opinion that Ron Paul will not run as an independent. His primary run has been great for getting the voters a bit more educated. That is a decent result. If he can not win the Republican primary I think he will end his run. He will run if he thinks he has a chance but losing the primary will end that hope. His ideas are what needs to win. He will be satisfied with progress on that though disappointed (as usual) the voters are not seeing what he sees.

Gray Seal-I have to wonder, even though the congress as a group are tanking at the polls, will it translate to voting individual senators and legislators with a D behind thier name out of office? Anyone running against a strong D candidate will have the secondary problem of distancing themselves from the failed policies of Rs for the last many years.

I think Democrats are being blamed as much as Bush. They should be. I do not think anti Iraq is as simple as anti Bush. There will be a larger hit against incumbents ( Democrats or Republican) than usual but will it be enough to bring change? I would put my bets on an anti Iraq Republican running against an incumbent Democrat who has been voting to support the funding for Iraq. There are plenty of those types of Democrat out there.

Voters have been brainwashed into thinking linear, D or R. I think more are realizing they can think outside of the box. This will result in some incumbents losing, regardless of party. Reid and Polosi have been selling the anti Iraq equals anti Bush. What a pair of losers! They have the power to stop Iraq but do not care to do so. The media does report such nonsense as sense. I think only the one party, my party blind people are completely buying this rubbish. Lots of voters do not know what to do. Still, these same voters are not doing the work to find out. I ask people a question such as, "Is Iraq a mess or what?" The voters I was just talking about come back with "Oh, definitely." When I follow up with a question about who are their top 3 or 4 presidential candidates they reply, "So and so seems OK but I do not really know what they think about Iraq."

All of this uncertainty leaves the door open for new ideas. Ron Paul has them. I do think there are others who think outside of the box, Kucinich, Gravel. These two do not have as good a solutions as Paul. There are bits and pieces of creativity from some of the other candidates but perhaps this is borrowed language. There does not seem to be a consistency to them. Voters searching for a new way could connect with Paul as he is relentless in going over his unique list of goals.

Win or lose, I hope the message from Paul is permanent. The perspective Ron Paul has needs to be taught and carried forth. I do think he is presenting himself as a teacher as well as a leader so it will not just be a campaign of a person but of his ideas. The anti Iraq message will get voters to pay attention and the package of ideas will buy them.

You......
that's because you erroneously believe that I am anti-war, and that I support Paul because he is anti-war. You are sadly mistaken.

You are anti war DTOM, well anti Iraq war at the very least. Ron is the only republican 100% against the war, and this beyond anything is why other anti Iraq war Americans like him. I wouldn't deny that "war support" is a big determining factor in who I vote for. I'll stand here and openly say its certainly a huge determining factor.

In any case Ron will lose the Republican primary, he doesn't stand a chance, its obvious the republican base is largely against him. He entered the race as a second tier candidate, he remains a second tier candidate, and when all is said and done he will more than likely end the race as a second tier candidate. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Ron has been unable to shake his status as a second tier candidate, and this is clear evidence that Ron is not what the republican party wants in a candidate. I keep hearing people online and on this very site say he is the fine example of a solid conservative, but its no secret that notion comes with a great deal of opposition, and not so surprising to me that most of this opposition comes from within the Republican base itself.

So apart from the liberals, and the independents, his support is very limited and the problem is he cant get it from where he needs it the most, from the republicans. If I were wrong he would have moved up like Huckabee, or would have never been a second tier candidate to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if he fails to win in a single state, and even if he does it wont be in many states he manages to win.



I agree with what you said regarding the over emphasis on D's and R's, but where you said.........

I think Democrats are being blamed as much as Bush.

I highly disagree, they get there share but nobody gets it like Bush, even those who funded the war in many cases Ive seen get away from being blamed by other democrats. Thats the nature of bias I suppose, the conservatives are often guilty of this as well. I think it shows a certain degree of honesty when a conservative can blame another conservative, or credit a liberal when they do something thats good. Same goes with liberals, but unfortunately we live in a nation where you dont see too many people giving blame where blame is due, or credit where credit is deserved. Like for example when recently discussing the troop surge progress, I saw some people pointing to anything and everything but Bushes new policy, as the cause for improvements in Iraq. Thats another story but is a fine example of just the type of favoritism that you hinted about yourself.

Now I try not to do that myself, if I don't like someone its because of their policies or actions more than anything. Bush for example I don't like at all because of his poor decision making in many cases, Ron Paul is another example, I dislike him because of his policies. He wants to privatize too many things that don't in every case need to be privatized. He wants to rid of many government programs I think are very useful. Secondly he doesn't support the Iraq war at all, where I do. These men I just described are both Republicans just as I am, yet despite this I think they are both flakes, and I will only defend people like this if they are being attacked for things I believe they are not responsible for, and even to these men I will still give credit where I believe credit is due.

Net, you never fail to make me laugh. I'm anti-war? Really? My desire for a strong national defense and a ready, capable military is probably far stronger than yours. I simply hate to see it wasted on military adventurism.
Next you'll tell me that I'm a liberal Democrat. What other judgements are you going to pass on people because they don't agree with you? I've already explained why I support Ron Paul. And in doing so, I never mentioned his platform on the Iraq war.
Why are you so afraid of the fact that there are conservatives who actually hope for the Republican Party to return to a conservative platform? Paul may not carry a single primary, and he won't win the nomination. All Paul supporters realize that. But the bottom line is this, if true conservatives don't take a stand and make their voice and their conscience heard, then we'll be stuck with another big government faux conservative, and then another, and then another. Hell, we might as well start voting Democrat.

I understand the fear, the inablility to put Paul in a nice comfortable box, like the rest of the candidates. People oppose Paul because he tells uncomfortable truths about our political process. People oppose him because he challenges the established power structure. To support Paul causes one to conduct critical thinking; it is preceeded by a re-evaluation of political ideaology; and an accepting of short term defeats in the pursuit of long term success. That long term success is to force the Republican Party to once again become a conservative party.

You're obviously comfortable with GW Bush, since that's what your going to continue to get as a candidate. You vote for your candidate and I'll vote for mine. Yours will likely win, but if we're ALL lucky.........he'll get the message.

or perhaps you are just unable to see beyond yourself and face reality, but again thats for another thread.


Can't get the anti war thing out of your mind can you. narrow.

Republicans like Paul because he is against big government and DOES want to privatize a great many things. He also wants to drop unneeded government programs we shouldn't have to pay for with our tax money. Remember when the GOP actually stood for those things? Many republicans and fiscal conservatives do. So he has a lot of support. They even remember being against nation building.

I doubt Paul really believes he has a chance and so many republicrats remember Perot too well to do as they really want to and vote for Paul, but if he manages to remind the GOP of the principles they used to claim as theirs then he will have been wildly successful. Otherwise we get more of the Bush model and a further slide to the left in the guise of conservatism and afurther erosion of our liberties in the name of security theater.

Heh, when was the GOP ever against big government? When Abe Lincoln enforced federalism over the South? When Eisenhower warned against the Military-Industrial Complex? When Nixon brought in wage-price controls? He had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, you know. When Ronald Reagan went adventuring in S. America? Oh, and the guns for hostages thing, yeah. When GHWB promised "No New Taxes" (just bigger old ones)?

Some can't admit it, but what is happening right now is not the fault of liberalism or Libertarianism. It is the fault of fascism. This has not been a slide to the left but to the right -- militarism and industrialism, strong central government, erosion of civil rights, the injection of religion into politics. I suppose one can point to faith-based social programs. Yep, and the key term is "faith-based." Then another can point to the attacks on SS, the elimination of the inheritance tax and the equating of corporations to citizens. Be careful what sticker you put on your bumper. Could cost you a job.

I suppose Democrats could go with Ron Paul because he is against illegal drugs (just make them legal), for the right of a woman to choose how many children to raise, for science and against religion in politics. But I doubt it.

The last time Democrats crossed over was to vote for Ronald Reagan. They figured it'd save them jobs. Just the opposite happened, and so there you go. Inflation was controlled, that was good. What went for $75 in 1979 now goes for $230, which means that a $14,000/year income in 1979 ought to be about $43,000 today. Is that what warehouse workers get now?

Inflation Calc

Top 10 Blue Collar Jobs by Pay

That's what I made in 1979 in a warehouse, not exactly one of the top 10 in today's pay scales.

Approval ratings are in the tank for both of the Big Two, largely because of Iraq. The POTUS caused it, the Congress went along with him, and now Congress can't pull it back. Putting another GOP-controlled POTUS in power is not the answer, so I suspect the general voting public is going to be thinking in November of 2008.

That's about as much revolution as we can expect. It'll be business as usual, which will be a change from sliding to the right, toward fascism. The argument that liberalism caused secretive government, incompetence in government, Iraq, retro energy policy, citizen harassment, white-collar crime, torture and Black Water doesn't hold any water.

Ron paul is a pro-lifer. He believes that states should make the decisions about abortion.

You......
Net, you never fail to make me laugh. I'm anti-war? Really?

Really? What do you mean "Really"? Hmm well let me rethink this one...... tic toc tic toc, Yup your anti war alright, I had to reconsider that one for a whole 3 seconds man. Laugh if you want but your anti Iraq war and since Iraq is the biggest war our country is engaged in currently that makes you largely if not mostly anti war, and you have given me every possible indicator to say that. I could easily prove it by pulling quotes of yours from another forum where we talked about this but its off topic. Ron Paul is against the same war and this is probably one of the biggest reasons you seem to like him.

Now if you support our presence in Ahfganistan thats a start, and since that is the general impression I get from you then congratulations, at least you have taken that much seriously. Then again over half of America supported the U.S. presence in Iraq at the start of the war only to turn their backs when they learned that Iraq would require a little effort, so 5 years from now if we are still fighting Al Qaeda it will be interesting to see who stands firm and how many more turn their backs on the war on terror altogether. Frankly I'm less worried about the American popular opinion and more worried about how our future leaders try and spin this war for their benifet, because what was it you said again? hmm, oh yea thats right........

"America is not at war, the U.S. military is at war, America is at the mall." Well you know what man? More American civilians are against the war than American Soldiers, and for this reason perhaps your right dude, American civilians in many cases have more to say than anything while often not knowing all the facts consequently explaining why the percentage of supportive Soldiers always has been higher than the general public, so GREAT SIGNATURE!!

Anyways to get back on topic IMO Ron is not my idea of a solid all around conservative and most other conservatives agree otherwise he would be winning when in reality he's in 4th or 5th. We will see how he finishes in the primaries, and then we will know for a fact how he ranks amongst the conservative base as a whole. Months from now I will be telling many people, I told you so. Today I live in the highly left wing city of Asheville N.C. Its probably the most liberal city in the state come to think of it, and apart from the democrats rallying support, you have more than anything "Ron Paul" for president signs, he is very popular here. This city has been called the San Francisco of the east, but if I were to make bets on Ron Paul predicting he would not only lose but lose big, id be one rich sun of a gun in this town, lol.





Thank you, so much for that comment because it backs the point. People point to anything and everything but bushes troop surge as reason for success.

this time it was.....

"Perhaps you are just unable to see beyond yourself and face reality" lol, ok

other times its.....

"perhaps is was Sadrs ceace fire"

"Perhaps the terrorist took on careers in electronics"

"perhaps big foot killed the terrorist"

"perhaps they hijacked the starship enterprise and flew off to a planet in a far off galaxy to rule and conquer a planet of apes"

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

But the new surge that was sure to fail miserably being the cause for an imporoved situation on the ground in Iraq? Naaaaaahhhhh


If you want to talk more on that just bring it up in "The surge in Baghdad 2" forum.


you...

Can't get the anti war thing out of your mind can you. narrow.

Why do you think that is? This war has been undermined, distorted, and used for political benifet so much that nobody cares anymore. And Ron paul is right up there with the worst of them IMO. All this talk of alternate agendas, conspiracies, lies, and deceit, yet nobody has enough proof on anyone of those accusations to impeach the president, what a freakin joke. I'll tell you what its all much simpler than people make it out, Bush is a poor president that folds under pressure and has poor judgment to boot.

Ron Paul can blame 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy all he wants, but he is no better than someone calling this war a "Bumper Sticker War" and he will never be president as a Republican. You see, the republican base does not want a finger pointer who players the same game as Hillary to gain footing, and most people looking for the candidate who will spite the president and end the war ASAP will be voting democrat, and thats why he will lose.

No need for me to argue this point with you. You're showing the depth of your analysis, and publicly embarrassing yourself well enough. I need simply to pull up a chair and watch.



Again, you're not even hearing people when they state their views.....you're hearing what only what you believe. Ron Paul isn't going to win. You'll be saying "I told you so" to an empty audience.

The Republican Party has continued to slide away from basic conservative values, and if the party doesn't realize that, it will continue to hemorrage, and will get what it deserves when the Democrats win. At this rate, Independants, Libertarian and Greens will dominate the landscape in the near future, and real positive change may finally occur.

The strategy of Independants isn't short term. It isn't the pursuit of instant gratification that grips so much of America. It's a long term struggle for the good of the country, not meaningless political gamesmanship.

You.......

The Republican Party has continued to slide away from basic conservative values


Or just maybe, the republican base stands for values you personaly dont agree with and therfore your prone to say the republican base has strayed away from these conservative values, or better yet your values. Its hilarious to me hearing people suggest things such as this when republicans have held 5 of the last 7 presidencies, and the only two democrats in the last 30+ years to earn the seat of president were considered flops and mind you I only bring this up when the recent failure of the republican party is mentioned. I may not like Bush myself but I also get tired of hearing those pointing out the failure of Republicans when nobody can talk about a truly successful Democrat president since JFK. I'm smart enough to spread my blame on ALL government in recent years.

And hell pull up a chair bud, just like you said, I enjoy hearing your opinions stated as facts with little or no substantiation. Look I realize I'm on your turf regarding this war and politics. The ones making the most post here are people against the war and in favor of either Ron Paul or Democrats. I could very well make the bulk of my post at highly right wing web sites where the majority support the war, and there are no shortage of these sites. However its been interesting learning about the left, and those who call themselves "conservative libertarians" who are almost always Ron Paul enthusiast. My thinking is why debate only with those who agree with me?

In debating at neutral and left wing sources I've been able to hear all the common argung points from the left and people like you, and been able to research these ideas to see how solid they really are. Honestly its been interesting, I like hearing the anti war explain themselves. Many make very good points, and seem solid and genuine. In other words they can hold their view point just like I do without being unreasonable or dramatic.

Ron Paul for example I have no respect for in regards to his opinions on foreign policy. Barack Ohbabma on the other hand I do respect even if I do disagree with him 100% in regards to this war, and why is that? Well because of all the anti war politicians he is the one pointing fingers the least, and he at least seems rational. You seem to flip flop, you deny most things that may be in favor of the war in Iraq, and you have been one of the most condescending posters on this site but in any case your comments are always fun. Its interesting to see someone hold a position only to deny the position in which they take. If me saying your highly anti iraq war sounds funny to you then perhaps you should take another look at some of your own post.

my position is always obvious, I support the war, I admit I support the war, and in fact im proud I support the war. I dont deny that the left has a habbit of ticking me off at times, and im quick to seperate my opinion from fact. For Example......

Fact...... Ron paul does not represent an all around solid conservative, acording to most Conservatives. This is true because of his lack of overall progress in this presidential race.

Opinion..... Ron Paul has ideals that are flawed and based on his own Bias against the rest of the Republican party. I believe this, but I also understand that this is my opinion.

Whenever I make a post people know what to expect, I don't hold an opinion and change that opinion when I'm criticized for having it. I'm a crass, blunt, right wing war supporter, and I don't doubt my ability to actually offend those on the left or libertarians. At the same time I'm fair and as honest as I possibly can be. So if that makes you laugh, Ohh well.

You.....

You'll be saying "I told you so" to an empty audience.

There are people that think he will surprise the republican party apparently, as for me I don't only believe he will lose, I believe he will lose massively, and thats if he doesn't drop out early for this reason. Thats what I'll be telling people "I told you so" about. Most people understand he will lose but many of his supporters think for some reason he is actually still in the race at this point, when he is totally absent in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I predict this will be the case in most other states as well. Like I said I think he will be lucky to win in a single state, and if he does it wont be in enough states to make the race at all close.

Alrighty, as a Ron Paul supporter, I have to interject here, not that DTOM needs any assistance.

This is a non-sequitur. Dontreadonme claimed [rightly] that the Republican Party has strayed from its conservative roots. What he did not say is that Democrats have, A: been successful in Presidential elections or B: been any better. All he said is that the Republican Party is no longer conservative [Conservative as in small government, fiscally responsible etc.]. DTOM nor anyone else for that matter has to compliment Democrats in order to earn the right to criticize Republicans. Believe me, I'm not biased against the Republicans; I think Democrats are just as bad


Anyone who has read DTOM's posts for the last few years could tell you he is not anti-war. There is nothing to debate here, if you believe DTOM is anti-war you are wrong. May I ask why you do not respect Ron Paul regarding foreign policy?

And you know this 'fact' because you have extensively surveyed 'most conservatives' in a manner that is statistically and mathematically sound? Or are you judging how 'conservatives' feel about him based on his low poll numbers in the Republican Party Primaries. Do you think most Republicans are conservative? What is your definition of conservative?

Because Ron Paul is non-partisan, he does not think of things as being either biased in favor or against the GOP. That's the beauty of being independently [free] minded.

DTOM stated a response to this quite articulately but let me just add: Ron Paul knew full well [and has said as much] when entering this race that it was highly, HIGHLY unlikely that he would win. I am one RP supporter who is also fully aware that he is not likely to win. But I could not possibly care less, his job is to open the American public's eyes to libertarianism, an ideology that our nation is pitifully ignorant about. He is doing his job quite well.

CP

Okay, I didn't mention abortion. We have other ways of regulating the rates of child birth, so one can be against abortion but for family planning.

I honestly hope that he does well in the primaries. There is a small contingent of libertarians in the republican party and a good showing would be what is necessary to get that section of the party tent big enough to throw some weight around. The regular route of the libertarian party running people for elections isn't going to cut it, only through making in roads into the two regular parties, will libertarian principles have a chance to influence the direction of the country. Couldn't you see someone like Paul being in charge of HUD or education? Imagine the reforms that could go on should that happen. My state's libertarian party website is down, I imagine the Ron Paul candidacy is having a draining effect on the LP party. A similar thing occured when Ralph Nader ran as an independent and effectively gutted the green party in my state. Not that there was a green party, it was just a Ralph Nader party. That's what you get I guess when even your lead candidate refuses to register as a member of the party who nominates him.

One thing about the polls, at least in my experience, is that the numbers on such websites as www.realclearpolitics.com, are of those that are from the party of that poll. For instance, to get the feel for how many republicans are going to vote for each candidate, the polling company doesn't call up demorats or greens, they call registered republicans. I don't get any calls from any democratic candidate polls, but I have gotten plenty from the republican polls. This in itself is one reason I think Paul is not getting the numbers that are more accurate for the outcome of his campaign. This is why I think many libertarians and democrats will come out on caucus night, register at the caucus site as republican and caucus for Paul. If the polls took a segment of the entire population, I have a feeling his numbers would be higher than 4%. Casting a wider net would get the opinions of all voters, not just specific voters.

ConservPat
Alrighty, as a Ron Paul supporter, I have to interject here, not that DTOM needs any assistance.



Well then having said that you believe the democrats are just as bad, as they are, then its going to take people like you and DTOM standing up and speaking out when a Democrat or liberal ticks you off or screws up. The republican party needs people speaking out for their party. Now perhaps you believe just as DTOM that our party has strayed from traditional values, but whats so special about a losing candidate who is little more than a joke to the republican party as it stands, I don't know. I understand the republican party is in trouble just as much as the next guy, however I understand one thing about Republicans that has actually kept me registered as one, and do you know what that is? With all the ridicule republicans have recieved for sticking with this war, they never wavered for political gain. In debating with Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee in response to the idea that we should abandon the war to save our party he said that there are certain things worth losing the election over, and he said we should never lose our honor.

Now the word honor has been so far perverted by the left in America that milions of people believe that war supporters have little sense, and dont know how to stray from this path of destruction, as thats the only way some will ever understand it "a path of destruction". This is why in the republican party candidates like Huckabee, Romney, and Guliani are excelling, where Ron Paul is failing miserably, because they have put the issues most important to the republican base first. Its interesting how there are some who naturally assume the republican majority has strayed from traditional values. While there may be some truth to that Any way you slice it Ron Paul will not and can not possibly win as a Republican, because he has in a nutshell attempted to convince us that the republicans in charge should make changes and decisions based on national polls rather than what is right in the eyes of the Republican majority today!! He turned his backs on his party, and not to my surprise the party turned its back on him, and good riddance. We didn't need a Hillary Clinton who will attempt to appease the masses for votes.



He is anti Iraq war today, whether he has held another opinion in the past is another story. He is against the Iraq war in almost every possible way as of now, and since Iraq is this nations biggest over sea operation as of now this makes him largely anti war as of now.


Most Republicans are conservative, its common knowledge conservepat Not all, but most. and this comes from personal observation. Now as for what the common consciouses is on Ron Paul from republicans and conservatives is no secret. In general the right does not support this man. I watched every Republican presidential debate but 1 and Ron Paul was the most booed candidate, and the candidate most laughed at in most debate. It sounded like you had maybe 5 - 10 people in the audience cheering him on in each debate. Sign number 2 is the line graphs that Fox news put together to measure how much the public cared for certain comments from certain candidates. Nearly every time Ron spoke on the war the lines would drop indicating people didn't like what he had to say. Want more? Sign 3 is his obvious lagging behind in national polls, Sign 4 is the fact that he is obviously not a Contender in either Iowa or New Hampshire. The idea that he is an all around solid conservative is an opinion largely limited to libertarians, independents, or democrats.



Nonsense anyone with their eyes on the seat of president has a potential bag full of tricks as well as possible favoritism. All ron does in regards to the war is point out what everyone else has done wrong to take focus off himself, as he blabbers on about how he would discontinue government programs that are in many cases useful. Very little of what he says do I agree with.



I know all I need the know about him to know that he is the type who will promise to fix things that aren't necessarily broken to gain votes. If he were elected he would probably be as effective at doing what he promises as our newly elected Democratic congress who promised the left to end the war for the same reasons, votes.

Ron Paul appeals to Republicans who are outside of the mainstream. He is not a popular candidate because although he has stances that are appealing when looked at alone (fiscal responsibility, smaller government, seemingly pro-life although he is against any federal interference on the issue, anti-affirmative action, anti-Kyoto, for drilling in ANWR, pro-gun rights) he has at least as many that are show stoppers for many (on either side): anti-death penalty (he was once pro-death penalty), against US participation in the UN, pro drug legalization, against border patrols to limit drug smuggling into the US, wants to abolish FEMA the Dept. of Education and almost all other federal agencies, including the FBI; wants to understand the motives of terrorists so we can combat them; seemingly has no position on immigration (at least not a strong one).

He's a mixed bag, but taken together I'm not sure that many will support him in the general election.

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but I would be interested in seeing your sources for the information you posted on his positions on all of those issues. I would like to point out that he does have a position on immigration.

Link

I think this illustrates a specific position on immigration.

I would like to make a point about something. Political figures make speeches then they have to pass law. In that a serious difference can exist from what was said to what is done when such actually has to pass into, and then run in any legal system. So a stiff border policy can go into action on a voting basis without that same voting base knowing how its worded or works legally, which I would say would vary state to state in effect.

Out of who is running for the dems Hillary has the most support right now according to various polls. She also has a good speech on environment, but I am finding it hard to find out more on it rather then just the talking points or idea. So what can you do voting wise? For me having the environment and Iraq at the tip of my list for reasons to vote I have to look at the strongest candidates that represent such values. Yet like with any politician these speeches are like selling points, more so in the current shambles of our government.

If you don't think I have been vocal against Democrats on this site then you need to click on my profile, click "view all of this user's posts" and read away. In order for anyone at this site to think that I don't criticize Democrats is either A: Delusional or B: Ignorant of my history here. The reason why you have read so much anti-Republican rhetoric from me as of late probably has something to do with the fact that the Republican Party has had every opportunity in the world since 1994 to downsize government in a way consistent with real conservatives [as written in the Contract with America...a contract that has been severely breached], and failed to do so. Remember when the GOP pledged to abolish the Dept. of Education? What has the GOP done since then: well, they've increased it's budget. How 'conservative'. Remember when the GOP promised to balance the budget? What has the GOP done since then: well, they've increased the budget deficit. How 'conservative'. Remember when the GOP promised not to add to the Federal Bureaucracy? What has the GOP done since then: well, they've created the Dept. of Homeland Security, which is designed to defend the homeland...Almost, sorta, kinda like the Dept. of Defense. How 'conservative'. Now, if you'd like to see me go down a list of things I don't like about Democrats, I can do that for you, but a quick glimpse at my past posts here would confirm the fact that I don't like Democratic politicians either. Republicans have just given me more to "stand up and speak out against" as of late.

Surely you don't believe that the war is the only reason why Republicans are unpopular? Right? There's no way that that is what you believe? Right?

If you are suggesting that Ron Paul is anti-war because it is politically advantageous to be so then you are wildly uninformed about Ron Paul and his voting record. He voted against the war from Day ONE...You know, when the war was popular [70+% popular, popular].

"Failing miserably". Setting a record for money-raising in a single day TWICE is the kind of failure Rudy Giuliani would divorce his third wife for. Setting a record for money-raising in a single day TWICE is the kind of failure Mitt Romney would change his mind on abortion for. Setting a record for money-raising in a single day TWICE is the kind of failure Mike Huckabee would take the Lord's name in vein for. Ron Paul is not going to win the Primary, but you might have to re-check the definition of 'miserable failure' if you think his campaign qualifies as one. As for the "Republican base"...Who is the Republican base? Can you tell me that? I would love to know so I can comment further on them.

Of all the criticisms I have seen and heard levied at Ron Paul, I firmly believe that this is the most nonsensical. You are claiming that Ron Paul bends with the winds of opinion polls. You're serious? How many opinion polls have you read that support: ending the War on Drugs, eliminating the income tax, pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, pulling out of the UN, legalizing all drugs? Ron Paul has been consistent in his beliefs from day ONE. Net, I mean this with no malice and with all the sincerity in the world: you need to do more research on Ron Paul, if you think his views have wavered as a result of political pressure then you don't much about his views nor do you know his party's hostility toward him, and not the other way around. Case-in-point, in the early 90's the GOP in the state of Texas and nationally promoted and heavily funded a Republican to challenge the incumbent RP in a primary election. Only after RP defeated this GOP favorite that the Republicans backed off of him. The Republican Party betrayed Ron Paul, and you seem to be indignant that he does not drone on in the manner in which they see fit. As I said, you need to do more research on RP.

See above response. Again, if you think RP changes his mind to appease voters, you have no clue what you're talking about.

No, no it's not. It cannot be common knowledge if we don't have a common definition of conservative. How do you define conservative. Please be specific.

Are you being serious Net? You're judging the conservative-ness of the GOP based on how often and loudly you heard RP booed at during debates? Really? Again though, how do you define 'conservative'?

Right. Ron Paul is a candidate that will bring 'more of the same' politics. Whereas Huckabee, Giuliani or Romney would bring positive change. [Twilight Zone music plays in the background]

CP

You bring up a great point. In this, just as any election cycle, candidates all have a lot of talking points. It can be hard to discriminate between two candidates when looking at every issue. It is important to decide on the top three issues to you before deciding on the candidate that is best for you. For me, federalism, taxes and boarder security/immigration are my top three. Iraq is no longer an issue for me because I don't believe anything will change after the election, no matter who is elected.

As far as Paul's foriegn policy, long before I was even old enough to vote, I wondered why we have military bases all around the world, but foriegn countries don't have bases here. Today, I see both sides of the issue, and have not taken a solid stance on that specific point, so foriegn policy has importance to me, however it does not rank at the top of my deal breaker issues.

Ron Paul has changed somewhat on his immigration positions. I know what his website says, but his voting record is a bit more muddy. Here is the data: Ron Paul Immigration votes.

He sponsored a bill increasing guest visas during the harvest season. He voted against the wall several times before voting for it. Now he says it isn't so important.

He certainly has said the right things (in my mind) about immigration, such as this from 2005: Immigration and the Welfare State. A good piece about how our policies have brought us to where we are.

I find it a bit odd that Mr. Original Intent is against birthright citizenship and has sponsored an Amendment to change the Constitution on this subject.

So at times he is strong on restriciting immigration, but at other times he isn't as strong.

ConservPat




Given I'm still out of town for the holidays I'll keep my responses short for the time being.


Well how do you define success or failure, thats the real question? To me the fact that he has been able to raise so much money yet still fail to make any real noticeable ground makes him even more of a failure. Think about it Pat, Mike Huckabee who was also a second tier candidate has been more successful than Ron Paul while raising less money to pull himself out of the same rut Ron is still in. He was able to do more with less and why is that? Well because money doesn't buy votes, in fact its up to each and every candidate to sell themselves as a person and as the next president, and thats something Ron Paul cant do, even with the money he does have. The money he has raised is probably substantially contributed from left wing America, which would make perfect sense of the money he has raised, while not being a real contender in the Republican primary. Ive heard many Democrats say they would consider registering as republicans to vote for Ron Paul.

Also the "republican base" is the same as saying the "republican majority". If the Republican majority was in favor of Ron Paul's politics over that of other candidates for example, he would be winning the republican primary, or at least be higher on the totem pole.



Well of all the criticisms I have seen and heard levied at Ron Paul, I firmly believe that this is the most applicable and relevant to the man. Listen, I saw him in all the debates but 1. Ive already debated about him myself, as well as having done some research on him. I know what he has said. He has said on multiple occasions that the Republican party needs to change its position on foreign policy in Iraq, or face losing the support of the American people. He's said that in a number of different ways, on a number of different circumstances.

Now since I don't know his distant history all that well I'm not going to claim he's been inconsistent with his beliefs, but he has made it clear several times that he believes that republicans should change their foreign policy because its bad for the party at times like these. I'll be back at my apartment soon and have more time to post, if you want I'll quote him suggesting this in a number of circumstances if you want, but you being such a fan of his and all I shouldn't have to waste my time substantiating something you probably already know.



I never said he changed his mind, I said he suggested that the republican party should change policy in the best interest of the party itself. He's said this in a number of ways and on a number of occasions, like I said before.



Well it depends on what you mean in terms of conservative, that can be in reference to many things like religiously conservative, socially conservative, instead of me getting into my personal view on what the definition of a conservative is, just take a look here. The idea that the republican party is mostly conservative is not a difficult one to substantiate........

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0807822302...%3D#reader-link

The book above is titled "Turning right in the 60's" It explains the shift of the GOP into a mostly conservative party in that era.



Apart from Ron being booed the most of all candidates in debates, I gave you three other good reasons he doesn't represent what the republican base is after in a candidate. Now granted he has some ideas that are technically Conservative or Republican like "reduced spending". Everyone who is up there is saying they will be best in every aspect, the voters job is to filter through the promises "which they are all making" to come to a decision on what candidate means what they are saying the most, and who has the best skills to pull off their ideas.

First of all your ideas have to be realistic, and frankly Ron Paul is about as realistic as a 90 year old saying he will become the next heavy weight champion of the world. Aint gonna happen, sorry old timer. Just like getting rid of the F.B.I. isn't gonna happen. So I think to myself is Ron Paul actually serious, or is he trying to prey on a growing anti-government mind set in this country to gain votes? Either way he is either clueless or manipulative, and therefore I cant take him seriously.





Ahh, excellent sarcasm, but lets look at this. If I had a play book for how to get votes do you know what I'd label rule number 1?

Sell myself as the candidate to bring about change, a candidate for a better America, a safer America, A candidate that will make the system work for the people, and given the times a candidate that will end the war in Iraq.

Now I take one look at Ron Paul and think to myself hmmm, he wants to change this this this this and that and get us out of Iraq, then I look into history.
November 7, 2006 midterm elections were held where the Democratic party takes the majority of both the house and the senate, but why? Why did they take the majority of the house and senate? Well because a vote for Dems was a vote for troop safety, vote for us and we will keep American interest on American soil by refusing war funding, well so they said. Not that im upset that they just approved 80 billion more dollars "No strings Attached" because I support the war, but its rather Ironic wouldn't ya say? Now the 110th congress has an approval rating lower than that of the president, oh well. Anyone paying attention could have seen that coming.

I guess what I'm saying is that I trust Ron Paul about as much as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Peloci. Apart from some of his ideas just being flat out ridiculous I don't know if id have much confidence in him actually doing what he says regarding Iraq even if I wanted us out of their myself. There are many candidates just feeding on the idea that the American people are frustrated and want change, so many of them will tell you what you want to hear, its the oldest trick in the book.

Now on the flip side support for something like the war may not equate to a great president, George Bush is proof of that, but in times like these at the very least it shows that your willing to support something you believe in even if it hurts your chances of becoming president. We need change, but we need the right kind of change. I'm not casting my vote for the first goofus to point out our problems and say I'll make it better. Its been the way of the left to suggest that the best way to deal with the situation in Iraq is to ignore it. Of course they