Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

You are the one on crack. I have never heard Ron Paul stumble or bumble.

Iran is only a threat because we messed with them first. America needs to mind their own business. We need to focus on solving our problems and making our country thrive, not trying to bully everyone else.

You don't liken Paul because he preaches personal responsibility, small government, and no war.

So in conclusion, you are irresponsible, like a big government to take care of you (lazy), and you are a war mongerer. Sad.

 

I don't know if Paul can win or not but for one, I have no interest in a white haired olde man being the Republican Candidate. We need youth and vigor and a little color for our Candidates.

 

So, if you did not know the age or hair color of the candidates AND heard all their opinions on the issues that matter to you and you decided that Ron Paul had overwhelmingly the best ideas for America (imo) - you would not vote for him as soon as you found out his age and hair color?

 

Pretty sure it's ideology they hate... but they resort to Personal Attacks to win.

 

I think this is how the Democrats got us into this mess we're currently in (yes I'm talking about Obama).

 

They've already rejected him once. But we'll see, I guess.

Which is why I cannot claim that with any degree of certitude, just as the CIA cannot claim with any degree of certitude that Iran isn't developing or pursuing nuclear weapons.

I agree.

Their need for strategic leverage is based upon an avowed religious desire to re-institute a global Islamic caliphate. These men and their followers have a perceived religious obligation to destroy the west and Israel in particular.

They don't need to detonate a nuclear weapon. All they need to do is obtain one and then they've changed EVERYTHING. They've gained strategic leverage over EVERYONE because the mere possibility of them passing on that technology to a terrorist proxy is enough to change the dynamics of our relationship forever. Of course, we don't know that they're not suicidal. All we have to base it off of is their words and deed, and their words and deeds suggest that they are, in fact, Islamic religious extremists, so extrapolate from that what you will.

The latter option could be employed to disable their nuclear program, so it wouldn't really matter how much more "entrenched" they became if we were able to deny them nuclear weapons. Let them fume, I don't care. They will learn eventually that pursuing nuclear weapons is not an option. And if they think rationally, as you believe, then we have nothing to worry about, even if we attack them, because their sense of self-preservation will be heightened after an attack.

His past results, I believe, are some indication of how he'll perform in the present. In the eighties, he didn't even think to run as a GOP candidate because his chances were virtually nonexistent; last election, he was soundly defeated by RINO John McCain; I don't see why this election will be any different; Republican primary voters are among the most hostile bloc of voters when it comes to Ron Paul's view of drug legalization and foreign policy.

 

I certainly don't believe they'll nominate him, and I sure as heck don't believe the American masses would elect him over Barack Obama. Their eyes would glaze over the second he started talking about monetary policy, and they would recoil in horror the second he mentioned that METH should be legal to sell and ingest.

 

Hate the game, not the player.

I'm thinking of voting for them because I KNOW that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of being nominated or elected. If he's in a position to win, i.e., millions of Americans suddenly change their ideologies to libertarian, then I will vote for him, but, as it stands, I must work with what I got, and what I got is a center-right moderate in Romney and a center-right conservative in Perry; both are establishment candidates who won't do anything to rest control from the bankers and special interests, but they're both MUCH better than Barack Obama. THEY JUST ARE. THAT'S INDISPUTABLE.

Uh, "we" didn't do anything. "We" weren't even born when our government was installing dictators in Iran. "We" are victims of circumstance and must adapt to those circumstances instead of obsessing about what happened decades ago. It's a good lesson to learn, but it only provides us with a preventative lesson. We are past the preventative stage in our relations with Iran. We are already engaged in hostilities with them.

Because we're the only thing standing in the way of the Islamists desire to subsume the ME and push Israel into the sea.

They're enriching nuclear material and routinely denying inspectors access to their facilities. One would think that if they weren't developing or pursuing nuclear weapons technology, they would be anxious to fully disclose their operations. However, their repeated refusal to disclose the nature of their facilities and nuclear programs is a strong indication that they're pursuing a nuclear weapon.

In other words, abandon our interests and obligations in the region because we're scared of Iran?

 

So, let me see if I got this straight???

You'd rather be tyrannized by uncontrolled government, and bankrupted by corrupt politicians - as long as they are youthful and handsome???

As opposed to being protected from the excesses of unlimited, corrupt government - b/c the man standing on those principles has gray hair and is a septuagenarian???

Well, Benjamin Franklin was clearly an addle brained octogenarian when he said,

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Crazy old fool - Liberty??? freedom??? nonsense!!!

Principles??? wisdom??? nonsense!!!

What we need is more "stimulus"!!! more Keynesian economics!!! I'm sure those youthful blokes Rick Perry or Mitt "the legacy" Romney will be only too happy to oblige.

 

What in the world makes you think Rick Perry, or even Mitt Romney, would resort to Keynesian stimulus policies? Do you honestly think the Republicans and tea partiers would permit something like that to happen? Have you been utterly oblivious to everything that has been happening in Congress for the past few years? I generally enjoy your posts, but you're being willfully obtuse if you think the Republican nominee for President will mimic the fiscal policies of Barack Obama. It's been a knockdown, drag-out fight between the two sides to implement different visions of fiscal policy. The GOP fought TOOTH AND NAIL to stop Obamacare, and stopped his attempts to implement a cap and trade schema dead in its tracks. That's worth something in my book.

 

So you're saying that the Republicans found religion after the stimulus that went thru under Bush??? and that they themselves are not Keynesians??? or that they don't carry water for the FedRes/Wall Street banking and Big Business interests???

I guess I would throw it back at you - have you been utterly oblivious to the political machinations of the Republican party leadership for the past 60 years - since Eisenhower stole the nomination from Taft in '52???

Like a tag team wrestling duo, the Republcrats each do their damage, and when the people have had enough of one, they swap positions and work the con from the other side of the aisle.

To be sure the "Tea Party/Libertarian" forces in the Republican Party are an annoyance to the Party leadership, but where there's a will there's a way.

Was watching Lou Dobbs the other night and he presented this information - understand, the Republican leadership covers this nonsense up, and vilifies Ron Paul and the other Libertarian/Patriots who are trying to expose this nonsense.

But the Republican Party leadership??? Boehner??? McConnell??? Romney??? Perry??? Not a peep.

Federal Reserve Dollar Swaps - to European Banks over the past 2 1/2 years

European Central Bank - $8.01 Trillion

Bank of England - $919 Billion

Barclays - $868 Billion

Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 Billion

Swiss National Bank - $466 Billion

Bank of Japan - $387 Billion

Deutsche Bank - $354 Billion

UBS - $287 Billion

Credit Suisse - $262 Billion

Danmarks National Bank - $73 Billion

As Dobbs points out, most of these "swaps" have been "unwound"... but that new rounds of "swaps" are in the making - pointing to the profound instability of the house of cards.

His guest, Lewis Lehrman, Lehrman Institute Chairman says -

"In a word, the Federal Reserve System, the American people, are the bankers to the world. The Federal Reserve system being UNCONSTRAINED BY ANY INSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, CREATES MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR IN ORDER TO FINANCE INSOLVENT EUROPEAN BANKS AND INSOLVENT AMERICAN BANKS..."

If "BAILOUTS" are "needed" - bailouts we'll get... if you think the Republicans will stand against the power of the Fed and Wall Street, then you're willfully blind.

"Too big to fail" ring a bell???

To be sure, Ron Paul will object, the Tea Party will object... but the Republican leadership??? nah, they'll find a way to push it thru.

Mind you, this is the same Republican leadership that just signed off on the latest "debt deal", lol... yeah, what a "deal". How to plan and execute a national bankruptcy 101.

 

I'm saying that the current political climate has changed radically since then, and that there is no chance in hell of the Republican nominee for President trying to push through more Keynesian fiscal stimuli.

They fought hard against Obamacare and they stopped cap and trade dead in its tracks. Does that mean nothing to you?

That much is obvious. On the monetary front, both parties are aligned. Even a Ron Paul Presidency couldn't change that, since it would require an act of Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Ron Paul can object all he likes, but the President does not have the power to compel the Federal Reserve to do anything. It would require an act of Congress to change that arrangement.

As far as the debt deal is concerned, it was a crap deal but the Republicans were not in a position to make demands. The political demagoguery of the Democrats keeps them in a precarious position. They need a MANDATE from the masses before they can do anything to effectuate significant change.

It's time to stop blaming the politicians and to start blaming the idiots who elect them!

 

Those that wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because they don't think he can win are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

You can't attack people with no convincing evidence. The question is what policy is most sensible given what we know. I think that clearly diplomacy and non-interventionism, not force.

Religion is a factor, but don't assume that geopolitics, economics, and a host of other issues are irrelevant. It's logical that sixty years of US militarism in a foreign region would cause people in that region to resent the United States. It doesn't matter what region it is; it would be bizarre if it did not cause resentment. You'll always have ideological radicals everywhere, but these actions encourage such radicalization to grow more intense and widespread and would anytime, anywhere.

It certainly wouldn't be a good thing; I'm not saying it would. But as I said, I think the best way to reduce that risk is by reducing their incentive to do so and that's through non-interventionism.

They are extremists, but they are also despots, and despots usually want to retain their power.

As you pointed out, the best way they could achieve self-preservation in a hostile world would be to actual obtain a nuclear bomb. So heightening that would heighten their incentive to obtain it. Yes, you might delay it by destroying infrastructure, but it's not like they couldn't move it somewhere and be more secret.

Weigh the potential costs and benefits here. Attacking them with no convincing evidence of a nuclear weapons program would be diplomatically disastrous and invite international condemnation for the United States, would further radicalize the Iranian people, would further encourage the regime to shut out all diplomacy and outside attempts to oversee it's activities, and would incentivize the regime to try to get a bomb if they weren't before or more so and more secretly if they were already trying to get it. Those are the costs.

The benefits would be possibly delaying a their nuclear weapons program, assuming they have one, and absolutely nothing if they don't.

Opinions can change and have changed quite significantly. He already has far more support than he had in 2007, let alone 1987. He just came in a very, very close 2nd in Ames, whereas last year it was 5th. So why can't it continue to increase?

 

Republican politicians are well-known to be much more radical in opposition than when they are the ruling party. I don't trust them not to pass stimulus bills once they obtain power again.

Better to have a President who would at least stand in the way on any expansions on the Fed's power. Also, Paul would have the power to nominate the Fed's governors; I don't think he'd renominate Bernanke. The Senate could vote down his nominees, but they'll never get an inflationist from him to confirm. Also, the bully pulpit and coattails of the presidency do not hurt.

They had a mandate for years and used it to start needless wars, violate civil liberties, construct police/surveillance state apparatus, expand and centralize power on the president, further centralize the schools through NCLB, and expand the welfare state through the prescription drug bill more than any time since LBJ. Obama's built on all of that, of course, proving once again the follow of growing government power only to have your opponent later inherit it.

That was their significant change. Why should the next time be any different?

 

They always "fight hard"... in the end, the socialist nonsense gets on the books, and when the Republicans have power, they don't get rid of it, they normalize it. That's the track record.

Will Perry or Romney provide leadership and take that argument to the people??? Of course not. If we don't address the cancer, we're going to die - and die we will.

You can make excuses about demagoguery, and I agree that the demagoguery by the enemies of freedom, and ignorance of the masses is indeed thick, but that doesn't mean you don't stand firm and fight it with truth and vigor.

The Establishment knows full well what they're doing, and they know that playing "the lesser of two evils", and "we did the best we could" con games against conservatives/patriots/Libertarians is a winning strategy. Stop playing into their hands.

You're wrong about that... the Republicans were, in fact, in perfect position to make demands - they control the purse strings. Again, you're carrying water for the very people who are killing us... that's the con - "it's the best we could do". We're bleeding to death, and you're saying "... it's not okay, but it is what it is".

That "deal" says, let's agree to spend $2.4 trillion more that we don't have... not only that, the "default, granny over the cliff" demagoguery was a flat out lie. Did the Republican leadership take the truthful argument directly to the American people??? No, of course they didn't... "the deal" was prescribed and predestined - the hyperbole was just theatrical stage acting. As usual.

Ron Paul and Tea Partiers were right... their msg was ignored, misrepresented, vilified, and ultimately shuttered by the Republican misleadership and the MSM. That is not an accident - that is how the script is always written.

I agree to a great extent... but the people are ignorant, they need to be educated. That requires leadership, and it certainly isn't going to come from John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Just as it didn't come from any Republican President since FDR - and that includes Reagan.

Has any Republican President provided leadership to undo any of the socialist gains made under FDR and LBJ??? Of course not... Reagan talked about freedom, but in the end, he made sure we stayed on the disasterous course we were on - just as did Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I/II did... none of this is an accident.

Ethereal, I've worked in the freedom fight professionally... I can assure you, our crafted demise is not an accident; and even it were the result of accident and/or stupidity, how can you not see that the only weapon you have to fight against it is Constitutional principle???

The Republican leadership doesn't stand on principle... they are committed to personal advancement, and part of that necessarily entails blunting conservative momentum and misleading the conservative base.

Ron Paul on the other hand - disagree with him on merit if you want - at least fights from a winnable foundation, i.e. the Constitution. The Republican misleadership, who take their orders from the Establishment, have governed for decades with no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. That much should be obvious.

Those of us who back Ron Paul understand that. There are many fine Americans amongst the Republican Congressional delegation - but they never make it into positions of power. The Establishment has a firm grip on both parties. If a politician is able to rise to the position of Speaker, or Chair of the RNC, or Majority/Minority Leader, or President... that politican is "Establishment approved", i.e. has sold their country out for personal advancment.

We're very near the end now. If you're serious about turning back the tide, the only weapon you have is the Constitution - trying to fight populist argument with unprincipled rhetoric, or even basic logic, is a losing strategy for sure. Witness "the debt deal".

 

And I wouldn't. An attack is only justifiable if there is enough evidence to warrant it.

Again, I'm not advocating for force right now. I'm just saying we must take measures consistent with the evidence to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The conflict between the west and the greater Islamist movement predates our country's existence by centuries. This struggle is merely a continuation of war that has been ongoing for thousands of years. You might be right that the Islamists in Tehran have different motives than the rest, but that's a chance I'm not willing to take given what's at stake.

And if you're wrong? And a nuclear weapon is detonated in downtown New York, LA, or Chicago?

And sometimes they want to expand their power. Sometimes they do things that you never expected them to do.

The best way for them to achieve self-preservation is to act civilized and abandon the notion that the west is the great Satan and that Jews are subhuman filth and that gays and adulteresses need to be murdered and brutalized.

Osama Bin Laden once said, "Why do we not attack Sweden, for instance?" Well, I pose to his corpse the same question. Why haven't WE invaded Sweden? Probably because Sweden minds their own business and doesn't export terrorism to civilized nations and societies. If Iran's regime is in the business of self-preservation, then they can achieve that end by NOT PISSING US OFF.

I never said we should attack them. At least, not yet.

I simply cannot share your optimism. I hope you're right, but I don't think Americans, let alone Republicans, are ready for Ron Paul.

And straw polls are meaningless. You should know this.

 

I get excited just thinking about it.... Nah. Never happen...

 

Inshahallah

 

It's cute how the media spins the straw poll result.
Wind the clock back to last cycle.

1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%
3 Sam Brownback 2,192 15.3%
4 Tom Tancredo 1,961 13.7%
5 Ron Paul 1,305 9.1%
6 Tommy Thompson 1,039 7.3%
7 Fred Thompson 203 1.4%
8 Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3%
9 Duncan Hunter 174 1.2%
10 John McCain 101 0.7%
11 John H. Cox 41 0.3%

The media spun this as a huge win for Huckabee because he pulled off #2 on a shoestring budget and came out of nowhere. It proved that he had a formidable campaign on the ground. It was a non-event for Romney because he spent so lavishly.

Fast forward to this year's results.
1 Michele Bachmann 4,823 28.6%
2 Ron Paul 4,671 27.7%
3 Tim Pawlenty 2,293 13.6%
4 Rick Santorum 1,657 9.8%
5 Herman Cain 1,456 8.6%
6 Rick Perry (write-in) 718 4.3%
7 Mitt Romney 567 3.4%
8 Newt Gingrich 385 2.3%
9 Jon Huntsman 69 0.4%
10 Thaddeus McCotter 35 0.2%

This year it's a huge win for Bachmann (even though she spent lavishly like Romney) and a non-event for Paul (even though he came out of nowhere like Huckabee). For some reason, Rick Santorum's result is a *good* showing.

From CNN:

No mention of the fact that Bachmann is in the same boat. Or Romney, for that matter. And of course no explanation for why if "straw poll results can be taken for granted", why they're bothering to cover the straw poll in the first place.

The media and RNC clearly do not want to talk about Paul. Watch Matt Strawn's panicked attempts to avoid mentioning Paul.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnDwCFN8T98"]RON PAUL Cheering After Straw Poll Results Announced on FOX: Bachmann: 28.55% Ron Paul: 27.65% - YouTube[/ame]
That's okay, though. So long as Debbie Wasserman Schultz is referring to Bachmann and Paul in the same sentence, the media will have to do the same.

 

I like Ron, I voted for him in the 2008 and went door to do campaigning for him I still have his bumper stickers all over my car. As far as electability, in a country where people have been conditioned to have a sense of entitlement you have to admit it seems pretty unlikely. You have to remember the mudslinging hasn't started.

In 2008 blasting Ron focused on the allegations of racism. That will come up again, but they don't need to use it. All they have to say is Ron Paul wants to take away your Welfare and Medicare. There are any number of issues they can run ads like that. From Republicans it will be; Ron Paul thinks Iran Should have a Nuclear Weapon, Ron Paul will make the country less safe.

I agree with Ron on these issues, but it didn't happen overnight it took years to get here. I know Ron makes no promises, he has no plans to stop the checks going to grand mom, at least not right away. However I guarantee you the American voter won't see it that way.

 

No argument here. I don't expect Paul to win the nomination, let alone the Presidency. Nor do I want him to. But I *do* want him to be treated as a serious candidate so that his philosophy can gain a wider audience.
I want Obama to win another term so that the status quo will take the blame for the wreckage they have caused until the liberty movement gains enough control to actually fix our problems. We're not quite there yet.

I'm looking for a Goldwater- style victory here.

 

Liberty movement?

 

Exactly, we teach our children they teach theirs, then maybe America will come around.

 

Yeah. Aren't you familiar with it?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D04UPFfIigM"]Campaign for Liberty Promotion - YouTube[/ame]
The Campaign for Liberty
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofx-Qjp3cjs"]I Pledge to Join Young Americans for Liberty - YouTube[/ame]
Young Americans for Liberty
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gcn7_2QdLU"]Join the Republican Liberty Caucus - YouTube[/ame]
The Republican Liberty Caucus
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47uX7M4tAHM"]Richmond Tea Party Tax Day Rally 2011 Promo - YouTube[/ame]
and to a lesser extent the TEA Party that has grown out of the above.