Yeah, the disaster relief element of the military is really only convincing when you're talking about disasters that call for an aircraft carrier to show up. It's hard to see how strictly humanitarian orgs are going to maintain aircraft carriers, but it's also clear how disaster areas without usable airfields, or electricity, or water processing, etc. can really benefit from an aircraft carrier pulling up just off shore.
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Yeah, the disaster relief element of the military is really only convincing when you're talking about disasters that call for an aircraft carrier to show up. It's hard to see how strictly humanitarian orgs are going to maintain aircraft carriers, but it's also clear how disaster areas without usable airfields, or electricity, or water processing, etc. can really benefit from an aircraft carrier pulling up just off shore.
You really must have crawled right up into your own anus on this one :shrug:
I never realized how much freedom and liberty scared the living shit out of people. As a nation we are a bunch of pussy's. Which is fine. If you want a nanny state, go for it. Even the Chinese and Japanese aren't such pussy's.
But please do not whine when they call you or your loved ones up for draft, AND what a mindfuck that's going to be for you and your loved ones
Don't complain the next time a big burly man with a TSA badge reaches into your anus (past you) to check for bombs strapped to your tonsils. You know, because the three pussy scanners might have missed them.I'm kind of looking forward to it TTYTT, its sort of fun watching people eat their just desert.
Yeah, at the time we had the earthquake, the NZ navy was running an exercise and had a ship in port, or nearly so, so they turned about, docked up, and the crew were able to provide technical, engineering and logistical support - to the point where the ships kitchen was preparing meals for distribution to the locals :shrugs: I also have it in my head that either they had desalinisation plants on board that they put to good use.
But that's an argument for maintaining some naval equipment, and a bunch of technical specialists, not a large standing army. The only good argument I have seen for that hasb't been in this thread - for the protection of technical specialists trying to provide humanitarian aid (EG Somalia, and Haiti).
Having said that, there's nothing in that that couldn't be provided by the mitilias of consenting states is there?
What is a Libertarian Fundamentalist? Do they even exist? Sure, there may be a few "real" Anarchists out there, but, most people just want less government intrusion and more local control over their lives.
I was SHOCKED the last time I was in the USA. I had never seen TSA military-style vehicles patrolling the streets until I was in San Fransisco (of all places). It was really sad for me to watch as no one seemed to notice. The last time I had that sort of feeling was in Vietnam walking past guards out of the airport. No one seemed to notice there either. I guess I never grew up around that sort of thing, and so it always unsettles me.
Hmm... Receptive audience is not needed. I'm just tired. Most of these 23 pages were a waste of time, because Ron Paul didn't have any policies to do with CRA. Secondly you don't trust the man- you like status quo politics which you admitted.
Thirdly for the abortion- I still disagree with federal funding of abortion, and your argument about military I agreed with. But two wrongs don't make a right. So its not like you provided an argument for funding, you simply proposed the argument of de-funding other things to be 'consistent'. And I agree. I can agree with you about Ron Paul on the partial-birth abortion ban. Great, does this mean I won't support him now? No. Because he' still a far better choice than everyone else. Disagreeing with the candidate on any number of issues doesn't mean you can't vote for them. Do you agree with him on anything? Are the issues you agree him with more important than what you disagree with him? Perhaps you'll consider voting for him then. Thats how I look at it. But this whole discussion has been way to deep. 24 pages to resolve 1 issues. 24 pages for another issue is needed? I don't think so. You can read his policies yourself and find out if you agree with him on anything or not.
There is nothing to 'run' away from or to look for receptive audience. I just don't see an end to this discussion and I think I've spent decent amount of time in this thread. I don't expect to 'resolve' the abortion debate, which we have gotten into. Because its a matter of public opinion. So I'm not going to waste my time on another 24 pages of discussion. I rather do something other than coming to this forum, because before taking part in this thread I used to come on this forum after many days or even weeks. Its consuming much my time.
I hope you're not expecting me to prove libertarian views to you because you asking me to essentially 'continue' is exactly that.
I can't prove anything to you. Its a matter of opinion. Does freedom work or not is a matter of opinion. And since you and I both hold our opinions strongly I don't have the capacity to spend endless time on this thread.
Its a fruitless discussion. If you think libertarian views become inconsistent when you get to the root. You should then consider how consistent your own views are. But I'm not going to start the discussion.
I hope to stay away from this forum for a while and do something more productive in real life, is all I'm saying
But who am I kidding. Your writing style has always been of accusations without evidence. You're just judgmental over everything. Yea 'I'm looking for receptive audience', maybe I should have done that on page 1 of this thread. Anyhow I already know the conclusion of our discussion: We disagree totally. Why would I continue then since we disagree philosophically. It actually makes more sense to go and talk to someone who'll listen then to continue a discussion between us anyways as we're philosophically different. You don't even believe there can be a honest politician, why would I want to continue with this? Think whatever you want, but I just want to get away from these discussions I have other things to do in life too.
I'll just end with this: Freedom works in my opinion.
Bye now, I'll just block this site so I'm not tempted to come here for a while :wave:
Thirdly for the abortion- I still disagree with federal funding of abortion, and your argument about military I agreed with. But two wrongs don't make a right. So its not like you provided an argument for funding, you simply proposed the argument of de-funding other things to be 'consistent'. And I agree. I can agree with you about Ron Paul on the partial-birth abortion ban. Great, does this mean I won't support him now? No. Because he' still a far better choice than everyone else. Disagreeing with the candidate on any number of issues doesn't mean you can't vote for them. Do you agree with him on anything? Are the issues you agree him with more important than what you disagree with him? Perhaps you'll consider voting for him then. Thats how I look at it. But this whole discussion has been way to deep. 24 pages to resolve 1 issues. 24 pages for another issue is needed? I don't think so. You can read his policies yourself and find out if you agree with him on anything or not.
There is nothing to 'run' away from or to look for receptive audience. I just don't see an end to this discussion and I think I've spent decent amount of time in this thread. I don't expect to 'resolve' the abortion debate, which we have gotten into. Because its a matter of public opinion. So I'm not going to waste my time on another 24 pages of discussion. I rather do something other than coming to this forum, because before taking part in this thread I used to come on this forum after many days or even weeks. Its consuming much my time.
I hope you're not expecting me to prove libertarian views to you because you asking me to essentially 'continue' is exactly that.
I can't prove anything to you. Its a matter of opinion. Does freedom work or not is a matter of opinion. And since you and I both hold our opinions strongly I don't have the capacity to spend endless time on this thread.
Its a fruitless discussion. If you think libertarian views become inconsistent when you get to the root. You should then consider how consistent your own views are. But I'm not going to start the discussion.
I hope to stay away from this forum for a while and do something more productive in real life, is all I'm saying
But who am I kidding. Your writing style has always been of accusations without evidence. You're just judgmental over everything. Yea 'I'm looking for receptive audience', maybe I should have done that on page 1 of this thread. Anyhow I already know the conclusion of our discussion: We disagree totally. Why would I continue then since we disagree philosophically. It actually makes more sense to go and talk to someone who'll listen then to continue a discussion between us anyways as we're philosophically different. You don't even believe there can be a honest politician, why would I want to continue with this? Think whatever you want, but I just want to get away from these discussions I have other things to do in life too.
I'll just end with this: Freedom works in my opinion.
Bye now, I'll just block this site so I'm not tempted to come here for a while :wave:
Last edited:
Are you sure?
H.R.776 -- Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 (Introduced in House - IH)
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
And:
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Seems to me he's tried to do exactly that IE " enforce his understanding of when 'life' begins", four times now:
H.R.1094
...To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.2697
...To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.2533
...To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
LOL, that was really funny
I´m glad you get the point, kinda, since I was just being ironic, you would realized it pretty soon I think if you take a look my other posts in this thread.
Like I said earlier in this thread; Apparently individual responsibility is something that we still cant fathom.
Its practically the same as Federal definition of marriage. Gives the State's the power to recognize marriage as they want, and in this case abortion. Thus this federal law would be 'meaningless enforcement', it would just let States deal with it. Its a quicker way to return the issue to the States rather than wait for an overturn of Roe v Wade. The way this bill defines 'life' then essentially is rendered meaningless as how it is protected is by State's and they can legalize abortion if they want if they feel that is okay. This could even mean states allow 3rd trimester abortions, banned by Roe v Wade. So its neither 'pro' or 'anti' abortion. Its just a smart shortcut to return the issue to States.
And if it makes you feel any better, here are Pro-lifer's bashing Paul for being Pro-Choice- also talks about the bill you mentioned.
http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul
Anyways please discuss with others I'm done. This will be my last post I promise, so no reason continuing with me.
Last edited:
Liar.
It explicitly forces the states to enforce his personal view of life at conception.
Any of this other crap your dressing it up with is nothing more than obfuscatory drivel.
You said he wouldn't force the states into taking his position, and he has, four times, tried to do precisely that.
2.(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception
.It explicitly forces the states to enforce his personal view of life at conception.
Any of this other crap your dressing it up with is nothing more than obfuscatory drivel.
You said he wouldn't force the states into taking his position, and he has, four times, tried to do precisely that.
That view is pointless from the enforcement point of view, technically you are correct, but practically that definition is meaningless, and only a means to return the abortion issue to states without federal say. I guess you want him to be correct on technicalities rather than find some solution to the problem itself. The definition of 'life' isn't what people are worried about- they are worried about the practical practice of abortion.
I guess its better that politicians keep debating abortion rather than get anything meaningful done. If not this bill is a smart shortcut to respect both sides of the discussion in the practice of abortion, which is really what it is all about.
But yes you are technically correct. But I don't care about technicalities. Otherwise nothing could ever get accomplished. If Roe v Wade never happened, this bill wouldn't exist (so he wouldn't do such a thing). Its a circumventing method. But I don't think that matters to you.
What matters is to be technically correct. Yes he tried to force his definition of life on the people. I concede. Now it should be fine to say bye.
So now:
:wave:
I guess its better that politicians keep debating abortion rather than get anything meaningful done. If not this bill is a smart shortcut to respect both sides of the discussion in the practice of abortion, which is really what it is all about.
But yes you are technically correct. But I don't care about technicalities. Otherwise nothing could ever get accomplished. If Roe v Wade never happened, this bill wouldn't exist (so he wouldn't do such a thing). Its a circumventing method. But I don't think that matters to you.
What matters is to be technically correct. Yes he tried to force his definition of life on the people. I concede. Now it should be fine to say bye.
So now:
:wave:
Last edited:
No, it's not pointless, it's not meaningless, it's both meaningful, and pertinent. He is forcing his opinion of 'life begins at conception' on the states. Anything else is just mummery.
I've told you my solution, or part of it, let people choose according to their own conscience. That's the point you, like every pro-lifer, misses. This isn't about forcing pro-lifers to have abortions, this isn't even about getting them to shut the hell up. This is about giving them the choice to govern their bodies.
Technicalities are all that matters. How else are to judge a man if not by his actions? And Ron Paul's actions are clear, he's quite happy to force his opinion on people that don't share it.
Great, I agree let people choose
But that's not what he's doing. That's the opposite of what he's doing.
What makes it worse is he's over riding the judicial process to do it, which, according to you, is the be all and end all. The supreme Court has given him its answer on the matter, and, according to you, he's trying to circumvent it, and he's trying to circumvent it becaus ehe doesn't like it, because he thinks that people should be forced to recognize that life begins at conception.
He feels so strongly that life begins at conception that he has tried to force feed this to the people four times.
This was an excellent post, and very true. Yet, the dying and suffering of America's young men and women, while they serve as petty thugs for America's corporate state and it's international bankers I believe are a far greater moral crime. This destroys our national character and brings hatred and danger to our shores. It bankrupts us as well. But then, he speaks out about that too.
Ron Paul Plans to Release $1 Trillion Spending-Cut Plan
A certain problem with the proposal
Setting aside the elimination of several cabinet departments ....
Okay, look: If a Democrat came out with a plan to slash the defense budget by half, the Republicans would crush the suggestion as insane and win popular support. I mean, we're still building Cold War-era submarines. And a fighter jet that can't fly in the rain.
Very simply: How can Ron Paul get away with that without crushing the GOP for a decade on the grounds of their hypocrisy? Or better yet, how can he pull it off at all?
It's a lovely suggestion, but please think about what it involves.
Cutting and running. Not that this is really that big a deal insofar as I believe we are damaging our reputation more by staying in, but come on. It's a powerful and sustaining attack where it hurts—pride—that contributes greatly to our inability to extricate ourselves from failed and failing causes. All of a sudden the GOP is going to be on board with cutting and running, though?
Job loss. One thing about the military-industrial complex and politicians is that the defense budget is spread out like nothing else. I've heard it asserted, and have no doubt—though, in truth, I've never checked the numbers—that there isn't a House district in the nation that doesn't get some defense dollars beyond recruiting. (House Speaker Gingrich's landlocked district received Coast Guard dollars. Nobody arguing with the right wing's idea of Beelzebub, Michael Moore, ever found a reason. Hell, I would have thought someone could have said, "Recruiting station." Even more, there's a Navy station in Cobb County.) Don't get me wrong; I can envision a president who is able to say, "Cut the defense budget in half," and reasonably expect it to happen. In a hundred years. With a revolutionary socialist in the executive.
I mean, great. Let's do it. Cut defense in half.
Consider, please, two headlines from yesterday:
The actual number in that second is from the Center for a New American Security, perhaps the dumbest name I've heard since Project for a New American Century, and suggests between $550b and $1t in defense cuts over the next ten years.
This is going to be a fucking political war.
I'm down with cutting the budget in half. But that one trillion is going to be cut from at least seven trillion dollars, if we project the 2010 budget as a constant. That certainly makes for a rough estimate, but my purpose is to suggest that cutting the defense budget in half, while a good idea, falls somewhere on the spectrum between individual political suicide and the destruction of an entire political party.
It ain't gonna happen.
Sticking the proposed cabinet department eliminations back into the equation, what, really, would we get from taking Ron Paul's defense budget bait?
(Absolutely nothin'. Say it again.)
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Defense spending means 56,000 Indiana jobs". WNDU. October 7, 2011. WNDU.com. October 8, 2011. http://www.wndu.com/indiana/headlines/Defense_spending_means_56000_Indiana_jobs_131354013.html
Clark, Colin. "Romney Pledges Defense Boost; Analyst Predicts $1 Trillion in DoD Cuts". AOL Defense. October 7, 2011. Defense.AOL.com. October 8, 2011. http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/07/romney-pledges-defense-boost-analyst-predicts-1-trillion-in-do/
The Esotericist said:
Setting aside the elimination of several cabinet departments ....
Okay, look: If a Democrat came out with a plan to slash the defense budget by half, the Republicans would crush the suggestion as insane and win popular support. I mean, we're still building Cold War-era submarines. And a fighter jet that can't fly in the rain.
Very simply: How can Ron Paul get away with that without crushing the GOP for a decade on the grounds of their hypocrisy? Or better yet, how can he pull it off at all?
It's a lovely suggestion, but please think about what it involves.
Cutting and running. Not that this is really that big a deal insofar as I believe we are damaging our reputation more by staying in, but come on. It's a powerful and sustaining attack where it hurts—pride—that contributes greatly to our inability to extricate ourselves from failed and failing causes. All of a sudden the GOP is going to be on board with cutting and running, though?
Job loss. One thing about the military-industrial complex and politicians is that the defense budget is spread out like nothing else. I've heard it asserted, and have no doubt—though, in truth, I've never checked the numbers—that there isn't a House district in the nation that doesn't get some defense dollars beyond recruiting. (House Speaker Gingrich's landlocked district received Coast Guard dollars. Nobody arguing with the right wing's idea of Beelzebub, Michael Moore, ever found a reason. Hell, I would have thought someone could have said, "Recruiting station." Even more, there's a Navy station in Cobb County.) Don't get me wrong; I can envision a president who is able to say, "Cut the defense budget in half," and reasonably expect it to happen. In a hundred years. With a revolutionary socialist in the executive.
I mean, great. Let's do it. Cut defense in half.
Consider, please, two headlines from yesterday:
• "Defense spending means 56,000 Indiana jobs"
• "Romney Pledges Defense Boost; Analyst Predicts $1 Trillion in DoD Cuts"
• "Romney Pledges Defense Boost; Analyst Predicts $1 Trillion in DoD Cuts"
The actual number in that second is from the Center for a New American Security, perhaps the dumbest name I've heard since Project for a New American Century, and suggests between $550b and $1t in defense cuts over the next ten years.
This is going to be a fucking political war.
I'm down with cutting the budget in half. But that one trillion is going to be cut from at least seven trillion dollars, if we project the 2010 budget as a constant. That certainly makes for a rough estimate, but my purpose is to suggest that cutting the defense budget in half, while a good idea, falls somewhere on the spectrum between individual political suicide and the destruction of an entire political party.
It ain't gonna happen.
Sticking the proposed cabinet department eliminations back into the equation, what, really, would we get from taking Ron Paul's defense budget bait?
(Absolutely nothin'. Say it again.)
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Defense spending means 56,000 Indiana jobs". WNDU. October 7, 2011. WNDU.com. October 8, 2011. http://www.wndu.com/indiana/headlines/Defense_spending_means_56000_Indiana_jobs_131354013.html
Clark, Colin. "Romney Pledges Defense Boost; Analyst Predicts $1 Trillion in DoD Cuts". AOL Defense. October 7, 2011. Defense.AOL.com. October 8, 2011. http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/07/romney-pledges-defense-boost-analyst-predicts-1-trillion-in-do/
'It ain't gonna happen'
Considering Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about the party and the President as Commander in Chief can unilaterally bring the troops from all parts of the world. I think it is quite plausible. One can't say that for the other Republicans though. And if one isn't even willing to give it a shot, i.e then no one can do it so lose your hope, whats left of optimism?
The tough choices have to be made, whether it is political suicide or not. If there is anyone who can remotely be trusted to deliver this 'suicide' I think thats Ron, but this is just my opinion. And if quad is right, that Ron doesn't really want to be President that this is a 'vanity run', then that makes it even more plausible that he'd do it because he doesn't care about the politics. He's already of age, decided not to run again for Congress, this would probably be his last venture in politics and probably 1 term only, as I expect the economy to crash during the time of the next President (regardless of who it is). Chances are high he'd do it. But thats the thing, would someone give it a shot and trust him to do it. I do, others might not.
I sincerely hope that if it isn't Ron Paul, then it is Obama (or some other Democrat if he's challenged). I would like all those current economic experts like Joe, and every stimulus loving American see that moment when they spend like crazy but nothing will help save the economy, hopefully proving that government spending sprees don't actually help in reality, they only help temporarily or in numbers only- Who better to spend than a Democrat who throw money at all economic and social problems.
I really have no hope for this country in truth. We're screwed, but if someone could even change 1 major thing in the right direction, I'd vote for him. I voted Obama so he 'might' end the wars (I really never trusted him though), I knew McCain wouldn't, but clearly thats not gonna happen. Ron Paul on the other hand (if elected) will most likely would do it- he's the only one I trust to do it. If he can't do it, I don't think anyone can. Most politicians are too entrenched in politics.
Considering Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about the party and the President as Commander in Chief can unilaterally bring the troops from all parts of the world. I think it is quite plausible. One can't say that for the other Republicans though. And if one isn't even willing to give it a shot, i.e then no one can do it so lose your hope, whats left of optimism?
The tough choices have to be made, whether it is political suicide or not. If there is anyone who can remotely be trusted to deliver this 'suicide' I think thats Ron, but this is just my opinion. And if quad is right, that Ron doesn't really want to be President that this is a 'vanity run', then that makes it even more plausible that he'd do it because he doesn't care about the politics. He's already of age, decided not to run again for Congress, this would probably be his last venture in politics and probably 1 term only, as I expect the economy to crash during the time of the next President (regardless of who it is). Chances are high he'd do it. But thats the thing, would someone give it a shot and trust him to do it. I do, others might not.
I sincerely hope that if it isn't Ron Paul, then it is Obama (or some other Democrat if he's challenged). I would like all those current economic experts like Joe, and every stimulus loving American see that moment when they spend like crazy but nothing will help save the economy, hopefully proving that government spending sprees don't actually help in reality, they only help temporarily or in numbers only- Who better to spend than a Democrat who throw money at all economic and social problems.
I really have no hope for this country in truth. We're screwed, but if someone could even change 1 major thing in the right direction, I'd vote for him. I voted Obama so he 'might' end the wars (I really never trusted him though), I knew McCain wouldn't, but clearly thats not gonna happen. Ron Paul on the other hand (if elected) will most likely would do it- he's the only one I trust to do it. If he can't do it, I don't think anyone can. Most politicians are too entrenched in politics.
Last edited:
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Nail on the head, 786
I would argue that more bigger the group of people the lower chance mob rule to work ~ democracy. because nobody knows who is who, thats why US was republic in the first place.
I would argue that more bigger the group of people the lower chance mob rule to work ~ democracy. because nobody knows who is who, thats why US was republic in the first place.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Ron Paul wins Values Voter poll ahead of Herman Cain
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas turned out his well-organized crop of supporters Saturday and won a presidential preference straw poll with 37% of the vote.
Coming in second place in the poll of social conservatives at the annual Values Voter Summit was retired pizza chain executive Herman Cain, who pulled in 23% of the vote.
Cain, who won a surprise victory in a straw poll last month in Florida, delivered a rousing speech Friday afternoon in which he joked about the pressure that comes with breaking into the “top tier” of candidates in the GOP primary race. Cain’s showing was considerably better than the two presumed frontrunners. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t do so well. Perry won 8%, and Romney took just 4%.
The poll confirmed that with just a few months before the first nominating contests, the Republican presidential field is still unsettled.
For Perry, the result had to be a disappointment, as he’ll need the support of social conservatives to keep him competitive with Romney.
“They’re really analyzing the candidates, where they stand on the issues,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, the group that sponsored the three-day event. “The field is still fluid….I think people are still in the process of deciding where they want to go.”
Paul’s victory was not exactly a surprise. The Libertarian congressman has a loyal following and is known for his ability to organize a strong showing at such events.
The summit, which began Friday morning and featured speeches by all the major Republican presidential candidates except Jon Huntsman Jr., drew 3,406 registered attendees, including about 600 who arrived Saturday morning as Paul was scheduled to speak.
“There were a number of people that left after Ron Paul spoke,” Perkins said at a news conference after the results were announced, suggesting that Paul’s win reflects the devotion of his diehard supporters, not a broader preference held by most social conservatives.
Still, chants of “Ron Paul, Ron Paul” filled the ballroom of the Omni Shoreham Hotel when the results were announced. Paul won 732 votes of 1,983 cast.
Ron Paul - 37%
Herman Cain - 23%
Rick Santorum - 16%
Rick Perrry - 8%
Michele Bachmann - 8%
Mitt Romney - 4%
Newt Gingrich - 3%
Jon Huntsman - 0% Undecided - 1%
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-value-voter-straw-poll-20111008,0,5407419.story
Interesting times.
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas turned out his well-organized crop of supporters Saturday and won a presidential preference straw poll with 37% of the vote.
Coming in second place in the poll of social conservatives at the annual Values Voter Summit was retired pizza chain executive Herman Cain, who pulled in 23% of the vote.
Cain, who won a surprise victory in a straw poll last month in Florida, delivered a rousing speech Friday afternoon in which he joked about the pressure that comes with breaking into the “top tier” of candidates in the GOP primary race. Cain’s showing was considerably better than the two presumed frontrunners. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t do so well. Perry won 8%, and Romney took just 4%.
The poll confirmed that with just a few months before the first nominating contests, the Republican presidential field is still unsettled.
For Perry, the result had to be a disappointment, as he’ll need the support of social conservatives to keep him competitive with Romney.
“They’re really analyzing the candidates, where they stand on the issues,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, the group that sponsored the three-day event. “The field is still fluid….I think people are still in the process of deciding where they want to go.”
Paul’s victory was not exactly a surprise. The Libertarian congressman has a loyal following and is known for his ability to organize a strong showing at such events.
The summit, which began Friday morning and featured speeches by all the major Republican presidential candidates except Jon Huntsman Jr., drew 3,406 registered attendees, including about 600 who arrived Saturday morning as Paul was scheduled to speak.
“There were a number of people that left after Ron Paul spoke,” Perkins said at a news conference after the results were announced, suggesting that Paul’s win reflects the devotion of his diehard supporters, not a broader preference held by most social conservatives.
Still, chants of “Ron Paul, Ron Paul” filled the ballroom of the Omni Shoreham Hotel when the results were announced. Paul won 732 votes of 1,983 cast.
Ron Paul - 37%
Herman Cain - 23%
Rick Santorum - 16%
Rick Perrry - 8%
Michele Bachmann - 8%
Mitt Romney - 4%
Newt Gingrich - 3%
Jon Huntsman - 0% Undecided - 1%
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-value-voter-straw-poll-20111008,0,5407419.story
Interesting times.
Mumery, and whoever wrote this should be shot, or arrested for 'Crimes against Statistics'. No wonder statisticians have such a bad name, look at the absurdities people produce in its name:
Now... Keeping that in mind, and keeping in mind the fact that >80% of Ron Paul supporters are conservative republicans who are card carrying members of the Tea Party - is it really that much of a surprise that Ron Paul would poll so highly?
Let me put it to you another way - If I get together a whole bunch of christian conservative republicans, who are at the event because they want to know what the various candidates are going to do to protect their values, and then show them a candidate who so far has a particularly high following among conservative republicans, who is promoting christian family values (in one form or another) as part of his platform...
Is it really surprising that he's going to poll highly? No, in fact it's highly predictable. Especially when the source article has things like this: "Paul’s victory was not exactly a surprise. The Libertarian congressman has a loyal following and is known for his ability to organize a strong showing at such events"; and this: "“There were a number of people that left after Ron Paul spoke,” Perkins said at a news conference after the results were announced, suggesting that Paul’s win reflects the devotion of his diehard supporters, not a broader preference held by most social conservatives"; to say.
Is it interesting? No. It's entirely predictable.
Is it neccessarily indicative? No. It is not. There is nothing reasonable that can neccessarily be infered from this about the race for the republican candidacy, let alone the presidency. The most that can be said of this is that Ron Paul appears to have a strong following among christian conservative republican members of the tea party, whom would have him meddle with state education policies. Even then, that may not be a reliable indicator, because even Tony Perkins, who is the President of the FRC is suggesting, although not in so many words, that the results were rigged (rigged by Ron Paul), resulting in a skew in his favour in this sample that is not neccessarily representative of the population.
The Family Research Council is a conservative right wing christian movement, whom is opposed to LGBT rights, Abortion, Divorce, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Pornography, and the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and wants Intelligent Design taught in schools as an alternative to the truth.
Now... Keeping that in mind, and keeping in mind the fact that >80% of Ron Paul supporters are conservative republicans who are card carrying members of the Tea Party - is it really that much of a surprise that Ron Paul would poll so highly?
Let me put it to you another way - If I get together a whole bunch of christian conservative republicans, who are at the event because they want to know what the various candidates are going to do to protect their values, and then show them a candidate who so far has a particularly high following among conservative republicans, who is promoting christian family values (in one form or another) as part of his platform...
Is it really surprising that he's going to poll highly? No, in fact it's highly predictable. Especially when the source article has things like this: "Paul’s victory was not exactly a surprise. The Libertarian congressman has a loyal following and is known for his ability to organize a strong showing at such events"; and this: "“There were a number of people that left after Ron Paul spoke,” Perkins said at a news conference after the results were announced, suggesting that Paul’s win reflects the devotion of his diehard supporters, not a broader preference held by most social conservatives"; to say.
Is it interesting? No. It's entirely predictable.
Is it neccessarily indicative? No. It is not. There is nothing reasonable that can neccessarily be infered from this about the race for the republican candidacy, let alone the presidency. The most that can be said of this is that Ron Paul appears to have a strong following among christian conservative republican members of the tea party, whom would have him meddle with state education policies. Even then, that may not be a reliable indicator, because even Tony Perkins, who is the President of the FRC is suggesting, although not in so many words, that the results were rigged (rigged by Ron Paul), resulting in a skew in his favour in this sample that is not neccessarily representative of the population.