Sure, I don't have a TV. Look up gullible, you'll find a picture of me there, I make mistake. My apologies. lol
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Sure, I don't have a TV. Look up gullible, you'll find a picture of me there, I make mistake. My apologies. lolGuess it depends on who you ask
Ron Paul won just 3 percent of the votes in the Tea Party Patriots' "tele-forum and straw poll" Sunday, a pretty poor showing for a guy routinely called "the godfather of the Tea Party." The straw poll was not a little poll on a blog post: each candidate spent 10 minutes on a conference call answering questions, and then 23,000 Tea Partiers voted. Not only did Paul lose to Newt Gingrich, who got 31 percent, and Michele Bachmann, who got 28 percent -- but he came in behind Mitt Romney, who earned 20 percent. Worse, 64 percent of the patriots said they were "unenthusiastic" about voting for Paul -- only Jon Huntsman performed worse.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-doesnt-tea-party-love-ron-paul-181819068.html
Not sure what that means come the nominations though.
Last edited:
Brief Review
Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters.
To review:
It's not that I'm absolutely correct by some divine decree, but, rather, that there is no viable counterpoint on the record. It's true that a number of Paul supporters in recent years have reminded me of the legalization of marijuana. I guess I'm just not as greedy as libertarians; sure, I would like to win that one, but not at the expense of everything else.
When you throw tantrums like, "Grow up and learn politics", in lieu of actually formulating a functional argument, you only reiterate the political liability of Ron Paul's supporters.
All of their "libertarian" rhetoric, much like Rep. Paul's, is superficial. Actually delving into the functional implications of that rhetoric is the kind of thing that seems to drive Ron Paul's supporters into fits of rage. I just don't think that arguments like, "Get real and grow up", or, "Grow up and learn politics", are going to do any good for a group of political idealists who can't even be bothered to consider the implications of their candidate's platform.
Throughout this thread, Paul's supporters have tried to change the subject and insult those who disagree with them. In the end, that's pretty much all they have. Well, I suppose there is also the brilliant epiphany that our political system is corrupt. But, really, the lack of any substantial argument among Ron Paul's supporters does him no good, and further paints libertarianism as superficial, feel-good rhetoric.
TheEsotericist said:
Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters.
To review:
• his exclusion of women from liberty — There are a plethora of posts in this thread discussing the functional problems of the "life at conception" argument; so far, the score seems to be that a blastula should have more rights than a woman, according to the "libertarian". See 786 @ #257, Tiassa @ #273; the functional question from that latter post—"Meanwhile, how do you propose to enforce the law?"—remains unaddressed.
• the inevitable stratification and plutocracy that will result from his machinations toward government dressed up as an anti-government argument — In October, I raised the issue of the implications of Paul's outlook on government and economy; see #499:
This issue remains afoot; there is no answer on record from Rep. Paul's supporters.
• "It's not big government that he opposes, but, rather, big government that infringes on the freedom of a small minority to exercise privilege over the broader societal majority." — Paul's views on abortion, racial and ethnic discrimination, and exclusion of homosexuals are discussed all throughout this thread. The best we've seen is a circular argument that laws passed in the wake of another law justify the original law that deliberately defies the U.S. Constitution.
• the inevitable stratification and plutocracy that will result from his machinations toward government dressed up as an anti-government argument — In October, I raised the issue of the implications of Paul's outlook on government and economy; see #499:
The question of "liberty" is always interesting—and proverbially so, at that—in this context: How many people, understanding the implications of Paul's policy outlook, would trade such a dramatic reduction in their quality of life for so subjective and marginal an increase in liberty?
And that is part of why so many people view Paul's supporters as cultish. They seem to believe that if you wreck the government, life suddenly, magically gets better. I say magically, of course, because none of them can explain how the one leads to the other ....
.... If they do not understand, and cannot explain, how it works, it is simply an article of faith.
And that is part of why so many people view Paul's supporters as cultish. They seem to believe that if you wreck the government, life suddenly, magically gets better. I say magically, of course, because none of them can explain how the one leads to the other ....
.... If they do not understand, and cannot explain, how it works, it is simply an article of faith.
This issue remains afoot; there is no answer on record from Rep. Paul's supporters.
• "It's not big government that he opposes, but, rather, big government that infringes on the freedom of a small minority to exercise privilege over the broader societal majority." — Paul's views on abortion, racial and ethnic discrimination, and exclusion of homosexuals are discussed all throughout this thread. The best we've seen is a circular argument that laws passed in the wake of another law justify the original law that deliberately defies the U.S. Constitution.
It's not that I'm absolutely correct by some divine decree, but, rather, that there is no viable counterpoint on the record. It's true that a number of Paul supporters in recent years have reminded me of the legalization of marijuana. I guess I'm just not as greedy as libertarians; sure, I would like to win that one, but not at the expense of everything else.
When you throw tantrums like, "Grow up and learn politics", in lieu of actually formulating a functional argument, you only reiterate the political liability of Ron Paul's supporters.
All of their "libertarian" rhetoric, much like Rep. Paul's, is superficial. Actually delving into the functional implications of that rhetoric is the kind of thing that seems to drive Ron Paul's supporters into fits of rage. I just don't think that arguments like, "Get real and grow up", or, "Grow up and learn politics", are going to do any good for a group of political idealists who can't even be bothered to consider the implications of their candidate's platform.
Throughout this thread, Paul's supporters have tried to change the subject and insult those who disagree with them. In the end, that's pretty much all they have. Well, I suppose there is also the brilliant epiphany that our political system is corrupt. But, really, the lack of any substantial argument among Ron Paul's supporters does him no good, and further paints libertarianism as superficial, feel-good rhetoric.
Rhetoric is as rhetoric does. . .
I think you have summed it up quite nicely. These Paulites are continually trying to put square pegs into round holes in an attempt to justify their theology.
True 'Nuff: Time and Tide
True enough. At the time, I was doubting Michael's claim of growth, but, surely enough, by the next morning a poll made the rounds showing Paul advancing. This had a carry-over effect in a few other polls over the next couple days. His general polling average is up, but that's probably a little bit of bleed from Gingrich. I doubt Rep. Paul has enough time, or, in the end, widespread appeal, to overcome the gap 'twixt him and the frontrunners. The national averages put him in third, which might be encouraging to his supporters, but he has less than half the support of Romney, who is running second in those averages.
So I doubt he's coming up much farther until January 3, when anything, it seems, is possible. Since Iowa is a caucus, we must always acknowledge the possibility that activist enthusiasm will result in a strong Paul showing. As Syzygys notes, it would be interesting if Paul won, and I think the GOP establishment would be tremendously unsettled if he struck within a couple points of the winner.
We'll see what comes, but that bump in Paul's support our neighbor referred to does seem to have settled somewhat; I think he probably picked up some Gingrich supporters who came to Newt after Cain dropped out.
Adoucette said:
True enough. At the time, I was doubting Michael's claim of growth, but, surely enough, by the next morning a poll made the rounds showing Paul advancing. This had a carry-over effect in a few other polls over the next couple days. His general polling average is up, but that's probably a little bit of bleed from Gingrich. I doubt Rep. Paul has enough time, or, in the end, widespread appeal, to overcome the gap 'twixt him and the frontrunners. The national averages put him in third, which might be encouraging to his supporters, but he has less than half the support of Romney, who is running second in those averages.
So I doubt he's coming up much farther until January 3, when anything, it seems, is possible. Since Iowa is a caucus, we must always acknowledge the possibility that activist enthusiasm will result in a strong Paul showing. As Syzygys notes, it would be interesting if Paul won, and I think the GOP establishment would be tremendously unsettled if he struck within a couple points of the winner.
We'll see what comes, but that bump in Paul's support our neighbor referred to does seem to have settled somewhat; I think he probably picked up some Gingrich supporters who came to Newt after Cain dropped out.
Poll: Ron Paul Leads in Iowa
Gingrich Collapses in Iowa as Ron Paul Surges to the Front
Who knows, maybe Americans are starting to get the message? Is it possible that our culture of Freedom and Liberty actually does have deep roots?
It should be noted Paul supporters aren't fly by night fickle dipshits like those idiots who wanted to vote for Palin or Trump or Gingrich (I don't care what you say, he's a turd). They're Libertarians - Paul is actually working to change the GOP party itself. Of course the corrupt and the inept are shitting their pants at that thought. I mean shitting in their pants. Most Republican representatives (who are no different than Democrats when you come down to it) would love to have their man Obama re-elected rather than see The Doctor in the House. Paul would put an end to most of their bullshit.... and that's change they don't want to believe in.
Gingrich Collapses in Iowa as Ron Paul Surges to the Front
Who knows, maybe Americans are starting to get the message? Is it possible that our culture of Freedom and Liberty actually does have deep roots?
It should be noted Paul supporters aren't fly by night fickle dipshits like those idiots who wanted to vote for Palin or Trump or Gingrich (I don't care what you say, he's a turd). They're Libertarians - Paul is actually working to change the GOP party itself. Of course the corrupt and the inept are shitting their pants at that thought. I mean shitting in their pants. Most Republican representatives (who are no different than Democrats when you come down to it) would love to have their man Obama re-elected rather than see The Doctor in the House. Paul would put an end to most of their bullshit.... and that's change they don't want to believe in.
Last edited:
All it means is that if Paul takes Ohio then Ohio will cease to have any validity as the first state Caucus.
The Republican establishment in Iowa is concerned that a Paul win might be an Iowa caucus loss.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-victory-could-hurt-legitimacy-iowa-caucuses-142159342.html
The Republican establishment in Iowa is concerned that a Paul win might be an Iowa caucus loss.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-victory-could-hurt-legitimacy-iowa-caucuses-142159342.html
Retail Politics
Well pointed. I can't remember which network of talking heads it was (either MSNBC or CNN), but I did see an Iowa Republican official on the air yesterday—I think—explaining that he wasn't worried if Iowa doesn't get the nomination correct, because the state has predicted the last two presidents.
And in that spirit, he might have a point. If Paul wins, and then fades quickly, and Obama goes on to win the White House anyway, one could argue that Iowa was bellwether because it predicted that the GOP doesn't have a chance.
Or something like that.
What strikes me as funny about the whole thing is that the phrase "retail politics" is finding its place, apparently, and not as a pejorative against Iowa voters. Perhaps it is intended to refer to the comparison shopping—i.e., the Anybody But Mitt process going on—but, being one who sees a difference between retail buyers and connoisseurs, I think it's an odd phrase suggesting that product quality is a lower priority than brand name, price tag, colors/flavors, &c. You know, like the people who buy a mobile phone because it's cute, or inexpensive, or comes in purple, or because their friends all have that one because it's cute, inexpensive, and comes in purple.
Notes:
Avalon, John P. "What if Ron Paul wins in Iowa?" CNN. December 20, 2011. CNN.com. December 21, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/opinion/avlon-ron-paul-iowa/index.html
Adoucette said:
Well pointed. I can't remember which network of talking heads it was (either MSNBC or CNN), but I did see an Iowa Republican official on the air yesterday—I think—explaining that he wasn't worried if Iowa doesn't get the nomination correct, because the state has predicted the last two presidents.
And in that spirit, he might have a point. If Paul wins, and then fades quickly, and Obama goes on to win the White House anyway, one could argue that Iowa was bellwether because it predicted that the GOP doesn't have a chance.
Or something like that.
What strikes me as funny about the whole thing is that the phrase "retail politics" is finding its place, apparently, and not as a pejorative against Iowa voters. Perhaps it is intended to refer to the comparison shopping—i.e., the Anybody But Mitt process going on—but, being one who sees a difference between retail buyers and connoisseurs, I think it's an odd phrase suggesting that product quality is a lower priority than brand name, price tag, colors/flavors, &c. You know, like the people who buy a mobile phone because it's cute, or inexpensive, or comes in purple, or because their friends all have that one because it's cute, inexpensive, and comes in purple.
Organization matters in the Iowa caucus, and Paul's volunteers are going to show up in force. One of the great questions of this campaign is whether retail politicsis dead—after all, Rick Santorum is the only candidate who has visited all 99 counties in Iowa, and he's been stuck in the mid-single digits for most of the campaign.
(Avalon)
____________________(Avalon)
Notes:
Avalon, John P. "What if Ron Paul wins in Iowa?" CNN. December 20, 2011. CNN.com. December 21, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/opinion/avlon-ron-paul-iowa/index.html
How Ron Paul could give the GOP a heart attack
I think the republicans would rather commit political hara-kiri than nominate Ron Paul.
I think the republicans would rather commit political hara-kiri than nominate Ron Paul.
Well then there is the little thing about the racist and inflammatory material written in the first person and distributed under his name. And then there is the thing where Paul blames Israel for the bombing of the World Trade Center.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ron-paul-gets-testy-gloria-borger-over-que
And then there is the small matter of his neo-Nazi support.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
And then there is the little fact that he scares the hell out of the Republican establishment. He has got even the weirdos as Faux News breathing down his neck along with conservative rags and the conservative blogoshere.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ron-paul-gets-testy-gloria-borger-over-que
And then there is the small matter of his neo-Nazi support.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
And then there is the little fact that he scares the hell out of the Republican establishment. He has got even the weirdos as Faux News breathing down his neck along with conservative rags and the conservative blogoshere.
Hey, the Reps were always good at mudthrowing...
Well Paul is looking good is some of the most recent polling. And wouldn't it be funny if Paul got the Republican presidential nomination? I'll vote for him in the primary.
Maybe Paul is now the flavor of the next 7 weeks, just in time for the primaries and the caucuses. I am sure Republicans are going to love the man just as they loved Perry, Bachmann, Cain and others before them.
Maybe Paul is now the flavor of the next 7 weeks, just in time for the primaries and the caucuses. I am sure Republicans are going to love the man just as they loved Perry, Bachmann, Cain and others before them.
The Seven Week Cycle is Out as of January 3
Well, the fact of actual votes, I believe, changes the seven-week formula. What would a Paul victory in Iowa do to his standing, say, in South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada? The big question in there would be New Hampshire, which is up a week after Iowa. Romney led comfortably in New Hampshire polling earlier this month, and the only real question there—barring a self-destructive scandal involving the former Massachusetts governor—is how much of Gingrich's support Paul will pick up as the former Speaker's fortunes fade.
The seven week cycle is out as of January 3. I don't think Paul, who emerged as a potential frontrunner earlier this month, can buoy or sustain his national numbers through the end of January without winning or placing in Iowa and South Carolina. After all, he's only polling between 10-15%, with a 12.4% average; and despite his strong results in Iowa polls, he's averaging 8.7% this month in South Carolina. His New Hampshire (Jan. 10) question is whether or not he can pick up enough of Gingrich's support to overtake the Newtron Bomber. At least one poll says he has already, but Huntsman is actually in position to show in the New Hampshire race if Gingrich falls far enough.
When the seven-week infatuation is cured by actual votes, this whole thing could get very, very interesting.
Joepistole said:
Well, the fact of actual votes, I believe, changes the seven-week formula. What would a Paul victory in Iowa do to his standing, say, in South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada? The big question in there would be New Hampshire, which is up a week after Iowa. Romney led comfortably in New Hampshire polling earlier this month, and the only real question there—barring a self-destructive scandal involving the former Massachusetts governor—is how much of Gingrich's support Paul will pick up as the former Speaker's fortunes fade.
The seven week cycle is out as of January 3. I don't think Paul, who emerged as a potential frontrunner earlier this month, can buoy or sustain his national numbers through the end of January without winning or placing in Iowa and South Carolina. After all, he's only polling between 10-15%, with a 12.4% average; and despite his strong results in Iowa polls, he's averaging 8.7% this month in South Carolina. His New Hampshire (Jan. 10) question is whether or not he can pick up enough of Gingrich's support to overtake the Newtron Bomber. At least one poll says he has already, but Huntsman is actually in position to show in the New Hampshire race if Gingrich falls far enough.
When the seven-week infatuation is cured by actual votes, this whole thing could get very, very interesting.
Heard Sean Hannity last week.. he and his guest were lamenting the lack of really good scandals about Ron Paul. They gave the impression that somehow it wasn't fair, and that something should be done about it, so naturally, they dredge up the newsletter thing. They sounded desperate.
Then, on Tuesday, there was a guest host, and when a caller asked him what he thought about Paul, he says something like this "Oh, I like a lot of the stuff he says. Now, the fact that he's a LUNATIC, however, I'm not too fond of." He then proceeds predictably to, again, bring up the newsletter.
ANY other candidate would see Hannity and Friends bending squirming, contorting, reaching for the moon, etc. to apologize and make excuses. Ron Paul has a few specks of dirt, and idiot Hannity wants to get out the microscope. BLOW THESE PICTURES UP! SHOW AMERICA!!!
Hannity is one annoying phony.
And it isn't funny also, how Iowa is such a big deal, and when Paul looks close to winning, suddenly we have "Iowa has been discredited! Iowa is no longer relevant!"
Shocking how openly contemptuous and biased some of these people are. :wallbang:
Paul is more a threat to Republicans than anyone else
I think the Republican establishment panic about Ron Paul is twofold:
Yeah, I noticed this, too. But as one who thinks the whole idea of the Iowa caucuses as some sort of bellwether is a crock, the most I can say at this point is, "So ... that's what it takes for them to figure it out."
And, of course, it is likely that they haven't figured it out, but, rather, are just panicked about the Paul prospectus.
I think the Republican establishment panic about Ron Paul is twofold:
(1) He can't win the general.
(2) If Ron Paul somehow managed to win the general, he would devastate much that the GOP establishment has worked for.
(2) If Ron Paul somehow managed to win the general, he would devastate much that the GOP establishment has worked for.
Yeah, I noticed this, too. But as one who thinks the whole idea of the Iowa caucuses as some sort of bellwether is a crock, the most I can say at this point is, "So ... that's what it takes for them to figure it out."
And, of course, it is likely that they haven't figured it out, but, rather, are just panicked about the Paul prospectus.
I think establishment/traditional Republicans are coming to the realization that maybe the Tea Party situation is getting out of control.
I'll be surprised if Paul can get past this:
It really is a hilarious read though.
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf
It really is a hilarious read though.
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf
A brief but, I believe, useful digression
Aye. But it is difficult question. To the one, as Mark Sappenfield put it regarding the payroll tax debacle:
To the other, though, as Sappenfield notes, Nancy Pelosi "was a classic House speaker", meaning she would have either found a way forward through compromise or bludgeoned her caucus into line. As in telling them what's going to happen, not asking them what they think. And, while some Democratic supporters nod and say, "Yeah, she would have gotten this done," how much of that "classic" speaker politicking is part of what annoys voters in general, and irks the Tea Party in particular?
Beneath the bombast of the Tea Party influence in the GOP is a strange dynamic that history will struggle to understand. It's hard to believe that the Republican establishment, especially with minds like Karl Rove in the upper tiers, failed to see this coming. That kind of myopia is very nearly unthinkable in seasoned politicos.
____________________
Notes:
Sappenfield, Mark. "Payroll tax cut in danger: Would Nancy Pelosi have gotten it passed?" The Christian Science Monitor. December 18, 2011. CSMonitor.com. December 23, 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...nger-Would-Nancy-Pelosi-have-gotten-it-passed
Joepistole said:
Aye. But it is difficult question. To the one, as Mark Sappenfield put it regarding the payroll tax debacle:
True, it was intended as a one-year measure to help hurting Americans, but temporary tax cuts rarely remain temporary. So the Senate agreed to extend the payroll tax cut two months – a bill that allowed them to go home and hang their stockings without having to solve the tough question of how to pay for the tax break.
What happened next was pure Boehner. He called the members of the House and asked them what they thought.
What he heard was not positive. Based on those talks, he said House and Senate leaders should discuss how to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year – not just two months ....
.... The story might seem to be typical Washington gridlock, but it is not. A House speaker asking his representatives what they think about a politically important bill – one that could backfire on his own party come election time – might not seem such a momentous thing. But in the world of the House of Representatives, it is akin to turning over the car keys for drinking a Shirley Temple.
Historically, you see, House speakers have not been made in the mold of listeners. Dr. Phil, for example, would likely have made a terrible House speaker.
What happened next was pure Boehner. He called the members of the House and asked them what they thought.
What he heard was not positive. Based on those talks, he said House and Senate leaders should discuss how to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year – not just two months ....
.... The story might seem to be typical Washington gridlock, but it is not. A House speaker asking his representatives what they think about a politically important bill – one that could backfire on his own party come election time – might not seem such a momentous thing. But in the world of the House of Representatives, it is akin to turning over the car keys for drinking a Shirley Temple.
Historically, you see, House speakers have not been made in the mold of listeners. Dr. Phil, for example, would likely have made a terrible House speaker.
To the other, though, as Sappenfield notes, Nancy Pelosi "was a classic House speaker", meaning she would have either found a way forward through compromise or bludgeoned her caucus into line. As in telling them what's going to happen, not asking them what they think. And, while some Democratic supporters nod and say, "Yeah, she would have gotten this done," how much of that "classic" speaker politicking is part of what annoys voters in general, and irks the Tea Party in particular?
Beneath the bombast of the Tea Party influence in the GOP is a strange dynamic that history will struggle to understand. It's hard to believe that the Republican establishment, especially with minds like Karl Rove in the upper tiers, failed to see this coming. That kind of myopia is very nearly unthinkable in seasoned politicos.
____________________
Notes:
Sappenfield, Mark. "Payroll tax cut in danger: Would Nancy Pelosi have gotten it passed?" The Christian Science Monitor. December 18, 2011. CSMonitor.com. December 23, 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...nger-Would-Nancy-Pelosi-have-gotten-it-passed