Nope, based on past history, including the last caucus.
And he has no chance of getting the Republican nod, and so he isn't likely to get but a pittance of the vote, yet again.
If he does run, he's running FOR Obama.
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Nope, based on past history, including the last caucus.
And he has no chance of getting the Republican nod, and so he isn't likely to get but a pittance of the vote, yet again.
If he does run, he's running FOR Obama.
Doesn't he want to do away with social security, medicare, and 5 existing departments? He will by default encourage the excesses of big business. I call that radical.
Not if he ran with Ralph Nadar as a running mate and their platform was uniting the country's Tea Party and #Occupy Movements under one banner on issues they agree on. The most important and timely issues facing the nation. Namely, fiscal policy and foreign policy.
LOL
Yeah, the union set of those who are members of the Tea Party and that support the Occupy Movement is likely to be, oh I don't know, pick any number between 10 and 10,000.
LOL
Yeah, the union set of those who are members of the Tea Party and that support the Occupy Movement is likely to be, oh I don't know, pick any number between 10 and 1,000.
Not necessarily.
A) it's a self reported data point, but you can put on your donation what ever you want to as your employer. There is no verification at all that it is accurate.
B) It's not a required value, so you can't actually see how much was given and not reported as from members of the military.
C) it's such a small amount of money that is reported that it is hardly indicative of overall support of the millions of members of our military (3 million active and reserve), indeed a few large donations can really skew the numbers.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q3/C00495820.html#DETAILED
Not all at once, no. Clearly you are a victim of mainstream media. You have not viewed that town hall meeting that I have posted. I really see no reason to address your posts in this tread, you are uneducated, therefor ignorant. What you believe about him is only the scant things the media tells you, not what he has told you. Go to his website and learn. Did it occur to you that media IS big business and HE is the only candidate that is truly against big business?
Big business? What do we have now? How many media companies do we have? Are they friendly or unfriendly to his message?
I'll tell you, there are six. Even the government media, NPR and PBS have a media black out to his message. The truth is dangerous.
Antitrust Laws Actually Promote Monopoly
NOPE (all below well over $1 Billion in Revenue, there are many more over $500 million)
GE
Walt Disney
News Corp
Time Warner
Clear Channel
Viacom
CBS
Cox
Bertlesman
Washington Post
NY Times
McClatchey
Media News
Gannett
Tribune
Hearst
PBS
NPR
I don't know anything about the white bread world you live in Arthur, I really don't. But I know returning and injured veterans.
You're bullshit doesn't fly with me. Why DO the military put their money where their feeling and their mouths are then? God you can be so full of shit and infuriating some times. You prove otherwise then. If not, the assumption stands.
End This War: U.S. Military’s Overwhelming Support Of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS! (Veterans & Active Duty march on the White House)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be taken literally. How many of the 450 million Americans get their information from sources other than from their idiot boxes? The elections will be decided by these sources Arthur.
What these sources say about the candidates is "the truth."GE
Walt Disney
Time Warner
Viacom
CBS
Cox
None the less. . . the list you provided? Even the fact that you could make a list? :roflmao: Illustrates my point very nicely, thank you. :thankyou:
What part of money doesn't equal supporters do you not understand?
What part of percent of money given by military (who admit to it) is so small compared to overall contributions as to be meaningless do you not understand?
What part of the failure of "self selected" data to be meaningful do you not understand?
You have provided nothing to support your claim that when POLLED, members of the military are vastly in support of Paul.
The issue is NOT one that is easily resolved since:
Military rules prohibit participation in “partisan political” events as a speaker or organizer and mandate that service members avoid media interviews in which they advocate “for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. Troops are allowed to attend political events as spectators, but not while in uniform.”
What part of percent of money given by military (who admit to it) is so small compared to overall contributions as to be meaningless do you not understand?
What part of the failure of "self selected" data to be meaningful do you not understand?
You have provided nothing to support your claim that when POLLED, members of the military are vastly in support of Paul.
The issue is NOT one that is easily resolved since:
Military rules prohibit participation in “partisan political” events as a speaker or organizer and mandate that service members avoid media interviews in which they advocate “for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. Troops are allowed to attend political events as spectators, but not while in uniform.”
Sorry, I didn't mean to be taken literally. How many of the 450 million Americans get their information from sources other than from their idiot boxes? The elections will be decided by these sources Arthur.
GE
Walt Disney
Time Warner
Viacom
CBS
Cox
None the less. . . the list you provided? Even the fact that you could make a list? :roflmao: Illustrates my point very nicely, thank you. :thankyou:
First of all there aren't 450 million Americans, you over counted by ~140 million, and of course only registered voters who actually vote count, so you are off by about ~320 millon, but hey, accuracy has never been your strong suit.
And no, my list doesn't make your point.
In fact it refutes it big time, particularly since a lot of people get their information from other sources besides TV.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html
http://nyjobsource.com/magazines.html
http://news.nettop20.com/
http://w3.newsmax.com/radio_hosts.cfm
Last edited:
LOL
Yeah, the union set of those who are members of the Tea Party and that support the Occupy Movement is likely to be, oh I don't know, pick any number between 10 and 1,000.
That's why it's so wonderfully concocted, and strikes fear into your heart.
Once these two well respected politicians can get their supporters to just forget about the less important issues and focus on the really important issues it can mean real change. Arguing about who will control the mail delivery in Paris while the Nazis Occupy France is meaningless. If these two can get these disparate groups to join their political power together to route the corrupt financial and bureaucratic elites out of Washington first, get an honest money supply and a sound economy, after that, real change can be had. A temporary political alliance for the good of the country to route the external global financial interests could be done if auxiliary issues were ignored for the time being.
The elites have always been about injecting side issues into the national debate. Things like drug De-criminalization, social welfare programs, gay marriage, etc. Those aren't the most important issues, but they are necessary to keep the people divided. Divide and conquer as the old play book goes.
I read on his website he wants to eliminate the EPA.
Last edited:
I repeat my recommendation to read some history. Not only are you wrong about China being the only culture, you totally ignore the poverty and devastation wrought on China because of its isolationist policies.
If you would do a little reading and educate yourself a bit, you would know the longest surviving culture is the Australian Aboriginal culture - another one of those nagging little facts that keep biting Paul supporters in the derriere.
You are wrong yet again. Another point of fact, The United States is still by far the worlds largest industrial power. Low margin manufacturing has been outsourced and replaced with higher margin manufacturing in The United States.
So your claim that The United States has De-industrialized, like the rest of you claims, is just bogus - totally without merit.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ing-country-despite-cutbacks-at-factories.ece
General Note on Themes
A General Note on Themes
Note the thematic division of people here. The 130,000,000 voters who picked either Obama or McCain in 2008 are elitists.
Meanwhile, Paul would not necessarily eliminate the side issues; rather, he would move them to the states. Sure, that might sound good to some, and in many cases it would be, but if, for instance, his answer to marriage equality is to get the federal government out of the debate, will he also get rid of federal privileges related to recognition of marriage? Like taxes, immigration, &c.?
Or is he just sweeping the question of gender discrimination into the hands of the states, as many of his fellow fake libertarians would?
A General Note on Themes
The Esotericist said:
Note the thematic division of people here. The 130,000,000 voters who picked either Obama or McCain in 2008 are elitists.
Meanwhile, Paul would not necessarily eliminate the side issues; rather, he would move them to the states. Sure, that might sound good to some, and in many cases it would be, but if, for instance, his answer to marriage equality is to get the federal government out of the debate, will he also get rid of federal privileges related to recognition of marriage? Like taxes, immigration, &c.?
Or is he just sweeping the question of gender discrimination into the hands of the states, as many of his fellow fake libertarians would?
blah blah blah. Meaningless and irrelevant rhetoric. I could say the same about you.
I think you have proven my point.
You are back to creating a straw man again. No one is complaining about Paul's associations. Folks are complaining about his policies and the words he has written, published and said over the course of decades.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Iowa caucus
Romney 24.55%
Santorum 24.54%
Paul 21.40%
3,15% margin to the top place, c´mon Arthur, its hard to take you seriously, keep on spinning and trolling.
US elections 2012: Iowa caucus results in full
The Iowa caucus was remarkable for (at least) two reasons: first for its low turnout and second because the Republican candidate race was so close.
The total votes were announced on Wednesday morning and you can relive the excitement over on our Iowa caucus results live blog.
Barack Obama easily held his position as most favoured Democratic candidate with 98.46% of the votes, while the Republican presidential candidate was hotly contested.
You can see just how close the voting was as the winner Mitt Romney received 24.55% of all Republican votes while former Senator Rick Santorum received 24.54%. Those percentage come from 30,015 votes for Romney and 30,007 votes to Santorum.
Ron Paul of Texas ran a close third, receiving 26,219 votes, that is 21.4% of the total.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/05/us-elections-2012-iowa-caucus-results
Nope.
You see, Ron Paul has nearly all the supporters he is ever going to have already.
The others are variations on a theme, but he's so far out there that the people who for instance voted for Gingrich, if he drops out, are not going to go for Paul
So it's really 80% other than Paul vs 20% for Paul.
Which is why there is no chance of him winning the nomination.
This is so overly stupid I can't even stand it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z0qPKrwIwPs
How do they not put in the 2nd place, which is Ron Paul
Then they think 'Ron Paul Supporters get angry'? When they do stuff this obviously biased why won't 'conspiracies' sprout?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z0qPKrwIwPs
How do they not put in the 2nd place, which is Ron Paul
Then they think 'Ron Paul Supporters get angry'? When they do stuff this obviously biased why won't 'conspiracies' sprout?
Last edited: