Ron Paul To Everyone But Mitt: Drop Out

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ORLY?

YRLY

[웃 910]

The banking system could collapse and we'd be just fine.

[SMR 368]

That's like people talking about who can beat Obama instead of talking about a candidate that fits their set of values. "Well, I would vote for Paul but I don't think he can beat Obama. So, I'll be voting for Romney because he can win." Nevermind the fact their platforms couldn't be more different.

The problem with most voters (R, D, or "other") is they want to be on the winning team instead of supporting a candidate that will represent their values. Until that changes, we're doomed to more of the same.

I'm afraid you missed what I was saying. The meaninglessness of names (R, D, DINO, RINO, true R, etc.) is exactly my point. You have to look at the candidate. You don't vote for a platform, you vote for a candidate. While I agree with Ron Paul's platform, I'm not sure that I like him as a statesman and age has to be considered. He also doesn't have much experience at actually negotiating to get a working solution. When you are 1 of 435 representatives, it's not really a problem if you're a stick in the mud since stuff gets done over you. Not so much for the president. Ron Paul, while principled, is also an idealist stick in the mud.

Moreover, while voting for someone who can't win is all well and good in a romantic, captain-goes-down-with-the-ship kind of way, it doesn't do the country much good. In order to do maximum good for the country, I consider the candidate, the extent to which I agree with him or her, and the level of general support for the candidate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

something funny or are you showing that the establishment in this country has brainwashed the hell out of you?

[웃 910]

something funny or are you showing that the establishment in this country has brainwashed the hell out of you?

The establishment has brainwashed me into thinking that our financial system plays a vital role in our economy. Silly me.

Maybe you can unbrainwash me by explaining how unimportant financial institutions are.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The establishment has brainwashed me into thinking that our financial system plays a vital role in our economy. Silly me.

Maybe you can unbrainwash me by explaining how unimportant financial institutions are.

you do realize that money is an illusion, right?

Its real world value is worth about as far as I can spit.

We create these rules and boundaries that help the wealthiest in the world by keeping down everyone else, and maybe giving a few a little taste along the way.

Our financial system today is in no way solvent as it stands, nor could it be. It's why the government does everything they can to try and knock down any type of underground economy in which their dollars aren't used.

The state of the world and the fiat monetary system its using for the most part is not sustainable to any extent at all. It's why the founders of this nation wanted everything to be coined from gold and silver. Something that held actual value and would retain said value over time.

The "computer" financial market could crash into a fiery pit of death, but the world would go on and people would find a way to manage. Skills, labor, trade, barter. At the end of the day, everything would be fine. It might be a little tough at first, but people learn to move on and something else would be created/built out of the ashes.

[slim 1,530]

I'm afraid you missed what I was saying. The meaninglessness of names (R, D, DINO, RINO, true R, etc.) is exactly my point. You have to look at the candidate. You don't vote for a platform, you vote for a candidate. While I agree with Ron Paul's platform, I'm not sure that I like him as a statesman and age has to be considered. He also doesn't have much experience at actually negotiating to get a working solution. When you are 1 of 435 representatives, it's not really a problem if you're a stick in the mud since stuff gets done over you. Not so much for the president. Ron Paul, while principled, is also an idealist stick in the mud.

Moreover, while voting for someone who can't win is all well and good in a romantic, captain-goes-down-with-the-ship kind of way, it doesn't do the country much good. In order to do maximum good for the country, I consider the candidate, the extent to which I agree with him or her, and the level of general support for the candidate.

The constitution is pretty simple. Ron Paul plans to make sure we get back to it. Regardless of how he gets that done, it must be done. If we keep electing "more of the same" we're doomed. I don't care if that's all that can win. I will not support more of the same.

something funny or are you showing that the establishment in this country has brainwashed the hell out of you?

My thoughts exactly.

The establishment has brainwashed me into thinking that our financial system plays a vital role in our economy. Silly me.

Maybe you can unbrainwash me by explaining how unimportant financial institutions are.

There's this stuff. Some people want this stuff. They pay money, trade chickens, etc., to get this stuff. Some people make this stuff, some people transport this stuff, some people sell this stuff.

Right now, we have people who don't actually do anything but drive up the value of this stuff. We can take those people completely out of the equation. They're worthless.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I'm afraid you missed what I was saying. The meaninglessness of names (R, D, DINO, RINO, true R, etc.) is exactly my point. You have to look at the candidate. You don't vote for a platform, you vote for a candidate. While I agree with Ron Paul's platform, I'm not sure that I like him as a statesman and age has to be considered. He also doesn't have much experience at actually negotiating to get a working solution. When you are 1 of 435 representatives, it's not really a problem if you're a stick in the mud since stuff gets done over you. Not so much for the president. Ron Paul, while principled, is also an idealist stick in the mud.

Moreover, while voting for someone who can't win is all well and good in a romantic, captain-goes-down-with-the-ship kind of way, it doesn't do the country much good. In order to do maximum good for the country, I consider the candidate, the extent to which I agree with him or her, and the level of general support for the candidate.

So keeping the status quo is the way to go. Voting for the status quo shows neither party that they need change. Great job.

Even in N.H. 60% of the people were less than enthused with Romney and that makes him the best hope.

[SMR 368]

Even in N.H. 60% of the people were less than enthused with Romney and that makes him the best hope.

You keep parroting this line but it's just silly. There are six candidates. There's no way to tell from the vote totals whether voters are enthused about one of, several of, all of, or none of the candidates. Each voter was forced to choose one candidate. Anyone with more than 17% of the vote is doing better than average.

However, if you go to more detailed poll data on a national level, Romney is the only candidate that a majority of Republicans see as acceptable. He is the most likely to be seen as acceptable by both conservative and moderate Republicans. Obviously, this doesn't mean that he is the first choice for a majority (currently 31% see him as a first choice). But it does mean that most Republicans don't have a problem with him. Considering that his support as a first choice in NH is higher, you can guess his acceptability is also higher. Gallup poll

[luckytxn 2,264]

You keep parroting this line but it's just silly. There are six candidates. There's no way to tell from the vote totals whether voters are enthused about one of, several of, all of, or none of the candidates. Each voter was forced to choose one candidate. Anyone with more than 17% of the vote is doing better than average.

However, if you go to more detailed poll data on a national level, Romney is the only candidate that a majority of Republicans see as acceptable. He is the most likely to be seen as acceptable by both conservative and moderate Republicans. Obviously, this doesn't mean that he is the first choice for a majority (currently 31% see him as a first choice). But it does mean that most Republicans don't have a problem with him. Considering that his support as a first choice in NH is higher, you can guess his acceptability is also higher. Gallup poll

Life is good for RINO's and the status quo then. The minority has spoken.

[웃 910]

Life is good for RINO's and the status quo then. The minority has spoken.

Ron Paul should run as an independent. He might get 25% (of 1% of the vote!)

[luckytxn 2,264]

Ron Paul should run as an independent. He might get 25% (of 1% of the vote!)

No he should pack up and go home. The minority wants the RINO and has spoken loud and clear.

[웃 910]

No he should pack up and go home. The minority wants the RINO and has spoken loud and clear.

Obama would beat Ron Paul in Texas. So I think it is loud and clear why nobody wants Paul as the frontrunner.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Obama would beat Ron Paul in Texas. So I think it is loud and clear why nobody wants Paul as the frontrunner.

Obama will not defeat RP in Texas for sure. Romney will beat RP in Texas. One has to win the nomination and the south and part of the midwest votes for RINO's and Christians only.

[SMR 368]

Life is good for RINO's and the status quo then. The minority has spoken.

Good job repeating the same false claim and completely ignoring what I am saying. The majority (which is not a minority) would find Mitt Romney as an acceptable candidate. The same cannot be said of any other candidate. It's not about a minority of the party speaking. A plurality prefer Romney over all others and a majority don't oppose him.

As much as some conservatives like to delude themselves that the majority of Americans just want a strong conservative to come forward, there isn't a shred of data to support that claim. What candidate do you consider a strong conservative that you think would have a good shot at beating Obama? Perhaps you could list some.