HitsRus;1043320 wrote:"college voting block"...you mean the ones who went Obama's way last time? Some wild swings of political viewpoints on our nation's campuses. It seems they'll vote for whoever is not in charge.

Personally, I think voting for someone because he is different isn't much of a reason.

believer;1043330 wrote:I was just about to post something almost exactly like this.

I'm fascinated that 76 year old Ron Paul has gained so much popularity with the "college age" crowd. Generally college age voters tend to Democrat...and then they grow up.

Yes...that same crowd.

If I had to venture a guess, I think it may have something to do with his stance on making marijuana legalization a state's right issue.

Regarding Paul, I think Santorum nailed it in this morning's debate when he said that the things people love about his domestic policies (limited government, reducing the deficit and debt, eliminating bloated departments, etc.) are the things he will have much difficulty in accomplishing and his policies people are the most worried about will occur his first day in office.

I've heard Dr. Paul a lot lately, contrary to O-Trap's previous suggestions that the media ignores him (he's been the lead interviewee on Fox News Sunday the past 2 weeks). I know it's easy to loathe Washington "insiders" and career politicians, but they tend to know how to get things done. For example, Gingrich was forced to work with Democrats almost his entire time in the House and he got a lot of good work done. It has been suggested in the debates that Paul has never sponsored any significant legislation that would become law. While I could be convinced that I agree with a majority of his domestic stances, he doesn't appear to have the ability to convince others to come to his side of the discussion. To wit, he is advocating the most sweeping changes to the government of all the candidates. If he should become POTUS, how will he convince Congress to go along with his plans? For contrast, Barry had super-majorities his first 2 years of his reign and still couldn't get everything he wanted. In other words, what tactics, what methodology, what strategy will Paul use to get what he wants? I suppose he could speak directly to the American people (ala Reagan), but he's not very good at it.

For me, he isn't a charismatic speaker, he doesn't have a strong presence on stage, and he has major difficulty in being succinct. While I agree with most of his domestic ideas, I sure would like to know how he's going to convince those in Congress that he hasn't been able to pursuade in his 20+ years in the U.S. House to come to his way of thinking.

BGFalcons82;1043605 wrote:Regarding Paul, I think Santorum nailed it in this morning's debate when he said that the things people love about his domestic policies (limited government, reducing the deficit and debt, eliminating bloated departments, etc.) are the things he will have much difficulty in accomplishing and his policies people are the most worried about will occur his first day in office.

I've heard Dr. Paul a lot lately, contrary to O-Trap's previous suggestions that the media ignores him (he's been the lead interviewee on Fox News Sunday the past 2 weeks). I know it's easy to loathe Washington "insiders" and career politicians, but they tend to know how to get things done. For example, Gingrich was forced to work with Democrats almost his entire time in the House and he got a lot of good work done. It has been suggested in the debates that Paul has never sponsored any significant legislation that would become law. While I could be convinced that I agree with a majority of his domestic stances, he doesn't appear to have the ability to convince others to come to his side of the discussion. To wit, he is advocating the most sweeping changes to the government of all the candidates. If he should become POTUS, how will he convince Congress to go along with his plans? For contrast, Barry had super-majorities his first 2 years of his reign and still couldn't get everything he wanted. In other words, what tactics, what methodology, what strategy will Paul use to get what he wants? I suppose he could speak directly to the American people (ala Reagan), but he's not very good at it.

For me, he isn't a charismatic speaker, he doesn't have a strong presence on stage, and he has major difficulty in being succinct. While I agree with most of his domestic ideas, I sure would like to know how he's going to convince those in Congress that he hasn't been able to pursuade in his 20+ years in the U.S. House to come to his way of thinking.

The media doesn't ignore him anymore, they just smear him constantly, but that's beside the point.

If you are worried about him getting anything through Congress, just look at the issue he is most famous for pushing the last 30 years, the Federal Reserve. Four years ago people wanted him locked away in a padded room for demanding we audit the Fed and see what they are doing with our money. All of a sudden the people were awakened to the theft the Fed engages in every day, and Ron managed to get enough votes for a partial audit of the Fed last year, and 75% of Americans still agree that we need a full audit.

If Ron Paul was elected president it would be a clear popular mandate for Congress to dust off their pocket Constitutions and actually read it for the first time. He wouldn't be able to get everything done that he wants, but he could get a lot done. He could repeal the Patriot Act and NDAA, restoring our bill of rights. He could make a deal with Democrats who want to bring troops home and Republicans who want to cut domestic spending. And he always has the veto, which would be his biggest tool.

Cleveland Buck;1043784 wrote:If Ron Paul was elected president it would be a clear popular mandate for Congress to dust off their pocket Constitutions and actually read it for the first time. He wouldn't be able to get everything done that he wants, but he could get a lot done. He could repeal the Patriot Act and NDAA, restoring our bill of rights. He could make a deal with Democrats who want to bring troops home and Republicans who want to cut domestic spending. And he always has the veto, which would be his biggest tool.

The President can invoke and/or abuse some executive authority to de-fang Congressional legislation but he or she cannot actually "repeal" any acts of Congress like the Patriot Act and NDAA...unless I need to dust off my pocket Constitution.

Just about all Paul can hope to really accomplish to satisfy the Paulists, as you've pointed out, is veto power.

But since Dr. Paul will never occupy the Oval Office, I suppose we'll never know.

OK, he's put light on the Fed. I agree. But he wants to eliminate it. That isn't going to happen unless we have a major financial disaster requiring it. In other words, to get what he wants with the Fed, we'll have to be in financial chaos, which is not preferable.

My point is, he's not a persuasive fella. He's more wonkish than a leader. This is great for ideas, but he doesn't seem to me to be a guy that gets things done because...well...quite frankly, he's not shown the ability.

For contrast, if someone with say Chris Christie's ability to persuade people were espousing Paul's ideas, it would be a landslide. To me, Paul is professing transformational leadership with a transactional methodology. Can't be done.

BGFalcons82;1044021 wrote:OK, he's put light on the Fed. I agree. But he wants to eliminate it. That isn't going to happen unless we have a major financial disaster requiring it. In other words, to get what he wants with the Fed, we'll have to be in financial chaos, which is not preferable.

My point is, he's not a persuasive fella. He's more wonkish than a leader. This is great for ideas, but he doesn't seem to me to be a guy that gets things done because...well...quite frankly, he's not shown the ability.

For contrast, if someone with say Chris Christie's ability to persuade people were espousing Paul's ideas, it would be a landslide. To me, Paul is professing transformational leadership with a transactional methodology. Can't be done.

He doesn't want to shut down the Fed. He wants to legalize competition in currency. That would either keep the Fed in check or they will end themselves.

And that is your choice. I personally don't care how slick someone is, I care about what they want to accomplish. Chris Christie's ability to persuade doesn't impress me when he is trying to persuade others to take away our guns and tax carbon emissions and start more wars. If Ron Paul isn't slick enough for voters, then that is too bad for America I guess.

My point is he's more cerebral than a leader. You can call persuasive people "slick" if you wanna, but great leaders are able to gather support and show the way for everyone to follow. I suppose Reagan was slick, too eh?

Paul is desiring a return to the Constitution, and I agree. Problem is, he's not very good at convincing 51% of 130 million voters that he's got it all figured out.

If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I think I might write in this guy.

[video=youtube_share;DFXXAuDK1Ao][/video]

I liked how they tried to bait Santorum into slipping on questions about gays. He was asked two questions specifically about gays...not much of a debate, more of the media looking for guys to slip up.

believer;1043330 wrote:I was just about to post something almost exactly like this.

I'm fascinated that 76 year old Ron Paul has gained so much popularity with the "college age" crowd. Generally college age voters tend to Democrat...and then they grow up.

College age voters and people, tend to be open to new ideas and looking for new experiences, etc, etc. Open people tend to be more liberal in their social views which is why you see college voters trending democrat. Has nothing to do with not being "grown up". This can also explain why college voters tended to vote for Obama and would tend to vote for Paul.

ccrunner609;1043154 wrote:[video=youtube;rsCmiFcRyIc][/video]

hahahah that video was such shit. The first few weren't even flopping, they were legitimate points on both sides. That damn thing lacked so much context it's a joke.

I Wear Pants;1044561 wrote:College age voters and people, tend to be open to new ideas and looking for new experiences, etc, etc. Open people tend to be more liberal in their social views which is why you see college voters trending democrat. Has nothing to do with not being "grown up". This can also explain why college voters tended to vote for Obama and would tend to vote for Paul.

Please. I went to college too. Had a slew of "open-minded liberals" from professors to giggling naive blondes from St. Clairsville surrounding me.

I, and many other "closed minded" college agers, voted for Reagan that year. Hell, my girlfriend at the time came from a hard-core Dem family. She sobbed the night Reagan beat Carter by landslide. She was convinced the nukes were going to start dropping the very next day. I laughed at her. Needless to say I didn't get laid that night! lol

A few years later during Reagan's re-election she told me she voted for him. She grew up.

Cleveland Buck;1044421 wrote:If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I think I might write in this guy.

[video=youtube_share;DFXXAuDK1Ao][/video]

http://readability.iavian.net/?hop=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fballot-box%2Fgop-presidential-primary%2F203039-media-mob-forces-paul-to-leave-nh-campaign-event-early

There's both your guys

I would vote for Vermin Supreme over Obama or any of the Republican candidates not named Paul.

Don't think he'll be on the national ballot

pmoney25;1041300 wrote:It is amazing that Ron Paul gets all the praise from conservatives on fiscal/domestic policy because he believes in the constitution and individual rights/accountability yet he gets destroyed for wanting to follow the constitution on foreign policy. Go to congress, declare war, win and come home.

Even though Ron Paul and his worshippers act like it didn't happen, Bush went to Congress before both Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress authorized the use of military force in both instances, which many feel (as I do) were de facto declarations of war and therefore constitutional. Ron Paul acts like he voted against the AUMF after 9/11, when he in fact voted for it (although one of his former staffers said he nearly voted against it), and he now seizes the political momentum from two unpopular nation-building efforts after the fact. I lost respect for the guy's positions a long time ago. You don't have to be a war-mongering, imperialist neo-con to disagree with him.

believer;1044602 wrote:I, and many other "closed minded" college agers, voted for Reagan that year. Hell, my girlfriend at the time came from a hard-core Dem family. She sobbed the night Reagan beat Carter by landslide. She was convinced the nukes were going to start dropping the very next day. I laughed at her. Needless to say I didn't get laid that night! lol

A few years later during Reagan's re-election she told me she voted for him. She grew up.

If your 1980 girlfriend could've taken a time machine to 2011-12, she'd be a Ron Paul supporter. She'd be sobbing at the nomination of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/et al, convinced that 200,000 troops were going into Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Egypt the next day. Of course, being from a hard-core Dem family, she would have something in common with Dr. Paul's national security/foreign policy positions.

Thats all fine and dandy jhay, you obviously believe ron paul would let america be destroyed and without defense. You believe war is good and that invading countries and killing millions of citizens and a few terrorist is successful foreign policy.

You obviously believe that our military will survive without a sound economy. That spreading our defense around the world in other countries yards makes friends not enemies.

Those are good ideas, unfortunately history and logic do not agree.

pmoney25;1045433 wrote:You believe war is good and that invading countries and killing millions of citizens and a few terrorist is successful foreign policy.

Got a link to back-up that bullshit?

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday's New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans.

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109

believer;1045442 wrote:Got a link to back-up that bull****?

Was not meant to be a statement on actual deaths but a statement on how some people think that killing civillians and occupying countries will create enemies. The actual number is around 150 k I believe.

ill retract the number statement but not the original idea. Empire and nation building powers never survive. It is not possible.

Empire and nation building powers never survive. It is not possible.

I wasn't aware that we are an "empire"....further, what "nation building powers" have collapsed?

history and logic do not agree.

The only thing that history has proven is that weakness or refusal to stand up to an aggressor only emboldens them.

HitsRus;1045581 wrote:I wasn't aware that we are an "empire"....further, what "nation building powers" have collapsed?


The only thing that history has proven is that weakness or refusal to stand up to an aggressor only emboldens them.

All of them. And we've been going into countries and attempting to set up governments that hold the same values that we do. Which is something that empires do.

jhay78;1045324 wrote:Even though Ron Paul and his worshippers act like it didn't happen, Bush went to Congress before both Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress authorized the use of military force in both instances, which many feel (as I do) were de facto declarations of war and therefore constitutional. Ron Paul acts like he voted against the AUMF after 9/11, when he in fact voted for it (although one of his former staffers said he nearly voted against it), and he now seizes the political momentum from two unpopular nation-building efforts after the fact. I lost respect for the guy's positions a long time ago. You don't have to be a war-mongering, imperialist neo-con to disagree with him.



If your 1980 girlfriend could've taken a time machine to 2011-12, she'd be a Ron Paul supporter. She'd be sobbing at the nomination of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/et al, convinced that 200,000 troops were going into Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Egypt the next day. Of course, being from a hard-core Dem family, she would have something in common with Dr. Paul's national security/foreign policy positions.

On Iraq yes, yes you do.

While I like Paul's ideas of limited government, his ideas on foreign policy scare the shit out of me.
Some liken Paul's foreign policy strategy to that of the far left. I think they are giving him too much credit. It's more like dangerously naive.

I remind people that Ron Paul puts his pants on one leg at a time, and is as fallible as any other human being. I say this mainly to his cult like followers who seem to swallow everything that spews from his website as if it was an undeniable gospel truth. Ron Paul has his doctorate in medicine. He does NOT hold any advanced degrees in economics....nor in International relations or politics....no special expertise in nuclear non-prolifreration or arms control. His military experience is that of a flight surgeon, a position he acquired because he was drafted. His expertise on Constitutional Law comes as much from being annointed as such by his followers than by any accredited course of study, program, or experience.

Nice way to not dispute any of his knowledge, foreign policy ideas, or really anything. You just said "but but but he doesn't have a doctorate of economics!"

Which foreign policy ideas of his do you dispute and why?

Also, am I now to not respect people that served in the military via draft?