dwccrew;1106660 wrote:Just a guess, but Paul is going for delegates, so I think he pretty much knew Ohio was too moderate for his liking. He's campaigning in states in which he is more confident he'll pick up delegates.

Also, looked it up and see that if any canidate in Ohio takes 50% of the vote it becomes a winner-take-all state. Maybe because of Ohio's moderate leaning, Dr. Paul feels Romney will win the entire state and felt it wasn't worth time to campaign in a state in which he wouldn't receive any delegates at all. Just a guess

By moderate you mean what people tend to call "conservative"?

176 pages later and I'm still not impressed with the lot.

LJ;1106403 wrote:Lol read the comments.

Those people are idiots. The energy secretary last week in front of congress stated that ideally gas prices should be closer to $10 so that alternative energy can flourish.

Domestic drilling has increased in the private sector, places where O couldn't stop it. We still haven't tapped ANWAR and Russia and China are drilling off of our coast. A bunch of unemployed liberals flooded the comment section, imagine that.

bases_loaded;1106907 wrote: Domestic drilling has increased in the private sector, places where O couldn't stop it. We still haven't tapped ANWAR and Russia and China are drilling off of our coast. A bunch of unemployed liberals flooded the comment section, imagine that.

A WSJ article a few weeks ago mentioned that Obama likes to take credit for any positive developments on the energy credit, while dodging blame for any negative ones, regardless of whether his policies are responsible or not. And truthfully there's not a lot they can do as far as price, but his policies clearly have not been pro-fossil fuels and his pro-alternative fuel policies have largely been a failure. In some cases we also have a shifting of the costs, such as ethanol contributing to "lower" gas prices but causing inflation in corn and beef prices (because of lower supply of feed corn).

This country doesn't have a coherent energy policy, at least not a responsible one. We have more a MULTIPLE vs. the Middle East of "energy" in coal and natural gas reserves yet neither Bush nor Obama have promoted policies to take advantage of this. We should be subsidizing the mothballing or conversion of fuel oil power plants to natural gas, and pushing coal-to-gas technology. This gets us to energy independence sooner while also buying more time for alternative fuels to become more viable. Nor does it lead to some massive spike in carbon emissions - we are letting questionable global warming, errrr I mean global climate change, data drive less efficient, less productive and more costly decisions on the energy front.

The economic ramifications are potentially disastrous. $10 gas?!? 50mpg CAFE?!? These are grossly irresponsbile approaches that are economically crippling even in the short-run (may not be a "long-run" in such a scenario).

No one is going to get over 50% in Ohio tonight, so Paul will have a chance at some delegates if he gets to 20%. Why didn't he campaign here? I don't know. He is probably focusing on the states he has a better chance to win where the people aren't so economically interventionist.

Cleveland Buck;1107134 wrote:No one is going to get over 50% in Ohio tonight, so Paul will have a chance at some delegates if he gets to 20%. Why didn't he campaign here? I don't know. He is probably focusing on the states he has a better chance to win where the people aren't so economically interventionist.

He hasn't won a damn state yet. In the beginning I thought he had something going, now its the same as every other time he's run. Done supporting a guy who hasn't figured out how to get elected after 60 years

I Wear Pants;1106802 wrote:By moderate you mean what people tend to call "conservative"?

Maybe moderate was the wrong word, but I meant more to the center. Yes, Ohio has been considered "conservative" in the past, but Ohio is much more centered than ever before. In 2008, Obama won the state and the previous governor was a Democrat. Ron Paul knew that Ohio had much more liberal leanings than other states and that he had little to know chance here; which is why he has focused elsewhere.

bases_loaded;1107152 wrote:He hasn't won a damn state yet. In the beginning I thought he had something going, now its the same as every other time he's run. Done supporting a guy who hasn't figured out how to get elected after 60 years

But he has been elected, many times. The guy has been in Congress for decades.

IggyPride00;1103478 wrote:Willard has just been busted.

A 2009 Op-Ed he wrote has been unearthed in which he advocated the Massachusettes mandate as a way to fix our national healthcare.

So much for his excuse about it being a "states rights" thing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-advice-for-obamacare-look-at-romney

Thus far, this story has zero traction. Bullet dodged.

fish82;1107260 wrote:Thus far, this story has zero traction. Bullet dodged.

Maybe not on Fox News...But people are talking about it. Fwiw the bluster over the Rush Limbaugh thing probably helped keep it from being more widely covered.

dwccrew;1107236 wrote:But he has been elected, many times. The guy has been in Congress for decades.

According to the Paulbotoids, Dr. Paul is not a career politician...he's just an average Joe like you and me.

The fact that he's been elected many times but has basically accomplished little explains why his rhetoric only travels so far.

believer;1107379 wrote:According to the Paulbotoids, Dr. Paul is not a career politician...he's just an average Joe like you and me.

The fact that he's been elected many times but has basically accomplished little explains why his rhetoric only travels so far.

Yep...24 years in the House and nothing to show for it. Talk about "do-nothing"!!

He's a man of great ideas. He has solutions to much of our economic issues. Problem is....he's the wrong guy carrying the message because he can't sell his message. At least 85% of Republican voters aren't swayed by him. The question the Ronulans should be aksing is, "why won't people vote for his message", rather than, "y'all are a bunch of dolts for not "getting" our guy." They can't possibly believe it's the right song for the wrong singer.

Cue up the, "..sound bites shouldn't define a candidate" theme music.

And he's been saying the things that we support that whole time.

That's because at least 85% of Republican voters are too stupid to understand what he's saying. Same for the Democrats.

I vote for a president that I think is intelligent and has ideas that I feel will benefit the country the most. I do not give a shit about sound bytes. Anyone who does should be comitted.

I Wear Pants;1107389 wrote:That's because at least 85% of Republican voters are too stupid to understand what he's saying. Same for the Democrats.

See what I mean???

BGFalcons82;1107388 wrote:Yep...24 years in the House and nothing to show for it. Talk about "do-nothing"!!

He's a man of great ideas. He has solutions to much of our economic issues. Problem is....he's the wrong guy carrying the message because he can't sell his message. At least 85% of Republican voters aren't swayed by him. The question the Ronulans should be aksing is, "why won't people vote for his message", rather than, "y'all are a bunch of dolts for not "getting" our guy." They can't possibly believe it's the right song for the wrong singer.

Cue up the, "..sound bites shouldn't define a candidate" theme music.

You're correct. Most Republicans can't grasp onto the liberty platform. Paul has increased his support about fourfold since 08. But still not enough to make a serious impact.

So....we will continue the path of exponential growth of deficit spending, massive growth of government, rescinding of such historical things as the right of being innocent until proven guilty, and the endless wars in the Middle East.

Pass the popcorn. Another election coming up....and nothing will change. Yawn.

This is why I probably won't vote for Romney. This makes no fucking sense.
Explain to me how this is different than what we are doing now?
The whole peace through strength argument? Really, is Iran the same as the Soviet Union? Is Iran really a direct threat like the USSR was?
If he increases the Naval ship building by 6 ships (which the Navy does not want) really needed?
He will press forward with missile defense, you mean like how Obama is as well, but increasing money for the Aegis naval missile defense, the SM-3 IIB and an ashore Aegis defense being built in NATO?
We are already basing several ships in Spain
On North Korean missiles, I guess he just missed where the Missile Defense Agency is increasing the number of interceptors in Alaska by 8-12.

On sanctions, geesh Romney, please tell what other sanctions that Obama and Congress are already in place would you add? I'm all ears, because, oil, banks and people are sanctioned.

On the aircraft carrier in the Med and Gulf, gee we already do that Romney. We have two in the Gulf region.

He wants Israel to be our strongest ally? Really, over the UK, France, Germany, Japan and others? Ok. That is a radical change from the past 250 years....
And besides, U.S. support for Israel has never been higher, especially with missile defense. We are helping ot fund their missile defense programs like Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow.

Come on Romney, weak, weak, weak. He is saying, hey I'll continue to do what we have been doing, only better!
And what's worse, is this is the most coherent of the four R's running. Weak ass shit really.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-how-i-would-check-irans-nuclear-ambition/2012/03/05/gIQAneYItR_story.html

BoatShoes;1107270 wrote:Maybe not on Fox News...But people are talking about it. Fwiw the bluster over the Rush Limbaugh thing probably helped keep it from being more widely covered.

Ah, the "Fox News" meme. Good one? :rolleyes:

It's not being covered on any of the mainstream outlets anywhere. I agree that Rush probably helped...but bullet dodged nonetheless.

BGFalcons82;1107388 wrote:Yep...24 years in the House and nothing to show for it. Talk about "do-nothing"!!

He's a man of great ideas. He has solutions to much of our economic issues. Problem is....he's the wrong guy carrying the message because he can't sell his message. At least 85% of Republican voters aren't swayed by him. The question the Ronulans should be aksing is, "why won't people vote for his message", rather than, "y'all are a bunch of dolts for not "getting" our guy." They can't possibly believe it's the right song for the wrong singer.

Cue up the, "..sound bites shouldn't define a candidate" theme music.

We would all be so lucky is every Congressman ever elected "did nothing". Instead the people who want a show vote for the guys who give us what we have today. Thanks a lot.

Footwedge;1107415 wrote:You're correct. Most Republicans can't grasp onto the liberty platform. Paul has increased his support about fourfold since 08. But still not enough to make a serious impact.

So....we will continue the path of exponential growth of deficit spending, massive growth of government, rescinding of such historical things as the right of being innocent until proven guilty, and the endless wars in the Middle East.

Pass the popcorn. Another election coming up....and nothing will change. Yawn.

I will lose a lot of respect for you all in Ohio if crazy man Santorum wins in Ohio......

ptown_trojans_1;1107511 wrote:I will lose a lot of respect for you all in Ohio if crazy man Santorum wins in Ohio......

The evolution of America:

Santorum is seen as a crazy man and The Foodstamp President is teetering on re-election.

De Toqueville was spot fucking on.

BGFalcons82;1107520 wrote:The evolution of America:

Santorum is seen as a crazy man and The Foodstamp President is teetering on re-election.

De Toqueville was spot ****ing on.

He is crazy, His policies make no sense. The President cannot and should not be be a cultural warrior.
His foreign policy makes no sense and is full of holes.
He puts everything as its the worst its ever been language, which is false.
Oh, and he has no support of moderates, women, or Latinos all needed to bear Obama.


Romney is the only one that can beat Obama really. Otherwise, Obama dominates the west, and wins reelection.

Look, I'm a moderate and would vote against Obama depending on the candidate, but these guy are no fucking moderates.

BGFalcons82;1107520 wrote:The evolution of America:

Santorum is seen as a crazy man and The Foodstamp President is teetering on re-election.

De Toqueville was spot fucking on.

Or it's Ohio just continuing to lose touch with reality year by year. You want to beat Obama, and fucking pick SANTORUM (if it holds)?
PROTIP: Don't pick the crazy asshole when you want to beat an incumbent

ts1227;1107528 wrote:Or it's Ohio just continuing to lose touch with reality year by year. You want to beat Obama, and ****ing pick SANTORUM?
PROTIP: Don't pick the crazy **** when you want to beat an incumbent

That too,.
None, none of my R friends and coworkers in the area support Rick.
He would lose VA easily.