O-Trap;994601 wrote:I don't think they'll vote for through Big 'O', but they won't be voting Romney or Newt either.

I can't say Paul is the only one who would beat Obama, since your average voter is not likely that politically tuned in (rather watch the Kardashians than C-SPAN), which makes them unpredictable. It also fuels the "need" to reach them via propaganda.

However, it does seem that Paul would be the surest bet. Republican votes + Fiscally conservative independents + non-interventionalist independents + Disgruntled Democrats = a sizeable force for Big O to overcome.

Problem is, Paul panders less to the current neo-Conservatives in the Republican Party so getting elected THERE would be the difficult part ... probably more difficult than winning the gen-el, even.

fish82;994588 wrote:Who said I'm not voting for Paul? I happen to think he's by far the most fiscally sound of the bunch. If he'd dial back on the semi-nutty foreign policy a tad, he'd probably be a slam dunk winner IMO.

Anyhoo...Obama's re-election has little if anything to do with his TBD opponent. It's quite simple really...if his approval rating is 47% or higher on 11/6/12, then he's a good bet to slide across for a 2nd term. If it's below 47%, then he's out.

O-Trap;994620 wrote:Thing about Paul is that his policy in general is holistic. His foreign policy, in a nutshell, is to avoid military conflicts that aren't immediately and directly vital to the survival of the US. The fuel for his foreign policy IS his fiscal policy. To bend on one is to bend on the other. The more aggressive your foreign policy (as it pertains to active involvement in foreign affairs), the less fiscally conservative you have to be in order to pay for that involvement.

Nevermind the money that is also being spent from the incomes of people stationed elsewhere. Imagine if the military were all spending their paychecks here in the US. Think of the boost that could have on the economy.

QuakerOats;994891 wrote:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups


Gingrich 45
obama 43


In the end I think it will be Gingrich 54; obama 42; other 4

The arse kicking will be thorougly enjoyable.

fish82;994588 wrote:Who said I'm not voting for Paul? I happen to think he's by far the most fiscally sound of the bunch. If he'd dial back on the semi-nutty foreign policy a tad, he'd probably be a slam dunk winner IMO.

Anyhoo...Obama's re-election has little if anything to do with his TBD opponent. It's quite simple really...if his approval rating is 47% or higher on 11/6/12, then he's a good bet to slide across for a 2nd term. If it's below 47%, then he's out.

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

Cleveland Buck;994957 wrote:If the media ever gets around to covering Newt's record he won't stay ahead of Obama in any polls. He supports health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, strict gun control, repealing the Constitution, drug testing all Americans, he made millions lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, dodged the draft, and was the first Speaker of the House to ever be fined and reprimanded on ethics violations. If his record gets any coverage I can't see anyone voting for him.

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

Cleveland Buck;994957 wrote:If the media ever gets around to covering Newt's record he won't stay ahead of Obama in any polls. He supports health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, strict gun control, repealing the Constitution, drug testing all Americans, he made millions lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, dodged the draft, and was the first Speaker of the House to ever be fined and reprimanded on ethics violations. If his record gets any coverage I can't see anyone voting for him.

fish82;995072 wrote:1. The aforementioned "it's our fault they attacked us." Nutty.

2. Voted against the bill in 2007 that dealt largely with helping Africa/Darfur reign in the spread of AIDS and improve general health conditions. Nutty.

3. Shut down Gitmo. Nutty.

4. Calls our support of our only true ally in the Middle East "meddling." Nutty.

5. Paul was the only member of the House to vote against a 2006 resolution condemning religious persecution in China. Nutty.

6. Cosponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which, if passed, would have stopped the troop surge in Iraq. Nutty.

That took about 10 minutes. The list is lengthy.

Look, I get that we need to dial back our level of worldwide intervention. He's just a tad over the top with some of his positions...and his (IMO) overly isolationist views are what will prevent him having a legit crack at POTUS.

fish82;995077 wrote:He's been in politics for 30 years, bro. The media has covered his record ad nauseum. Have you been sans television for the past few decades?

Cleveland Buck;995089 wrote:Ok, if the media from this century gets around to covering his record. No one remembers what they covered 20 years ago.

QuakerOats;995058 wrote:I don't believe any of that, nor do I think it is true whatsoever. He is a real conservative who can and will destroy obama --- what more could you ask for.

PS -- he did not "lobby" for Fannie; he was hired as a private consultant to examnie their business model and make recommendations --- BIG difference.

http://www.newt.org/solutions

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

Cleveland Buck;995024 wrote:It is nuts to think that these countries resent us bombing them and propping up their brutal dictatorships. It is nuts to think that we can't print money indefinitely to pay for our global empire.

jhay78;995187 wrote: Either mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians via the most cowardly acts of terrorism is sick, repulsive, and morally disgusting, or it's because America "propped up" the Saudi dictatorship and is therefore excusable and understandable. Ron Paul seems to agree with the latter. That's not conservative, that's not constitutional, that's "He made me do it" applied to foreign policy.

QuakerOats;995197 wrote: I am sure there are ways to intrepret various positions but there is simply no comparison between Newt and obama --- one is FOR America, for free market capitalism, for limited government, for fiscal sanity; and the other of course is anything but.

jhay78;995187 wrote:What's nuts is the "But for America" version of foreign policy. It's one thing to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Middle Easterners might resent the US. It's wholly another to hand a few excuses to the mass-murdering thugs who hatched and carried out 9/11. And he hasn't said it once or twice; he's doubled and tripled down on that sentiment multiple times.

Either mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians via the most cowardly acts of terrorism is sick, repulsive, and morally disgusting, or it's because America "propped up" the Saudi dictatorship and is therefore excusable and understandable. Ron Paul seems to agree with the latter. That's not conservative, that's not constitutional, that's "He made me do it" applied to foreign policy.

When I was a child, avoiding punishment for my actions via the "He made me do it" argument never worked. If I haul off and burn my neighbor's house down because he was mean to my dog, I get prison time, not sympathy from a judge.

You don't have to agree with or endorse every single American foreign policy action over the past century (I certainly don't) to see that Ron Paul's views on national security and foreign policy went off the tracks a long time ago. And I don't have time to get into the offering friendship to Iran comment he made on Chris Wallace's show a few weeks back.