gut;1315977 wrote:That's a really tough one. I'll make the same criticism of Paul as I do liberals - some appealing ideals, no practical plan for how to get there. I suppose I would have chosen gridlock over a blank check. Maybe not that tough.

But the turnout for Paul would have been abysmal. He had 0 chance.

Exactly. You would have bit your tongue and voted for Paul no matter what. Paul would have easily stolen this election.

gut;1315982 wrote:Probably not. The flipside is alcohol would probably not be legal if they could make it work. They did, however, figure out how to enact a form of prohibition with tobacco.

Give it a few 3 or 5 years of data from the states that just legalized to see how things go. I would guess it gets adopted across the country from liberal states to the right. Conservative states will be the slowest and longest holdouts.

How does CA reconcile this? You can't smoke a cigarette around a kid because it will kill them, but it will be ok for them to get contact highs?

The problem is even if the states legalize it, it is still a federal law. That is the problem.

QuakerOats;1315822 wrote:True, which is why Tea Party conservatives won handily in '10, and why new ones like Cruz in Texas won a Senate seat and why Bachman in Minnesota won again even in a liberal state like Minn.

do you actually look at this stuff.
ms bachmann
Wow that is real ringing endorsement of the no.1 representative of the tea party in a republican dominated district and you are bragging about it.

serves a republican dominated (CPVI R+7)district in a state with a split representation in house of representatives 3R 5D
In 2010 she won 159, 476 to 120,846 for her democratic opponent.
This year she outspent her opponent
12 to 1 $ 20,691,180 to $1,993,108
Bachmann beat Democratic hotelier
Jim Graves by just over 4,200 votes in the 6th District, finally nailing down her fourth term Wednesday morning. The 6th covers the northern and western Twin Cities suburbs and the St. Cloud area.
The tea party favorite and former GOP presidential hopeful had 50.6 percent of the vote with 100 percent of precincts reporting, better than Graves' 49.4 percent.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Nolan-wins-Bachmann-survives-toughest-race-4011260.php#ixzz2BeMQXGCD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_6th_congressional_district
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/michele-bachmann-election-results_n_2086965.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_6th_congressional_district

pmoney25;1315986 wrote:The problem is even if the states legalize it, it is still a federal law. That is the problem.

It's going to be that way for a while but I see the tide turning. It will take a massive amount of the population to put pressure on the legislators and judges. It's getting closer but we aren't their yet.

sleeper;1315984 wrote:Exactly. You would have bit your tongue and voted for Paul no matter what. Paul would have easily stolen this election.

No. Many people would have just stayed home. There's not a lot of vote stealing that goes on. People stay home, they don't switch sides. And Romney had a turnout problem. There's no way Paul is getting more Repubs to go vote than Romney. That's insanity.

And the more absurd or extreme (can't find the right word) aspects of Paul's platform would also have people, justifiably, going with Obama as the lesser fear. In general, I would guess the electorate does not have share the alarm over the econonomy many on this board do. They are concerned, but not enough that they would vote for Paul's wacky ideas.

When I look at exit polls showing the concerns on the economy and the favorability there of Romney, but the vote is nearly split that tells me that people were more worried about losing benefits before an uncertain jobs/economy appeared under Romney - they want the latter, but they're worried about managing the short-run. Paul ain't stealing any of that.

pmoney25;1315968 wrote:I feel sorry for you that you like to label people and put them into groups and act like they are not able to do anything on their own without your help. You must have a huge ego. Quite a shame.

i can very easily put your buddy ron in a grout, if he takes money from neo-nazes to finance his campaign, if he pubishes a racist newsletter, if he opposes the law that ended de jure segregation he is in the white racist group.

sleeper;1315931 wrote:He never wanted to return to the gold standard; he simply wanted gold and silver to be used as currency like it states in the constitution. Paul would have cleaned house with independents, Republicans, and Democrats. Hell, Obama wouldn't even break 100 EV.

is using gold and silver as currency in the Constitution?

isadore;1316007 wrote:i can very easily put your buddy ron in a grout, if he takes money from neo-nazes to finance his campaign, if he pubishes a racist newsletter, if he opposes the law that ended de jure segregation he is in the white racist group.

Shameful. You continue to hold down the potential of those you claim to help because they need your help. Again I will pray for you.

isadore;1316012 wrote:is using gold and silver as currency in the Constitution?

In the one for White people, yes.

sleeper;1316021 wrote:In the one for White people, yes.

you are funny.

pmoney25;1316020 wrote:Shameful. You continue to hold down the potential of those you claim to help because they need your help. Again I will pray for you.

thank you for your prayers, but gosh I am not holding down anyone, I am just truthfully labeling ron paul as a racist.

Ron Paul would definitely have given the Republicans the best chance to win. I'm not going to say he would have won, simply because the media would have fought tooth and nail to keep their meal ticket in the White House.

Still, the majority of voters wanted less government, they just were not offered the choice.

Many of the anti-war left hate Obama for his warmongering ways, but they just stayed home since the other choice was Romney who was ready to suit up everyone's kids but his own and march them into Iran on day one. Many in the anti-war crowd would have come out to vote for Paul.

The only Republicans that wouldn't turn out would be the neocons that came from the Democratic party years ago, and they should really have stayed there anyway. The rest of them either really want to cut spending or really hate Obama enough that they would have voted.

Cleveland Buck;1316386 wrote:Ron Paul would definitely have given the Republicans the best chance to win. I'm not going to say he would have won, simply because the media would have fought tooth and nail to keep their meal ticket in the White House.

Still, the majority of voters wanted less government, they just were not offered the choice.

Many of the anti-war left hate Obama for his warmongering ways, but they just stayed home since the other choice was Romney who was ready to suit up everyone's kids but his own and march them into Iran on day one. Many in the anti-war crowd would have come out to vote for Paul.

The only Republicans that wouldn't turn out would be the neocons that came from the Democratic party years ago, and they should really have stayed there anyway. The rest of them either really want to cut spending or really hate Obama enough that they would have voted.

This is true and he would have likely had more support among young voters. But he wouldn't have done well with minorities, he's an old white man who has his signature on racist newsletters. That would have been very easy to use against him.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and would have chosen him over Obama, but I don't think he would have won the election.

I Wear Pants;1316390 wrote:This is true and he would have likely had more support among young voters. But he wouldn't have done well with minorities, he's an old white man who has his signature on racist newsletters. That would have been very easy to use against him.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and would have chosen him over Obama, but I don't think he would have won the election.

He certainly would have done better with minorities than Romney did. The state media would have run with the newsletter stories, but all Ron would have to do was attack the war on drugs and the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system and they would know how he really feels. Most of them would still choose Obama, but Ron always got the most support from minorities in the GOP primaries.

Cleveland Buck;1316395 wrote:He certainly would have done better with minorities than Romney did. The state media would have run with the newsletter stories, but all Ron would have to do was attack the war on drugs and the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system and they would know how he really feels. Most of them would still choose Obama, but Ron always got the most support from minorities in the GOP primaries.

Yeah he would have had more support but not nearly enough to win the election IMO. That and it's easy to paint, to some extent, his views on states rights in regards to things like equal access and such as ridiculously outdated. There's no need to wait for the states/free market to make things like blacks not being allowed in restaurants and other issues like that go away. Paul sees a problem in the Federal government making shit like that illegal, I don't. I understand that his view on that topic isn't because he's a racist but rather his view of the constitution but I still disagree.

I Wear Pants;1316405 wrote:Yeah he would have had more support but not nearly enough to win the election IMO. That and it's easy to paint, to some extent, his views on states rights in regards to things like equal access and such as ridiculously outdated. There's no need to wait for the states/free market to make things like blacks not being allowed in restaurants and other issues like that go away. Paul sees a problem in the Federal government making shit like that illegal, I don't. I understand that his view on that topic isn't because he's a racist but rather his view of the constitution but I still disagree.

It's not outdated. It's the law. There is a process for amending the Constitution if you want it changed. Ignoring it is not part of the process. If the federal government won't obey the law, then why have it?

Cleveland Buck;1316395 wrote:The state media would have run with the newsletter stories, but all Ron would have to do was attack the war on drugs and the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system and they would know how he really feels.

It would have been interesting to see a test of that theory. But I think your making a bad assumption that he can get his message out or that the media would report "how he really feels". Really just look at what they did to Romney, and he was about as clean and vanilla as they come. They had Bain and that was pretty much it. They would have found something else to attack, and more of it, with any other candidate with an R next to their name. What Obama stands for and represents is FAR more important to liberals than anything he's done or capable of. They were not going to roll-over and play nice with anyone the Repubs sent out there.

And when you look at how many minority Repubs are treated and attacked, I think it's laughable to think an old white guy takes any of that vote from Obama.

Cleveland Buck;1316407 wrote:It's not outdated. It's the law. There is a process for amending the Constitution if you want it changed. Ignoring it is not part of the process. If the federal government won't obey the law, then why have it?

So do you think individuals have a right to weapons or only those in a well regulated militia?

I Wear Pants;1316419 wrote:So do you think individuals have a right to weapons or only those in a well regulated militia?

Case law has confirmed it's the former.

I Wear Pants;1316419 wrote:So do you think individuals have a right to weapons or only those in a well regulated militia?

Where does it say the right to bear arms is only limited to a well regulated militia? Not in the Constitution. The second amendment does use that as an example of why ,"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Cleveland Buck;1316532 wrote:Where does it say the right to bear arms is only limited to a well regulated militia? Not in the Constitution. The second amendment does use that as an example of why ,"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What is your opinion of a future SC decision on the issue in the event obama appoints 2 new members?

QuakerOats;1316536 wrote:What is your opinion of a future SC decision on the issue in the event obama appoints 2 new members?

The same as my opinion would be if Romney appointees would make the same decision. Our right to bear arms does not come from the federal government, and their attempts to deny us that right would not be legitimate no matter how they came to the decision.

QuakerOats;1315822 wrote:True, which is why Tea Party conservatives won handily in '10, and why new ones like Cruz in Texas won a Senate seat and why Bachman in Minnesota won again even in a liberal state like Minn.

Cruz won Texas because it is a red dominated state. They have a great vote straight ticket campaign to convince people irresponsible voting. Cruz is a scumbag lawyer. His primary opponent lost because he was the Lt. Gov. and Rick Perry was more of an albatross to Dewhurst.

Once he won the primary, people on Texas simply vote the R. That is why Cruz won. Not because it is a tea party mandate.

anyone remember the last time the AWB was voted on in 94? Didn't the Dems immediately lose Congress after the ban? Obama and his administration want to ban guns, but I guarantee that the Dems in Congress, especially the Senate, know what will happen to them if any gun legislation is passed. That's why I believe any attempt at curtailing the 2nd amendment will happen without Congressional approval. Executive orders and the EPA can do a lot of damage.

Barring any health issues, hopefully the only SC justices Obama gets to replace are from the liberal side of the court. I know some of the conservatives are getting up in age, but I doubt they want to be replaced by a Democratic president.

tk421;1316739 wrote:That's why I believe any attempt at curtailing the 2nd amendment will happen without Congressional approval. Executive orders and the EPA can do a lot of damage.

Has "Harry Reid cloture special" written all over it. You get to demonize the Repubs while protecting your party from a vote. It's a thing of beauty I tell ya.