Ron Paul victory in Iowa? What would it mean?

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

im sort of curious what you think is going on right now? so people arent in 2012 losing their homes, medical benefits etc..? Isnt that the whole point of all this stuff? No politican, no one at all is doing anything.

How is people losing their homes and medical benefits under obama any different than them losing their homes and medical benefits under a ron paul administration or a Mitt Romney Administration?

Im all for medicare, social security and welfare. I support it. But you really think all those things havent been eroded beyond repair under Bush and now Obama? Obama doesnt give a damn about people on welfare or people on social security. Ive got some land i want to sell ya if you think he does care. As I said, he's a priveledged millionaire politician. Sasha and Malia will never have to work a day in their lives, neither will Obama and Michelle. Sasha and Malia can get into any school in the world. Meanwhile the rest of us have bigger issues!

dude, what country do you live in? have you not been paying attention to the foreclosure crisis and people losing their homes because they can not find a damn job? do you not believe that one has something to do with the other??? ron paul's hands off approach would make it even worse. no bailouts for the banks or lending companies would make them go out of business. that is a ron paul approach. he is a probusiness republican, imagine the shitstorm that would happen if more financial institutions go under?

and at you saying that obama does not care about medicare or social security. he has threatened to veto anything cutting medicare. but he can't because the republicans attach bills cutting those things onto things taht need to pass like the extension of unemployemnt benefits or raising the debt ceiling.

but all of this is moot because even if paul wins iowa it does not mean he will get the nomination.

If any business goes under, their assets are liquidated and purchased. Businesses go under all the time and those assets are properly valued; they don't just drop to zero. There is no single business that would even make a dent in the economy, as the fine folks in Washington would have you believe. If you're proposing continuing to hand over billions for executives to stuff in their pockets, I would suggest you investigate how well that's worked thus far and dive into an economics textbook.

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

would you rather him have left the same number of troops there and have our military standing around in iraq for another 10 years because they did not have the manpower and resourses to "finish the job"??? we should not have been there in the first place. he sent more troops in, and got them the hell out of there. would you have had him put boots on the ground in libya??

They didn't finish the job, seeing as how there was no mission. They left, which is what he should've done shortly after taking office. And, or course, "leaving" means several thousand armed "consultants" and a shiny new billion dollar embassy.

actually maliki kicked us out because we would not allow iraq to try our soldiers for atrocities and war crimes committed in iraq... we did not leave on our own choice.

Mostly true. We left on the originally agreed upon date after Obama offered to stay longer and Maliki declined.

gimmesometruth27

no the answer to winning a war is not to fight.

and what happened to those candidates??? they LOST, so their position is now moot. i wanted kucinich to win and would have voted for him if i had the chance.

obama is opposed by progressives because he has not gone far enough. he has not been liberal enough. universal single payer was not even an option on the table. he does shit like that...he does not ask for more than he think he can get. but then again, he is going against an uncompromising tea party and gop in congress.

he has tried to fix the economy but it didn't work. stimulus anyone?

nice shot at my name and photo. stick to the issue.

and the issue is that ron paul is not going to win the nomination.

musicismylife78 wrote:

So the answer to solving an unwinnable illegal and immoral war is sending more troops in and getting us more mired in the war and quagmire? There were other candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel,Nader who all argued
that we should end the war IMMEDIAtELY, not 2 years into ones presidency. Plus, obama didnt end the war. troops are still in iraq and afghanistan.

Obama is opposed by both parties and by a majority of americans. Its not just stingy republicans who are blocking him, people have seen he has done nothing at all, hasnt ended the war, hasnt ended or even tried to fix the economy, hasnt ended our countries policy on torture and gitmo and secret trials and habeus corpus. He;'s done nothing at all.

For someone that has a John Lennon lyric as their username and a doctored photo of abbie hoffman as their avatar its sort of shocking you wouldnt be more radical. sounds like you are some party supporter.

gimmesometruth27

what is paul's plan to fix things?

anyone care to get into that?

musicismylife78

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

im sort of curious what you think is going on right now? so people arent in 2012 losing their homes, medical benefits etc..? Isnt that the whole point of all this stuff? No politican, no one at all is doing anything.

How is people losing their homes and medical benefits under obama any different than them losing their homes and medical benefits under a ron paul administration or a Mitt Romney Administration?

Im all for medicare, social security and welfare. I support it. But you really think all those things havent been eroded beyond repair under Bush and now Obama? Obama doesnt give a damn about people on welfare or people on social security. Ive got some land i want to sell ya if you think he does care. As I said, he's a priveledged millionaire politician. Sasha and Malia will never have to work a day in their lives, neither will Obama and Michelle. Sasha and Malia can get into any school in the world. Meanwhile the rest of us have bigger issues!

dude, what country do you live in? have you not been paying attention to the foreclosure crisis and people losing their homes because they can not find a damn job? do you not believe that one has something to do with the other??? ron paul's hands off approach would make it even worse. no bailouts for the banks or lending companies would make them go out of business. that is a ron paul approach. he is a probusiness republican, imagine the shitstorm that would happen if more financial institutions go under?

and at you saying that obama does not care about medicare or social security. he has threatened to veto anything cutting medicare. but he can't because the republicans attach bills cutting those things onto things taht need to pass like the extension of unemployemnt benefits or raising the debt ceiling.

but all of this is moot because even if paul wins iowa it does not mean he will get the nomination.

wow you are a party supporter. Wow. So, the economy is in the tank, forclosures are rampant, and the answer if you were running things would be to continue on this path with obama? what so things continue to spiral out of control? I do think it has something to do with the other. I agree. And that something is our current presidents policies on virtually everything, and the consequence of that is the foreclosires, the economic crisis, the expansion of the war, and the occupy movement. Again, why do you think people are joining the occupy movement? It aint because they want to prevent a Ron Paul administration, although they dont seem to support any politician at all, but i think the point is, they arent out there screaming "more of the same, lets keep the same foreign policy and economic policy, because under obama medicare, social security have been so good".

Its amazing to me even after all this, people would still support obama. Makes no sense at all. yep, lets continue on this path of endless war, and mindless violence and ignoring the economic crisis. Yep lets do that people. I agree completely.

That was my whole point. Even under bush I dont think the country was this bad. Obama hasnt done anything to undo what bush did, he's not even made any effort at all. what makes you or anyone else think voting him in again, or any similar politican would change things around.

Assuming you and everyone else is in agreement with me, that we want an end to the war, all wars, that we want jobs and a good economy, we dont want to lose our homes, we dont want to be taken advantage of, we want to treat others fairly and kindly nonviolently, how in the hell is any of that viable or an option under Obama?

gimmesometruth27

pjl44 wrote:

Mostly true. We left on the originally agreed upon date after Obama offered to stay longer and Maliki declined.

maliki did not just decline. he said if they can not try our soldiers then we have to get the hell out at the agreed upon date.

musicismylife78

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no the answer to winning a war is not to fight.

and what happened to those candidates??? they LOST, so their position is now moot. i wanted kucinich to win and would have voted for him if i had the chance.

obama is opposed by progressives because he has not gone far enough. he has not been liberal enough. universal single payer was not even an option on the table. he does shit like that...he does not ask for more than he think he can get. but then again, he is going against an uncompromising tea party and gop in congress.

he has tried to fix the economy but it didn't work. stimulus anyone?

nice shot at my name and photo. stick to the issue.

and the issue is that ron paul is not going to win the nomination.

musicismylife78 wrote:

So the answer to solving an unwinnable illegal and immoral war is sending more troops in and getting us more mired in the war and quagmire? There were other candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel,Nader who all argued
that we should end the war IMMEDIAtELY, not 2 years into ones presidency. Plus, obama didnt end the war. troops are still in iraq and afghanistan.

Obama is opposed by both parties and by a majority of americans. Its not just stingy republicans who are blocking him, people have seen he has done nothing at all, hasnt ended the war, hasnt ended or even tried to fix the economy, hasnt ended our countries policy on torture and gitmo and secret trials and habeus corpus. He;'s done nothing at all.

For someone that has a John Lennon lyric as their username and a doctored photo of abbie hoffman as their avatar its sort of shocking you wouldnt be more radical. sounds like you are some party supporter.

Obama hasnt been liberal enough? He hasnt been liberal or left wing AT ALL. AT ALL. He isnt a left winger. Never was. Never was anti war. Never was anti Iraq or afghnaistan war. Never was. He's never been for gay marriage. Never been for ending the drug war and ending the racist policies that result from it, DESPITE saying his favorite show is The wire. He;s never been for getting people back to work and getting them jobs.

Somewhere along the line, i think people assumed just because someone is a good speaker and is young that they will be different from past politicians. I think the proof was in the pudding in this case. I wish he would have proved me wrong. but the reason i voted for nader and not Obama was precisely because i knew this to be true. i knew he wasnt going to end the war. I knew he was just another politician.

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what is paul's plan to fix things?

anyone care to get into that?

All right here:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/r ... e-america/

You can also see where he stands on a range of issues individually.

gimmesometruth27

musicismylife78 wrote:

wow you are a party supporter. Wow. So, the economy is in the tank, forclosures are rampant, and the answer if you were running things would be to continue on this path with obama? what so things continue to spiral out of control? I do think it has something to do with the other. I agree. And that something is our current presidents policies on virtually everything, and the consequence of that is the foreclosires, the economic crisis, the expansion of the war, and the occupy movement. Again, why do you think people are joining the occupy movement? It aint because they want to prevent a Ron Paul administration, although they dont seem to support any politician at all, but i think the point is, they arent out there screaming "more of the same, lets keep the same foreign policy and economic policy, because under obama medicare, social security have been so good".

Its amazing to me even after all this, people would still support obama. Makes no sense at all. yep, lets continue on this path of endless war, and mindless violence and ignoring the economic crisis. Yep lets do that people. I agree completely.

That was my whole point. Even under bush I dont think the country was this bad. Obama hasnt done anything to undo what bush did, he's not even made any effort at all. what makes you or anyone else think voting him in again, or any similar politican would change things around.

Assuming you and everyone else is in agreement with me, that we want an end to the war, all wars, that we want jobs and a good economy, we dont want to lose our homes, we dont want to be taken advantage of, we want to treat others fairly and kindly nonviolently, how in the hell is any of that viable or an option under Obama?

what would you do?

and as far as the underlined part, what is ron pauls plan to fix things?
it is not like a "hands off approach" is going to change anything either...

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Mostly true. We left on the originally agreed upon date after Obama offered to stay longer and Maliki declined.

maliki did not just decline. he said if they can not try our soldiers then we have to get the hell out at the agreed upon date.

Exactly...we're saying the same thing.

gimmesometruth27

he could not be liberal because he could not risk the embarrassing defeat from the blue dogs and the gop. the first rule of politics is never ask for more than you know you can get. especially when you are going against a congress that is not going to work with you at all... embarrassing defeats make for a certain loss at the next election. this is why the tea party is on the ropes in opinion polls right now. they demand more than they know they can get.

as far as the other stuff, i believe that he would be better than any republcan going into the white house. we do not need a constitutional amendment to define marriage, as is a gop principle, the gop will never stop the war on drugs, and most of the gop candidates have gone on record saying they will attack IRAN and spend MORE money on the military. the failure of the supercommittee has cut military spending. see how the gop is trying to get around cutting the pentagon? obama has threatened to veto anything undermining the cuts that came about due to the supercommittee failure. i do trust that obama is smart enough to not go into iran. but then again we are drone attacking pakistan so maybe i am wrong.

how can he get people back to work? "job creators" have had ample time to create jobs with the bush tax cuts and they have not done it.

i wanted him to succeed. but you have to admit, he has had unprecented opposition from a gop who said on day one their main goal is to make him a one term president. and let's not forget about the record number of filibusters in the senate this term as well.

i just don't see how ron paul, or any single person can accomplish anything in this current environment.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Obama hasnt been liberal enough? He hasnt been liberal or left wing AT ALL. AT ALL. He isnt a left winger. Never was. Never was anti war. Never was anti Iraq or afghnaistan war. Never was. He's never been for gay marriage. Never been for ending the drug war and ending the racist policies that result from it, DESPITE saying his favorite show is The wire. He;s never been for getting people back to work and getting them jobs.

Somewhere along the line, i think people assumed just because someone is a good speaker and is young that they will be different from past politicians. I think the proof was in the pudding in this case. I wish he would have proved me wrong. but the reason i voted for nader and not Obama was precisely because i knew this to be true. i knew he wasnt going to end the war. I knew he was just another politician.

musicismylife78

im not sure what id do. but i think obama had his chance. he's had 3 years to do something and hasnt changed or altered anything. his policies have been lock step with bush on foreign policy and much of everything else. Im curious and baffled why anyone thinks another 4 years of this garbage and lies is going to alter anything. You think in 2012, obamas going to suddenly wake up and say, "i will be left wing now, i fooled you all, you all thought i was centrist, but i fooled you". I wish it would happen. But it wont.

Ron Paul, on my first post i stated my major problems with his policies. hes not perfect. He is a politican after all He's not the perfect candidate. Its quite possible if he was elected, ron paul that is, that he'd be worse than obama on everything. all im curious about, specifically with obamas current supporters, is why you think if things are this bad in 2012, why would they change under another 4 years of obama? We are engaged in wars and have the worst economy since the great depression. What has obama done, at all, that has made anyone, think he was aiming to fix things and change things and make things better? Its throwing good money after bad. I dont think the answer to the worlds problems is ron paul. But i also quite clearly dont think the answer to our problems is another 4 years of obama.

Obams is a one term president. he will be remembered for being the first black president, and maybe that speech on race, the killing of bin laden, but in terms of the country and the world, i dont see him being anything other than a footnote and being viewed as a person who fiddled while rome burned

musicismylife78

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he could not be liberal because he could not risk the embarrassing defeat from the blue dogs and the gop. the first rule of politics is never ask for more than you know you can get. especially when you are going against a congress that is not going to work with you at all... embarrassing defeats make for a certain loss at the next election. this is why the tea party is on the ropes in opinion polls right now. they demand more than they know they can get.

as far as the other stuff, i believe that he would be better than any republcan going into the white house. we do not need a constitutional amendment to define marriage, as is a gop principle, the gop will never stop the war on drugs, and most of the gop candidates have gone on record saying they will attack IRAN and spend MORE money on the military. the failure of the supercommittee has cut military spending. see how the gop is trying to get around cutting the pentagon? obama has threatened to veto anything undermining the cuts that came about due to the supercommittee failure. i do trust that obama is smart enough to not go into iran. but then again we are drone attacking pakistan so maybe i am wrong.

how can he get people back to work? "job creators" have had ample time to create jobs with the bush tax cuts and they have not done it.

i wanted him to succeed. but you have to admit, he has had unprecented opposition from a gop who said on day one their main goal is to make him a one term president. and let's not forget about the record number of filibusters in the senate this term as well.

i just don't see how ron paul, or any single person can accomplish anything in this current environment.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Obama hasnt been liberal enough? He hasnt been liberal or left wing AT ALL. AT ALL. He isnt a left winger. Never was. Never was anti war. Never was anti Iraq or afghnaistan war. Never was. He's never been for gay marriage. Never been for ending the drug war and ending the racist policies that result from it, DESPITE saying his favorite show is The wire. He;s never been for getting people back to work and getting them jobs.

Somewhere along the line, i think people assumed just because someone is a good speaker and is young that they will be different from past politicians. I think the proof was in the pudding in this case. I wish he would have proved me wrong. but the reason i voted for nader and not Obama was precisely because i knew this to be true. i knew he wasnt going to end the war. I knew he was just another politician.

i guess where you and i differ is i really have no patience or use for anyone involved in politics. Ive had it up to here with politics, the political system, the 2 party system, the whole charade, and it really is a charade. Im not interested in a candidate who plays the political game. Do you know who funded obamas campaign? the same people that funded every other president campaign in modern history. The corporations.

CH156378

musicismylife78 wrote:

im not sure what id do. but i think obama had his chance. he's had 3 years to do something and hasnt changed or altered anything. his policies have been lock step with bush on foreign policy and much of everything else. Im curious and baffled why anyone thinks another 4 years of this garbage and lies is going to alter anything. You think in 2012, obamas going to suddenly wake up and say, "i will be left wing now, i fooled you all, you all thought i was centrist, but i fooled you". I wish it would happen. But it wont.

Ron Paul, on my first post i stated my major problems with his policies. hes not perfect. He is a politican after all He's not the perfect candidate. Its quite possible if he was elected, ron paul that is, that he'd be worse than obama on everything. all im curious about, specifically with obamas current supporters, is why you think if things are this bad in 2012, why would they change under another 4 years of obama? We are engaged in wars and have the worst economy since the great depression. What has obama done, at all, that has made anyone, think he was aiming to fix things and change things and make things better? Its throwing good money after bad. I dont think the answer to the worlds problems is ron paul. But i also quite clearly dont think the answer to our problems is another 4 years of obama.

Obams is a one term president. he will be remembered for being the first black president, and maybe that speech on race, the killing of bin laden, but in terms of the country and the world, i dont see him being anything other than a footnote and being viewed as a person who fiddled while rome burned

you seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself. it's not exactly paul vs. obama yet. i sure as fuck would vote obama over pretty much any other republican. fucking proud of it. love that kool-aid.

musicismylife78

more specifically, i think the question is, has obama done anything to deserve a second term? has he done or said anything that suggest another 4 years will make this country a better place? i think the answer is self evident

musicismylife78

i think it should be seen as a referdum on obama in the last 4 years, or 4 years when the election happens, are our troops better off now that obama is in charge? will they be better off if he's reelected? our policy on torture and treatment of detainees, are they and we better off under obama? gay rights, are we all better off with obama and his stances on it? The economy, has the economy and the job situation improved under obama, will it improve if relected/. what is his plan to get everyone working again, and fix the economy?

i guess the question becomes, i am a radical. and maybe im out of touch in that aspect with most americans. but i do think, my stance on politics and elections mirrors most americans views. I think people, see washington and politicians and elections and see alot of people promising to do things they never do, and the country continuing to slide from us, the economy continuing to tank, politicians who continue to send our troops in wars the american public opposes.

i think its a given, most people in america are unhappy with the way this country is headed. Across party lines as well. I dont think conservatives are pleased with left wingers, but i also dont think they are pleased with their own side as well. same for democrats. the man in charge the last 3 years has been obama. He's gotten to call the shots. and as a result he gets the blame here. fairly. I think the american public have pretty resoundingly risen up and said "we dislike the current paradigm".

the occupy movement is notable because it rose up during an obama administration. i dont think people in the occupy camps are interested in seeing democrats in office. or republicans. we want jobs. and to be able to live in our houses. we want fair wages. We want our climate and environment respected and protected.

and i think thats the difference.

i grew bored with electoral politics ages ago.

musicismylife78

CH156378 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

im not sure what id do. but i think obama had his chance. he's had 3 years to do something and hasnt changed or altered anything. his policies have been lock step with bush on foreign policy and much of everything else. Im curious and baffled why anyone thinks another 4 years of this garbage and lies is going to alter anything. You think in 2012, obamas going to suddenly wake up and say, "i will be left wing now, i fooled you all, you all thought i was centrist, but i fooled you". I wish it would happen. But it wont.

Ron Paul, on my first post i stated my major problems with his policies. hes not perfect. He is a politican after all He's not the perfect candidate. Its quite possible if he was elected, ron paul that is, that he'd be worse than obama on everything. all im curious about, specifically with obamas current supporters, is why you think if things are this bad in 2012, why would they change under another 4 years of obama? We are engaged in wars and have the worst economy since the great depression. What has obama done, at all, that has made anyone, think he was aiming to fix things and change things and make things better? Its throwing good money after bad. I dont think the answer to the worlds problems is ron paul. But i also quite clearly dont think the answer to our problems is another 4 years of obama.

Obams is a one term president. he will be remembered for being the first black president, and maybe that speech on race, the killing of bin laden, but in terms of the country and the world, i dont see him being anything other than a footnote and being viewed as a person who fiddled while rome burned

you seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself. it's not exactly paul vs. obama yet. i sure as fuck would vote obama over pretty much any other republican. fucking proud of it. love that kool-aid.

thats certainly fine. but i think i and alot of others are sort of tired of the whole being lied to process.

pjl44

musicismylife78 wrote:

more specifically, i think the question is, has obama done anything to deserve a second term? has he done or said anything that suggest another 4 years will make this country a better place? i think the answer is self evident

Truth. Check out Gary Johnson, too. He's as solid as Ron Paul, but slightly more socially liberal (firmly pro-choice, etc.). If Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, I'll be going Libertarian again. Johnson has already committed to running for that nomination and it wouldn't surprise me if it's Paul's backup plan (he's 76, so this is likely his last shot). Paul/Johnson is a dream ticket for me, so here's hoping.

kenny olav

I would not be surprised if Rick Santorum wins tonight, as surprising as that sounds. The conservatives who voted for Huckabee last time have been wanting 'someone like them' during this whole process, and each time one gets put into the spotlight, he/she gets made a mockery of (and in each case, rightly so) ... meanwhile Santorum seems to have run a very good ground campaign, staying under the radar long enough to avoid scrutiny. I don't think he'll end up being the nominee, but he could take enough support from the other conservative candidates in order to outplace Romney's and Paul's supporters. I still think Romney will go on to win this, and as for Ron Paul, his brand of conservative libertarianism is just not going to catch on with the public.

musicismylife78

kenny olav wrote:

I would not be surprised if Rick Santorum wins tonight, as surprising as that sounds. The conservatives who voted for Huckabee last time have been wanting 'someone like them' during this whole process, and each time one gets put into the spotlight, he/she gets made a mockery of (and in each case, rightly so) ... meanwhile Santorum seems to have run a very good ground campaign, staying under the radar long enough to avoid scrutiny. I don't think he'll end up being the nominee, but he could take enough support from the other conservative candidates in order to outplace Romney's and Paul's supporters. I still think Romney will go on to win this, and as for Ron Paul, his brand of conservative libertarianism is just not going to catch on with the public.

huh? i thought it had already caught on. that was the whole point.