ron vs mitt
Nevermind90
Posts: 722
Few fact;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLET9FM ... e=youtu.be
"30% of People Who Watch This Whole Presentation Change Their Vote!"
http://ronvsmitt.com/?YouTube_Ad
Cheers from Sweden!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLET9FM ... e=youtu.be
"30% of People Who Watch This Whole Presentation Change Their Vote!"
http://ronvsmitt.com/?YouTube_Ad
Cheers from Sweden!
~ Enjoy The Struggle
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
how anyone supports the other knuckleheads is beyond me
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
He's not a Ross Perot. His inclusion in the debates would be monumental.
Why "must he"?
I bet he won't run independent. His goal is to shape the Republican party platform, AND hope to win the nomination. If he loses the nomination, and ran outside the party he would simply secure President Obama's reelection, that would change nothing. In doing that he would make his message Nader-esque, he wouldn't change party platforms, or alter the direction of the country in any way.
The threat to run independent (which he will possess until the nomination) is a good thing because if Romney gets the nod, Ron Paul will trade running as and Independent for Romney adhering in some way to Ron's message on this or that.... and to me, that's a small plus.... especially if it's in regards to the Fed.
Do I want that though? No. I want Ron Paul to win... and I still think it could happen.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
ron paul cannot change what the GOP has become ... i would say that Ron Paul running as an independent would actually hurt Obama more than Romney ... the primary reason he needs to run as an independent is to continue to have his voice heard at a time when people most listen ...
I completely disagree on every portion.
He/we can change what the GOP has become, we can help him by supporting him. This won't happen overnight, however. I think him running as an independent would help Obama more than Romney and... finally, I disagree that he needs to run as an independent to continue to have his voice heard. If he puts up a good fight and loses, and trades not running as an independent for policy (even if it's not grand)... his voice will not only be heard, it will be implemented.
This guy has a following that both Obama and Romney would want. They both have to try to get it. He has the power there. I think he's learned from Nader what a dumb idea third party candidacy is (in this environment) as far as getting anything accomplished.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
would the public know who ralph nader is if he didn't run for presidency!?? ... and ralph nader did not cost gore the presidency ...
just look at the candidates that considered themselves worthy of being president the GOP had ... the party is a joke - ron paul has been railroaded by the establishment from the get go ... the GOP has not adopted one singular policy platform from ron paul nor will they ... when he finally loses this nomination battle - it will be a shame if he goes back to being a fringe congressman ...
and i know he's but one person ... ez1221c is an example of the voter i think exists that would actually swing in favour of romney ...
Like what?
I'm interested in what a "pretty liberal person" feels is a failure, and why she/he wouldn't vote for Obama again.
For one, I don't agree with the indefinite detention section of NDAA. He hasn't closed Guantanamo and still hasn't got troops out of Afghanistan. Solyndra scandal, US intervention in Libya, has done nothing to bring US closer to energy independence, has continued to support Israel regardless of situation, has done nothing to shrink the military and defense budget. It has all been his fault either, but me, he hasn't been the strongest leader. For a long time, he let John Boehner smack him around. I by no means think he is a failure, but I think at this point, we need to policing the world, something that Obama has continued. Obama certainly has had his successes, like health care, and the stimulus, but I want the US to get its dick out of places like Afghanistan where it doesn't belong. I like what Obama tried to do when coming into office by extending talks to Muslim nations, but it hasn't been enough because, as at least in my mind, we are creeping close to war with Iran.
For me the biggest issues are foreign policy, the economy, and energy independence. Foreign policy and energy independence really go hand in hand, as our need for oil dictates our involvement overseas. I would rather vote for Ron Paul in this regard because he would end our involvement overseas, at least from a military standpoint.
Regarding my political views, I am extremely liberal socially and pretty moderate economically.
I guess looking ahead I would vote for Obama in 2012 over Mitt, but it would be a much tougher decision if it came down to Ron Paul and Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171092068727100.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
...this is an example of someone who's pro-establishment GOP and their take on Ron Paul. The irony is, although their perception of the man is awful, I do think they got his game plan down somewhat. It's worth a read.
Ralph Nader may have been less known had he not run third party, but his ideas were not implemented either way (end of story). So, I guess you need to ask... what's more important,... becoming a celebrity? or altering the direction of American policy? If Ron Paul runs third party, he will increase his celebrity, cut himself off entirely from a political party and change nothing in the end. If Ron Paul does what he's doing, he will impact policy... either directly or in exchange for his delegates.
Ralph Nader did cost Gore the Presidency IMHO.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is not as much anti-Romney as he is anti-Newt, anti-Santorum and anti-Obama. So, I think he could tolerate Romney as a President and if Romney signed off on some of the Ron Paul platform(s), in doing so... he would release his delegates and would support him. But, I'll be honest... I don't really know his feelings on the other candidates... that's just my bet on it. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Rand Paul considered as a VP candidate.
I'm not disagreeing that the Republican candidates are weak, with perhaps the exception of Romney and Paul. I mean Newt and Santorum make me vomit... as does Obama. Romney, just makes me throw up in my mouth (I got to spit it out). And I do agree that Ron Paul has been railroaded... I mean these last two debates were front and center examples of that.
But, the GOP has not had reason to adopt a policy platform from Paul, although they "ever-so-slightly" got behind his audit the Fed calls. In other words, Paul never proved why the GOP had to. He can do that now, by gathering delegates and also showing off his youth/grassroots supporters.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
how was Paul railroaded in last night's debate...?
Post debate coverage of Paul went 60 minutes before his name was even mentioned.
so...? that was after the debate...I'm asking how he was railroaded during the debate...which was the charge levied...
To be honest, I watched maybe 15 to 20 minutes of the debate and Paul was able to say the same thing he always does...
the CROWD had to CHANT HIS NAME for him to get a chance to answer a MEDICAL QUESTION. they had to do it TWICE.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
did he get a chance to answer....? and what did he say that was different than "get the gov't out of it"...?
You obviously didn't watch the debate...
He had two questions directed at him in the first hour of the debate... Two. I'm betting the questions directed at the other three ranged anywhere from 5-15 questions.
Also, John King went right down the line twice (on healthcare and abortion questions) asking each candidate and skipped Ron Paul (the one who's a Doctor). The crowd got so angry with it, they boo'd mid-debate.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ron Paul - the redhead stepchild of the republican party.
I'm just playing with you all, I do believe he has received less media coverage then he should have, but not to the degree and with the amount of whining that most of you do! :twisted:
as I stated in another post, I watched about 15 to 20 mins of the debate...I saw him say the same thing he always says...
I find it interesting that Paul is always a victim...nothing seems good enough for Paul supporters...
end the fed, baby...just end the fed...
all of the worlds ills will be cured....
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns- ... with-boos/
Give him equal time, and I (at least) wouldn't complain. Also, when you go down the line and ask every candidate a question... it seems odd when you skip the Doctor on the end (TWICE) on medical-related questions.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
he's a doctor, so what...why does that give him special attention...? I didn't see his answer, but I'd be willing to bet he said something about "getting the gov't out of it and allowing individuals to take care of themselves"...am I right...?
I didn't vote for him, but when he was elected, I was willing to accept and see what change he would bring and what the effect would be. Three years later, what has changed?
If it's Mitt vs. Obama, I don't think I will waste my time voting. It's like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. There is a minor taste difference, but in the end it's just cola.
Strongly disagree!!!
Oh, and I strongly disagree about Mitt and Obama being the same as well.
why even have debates then, why ask anyone any questions, their answers are usually the same...in fact they usually have platforms. maybe we should just show graphs on how a candidate would feel about hypothetical situations...I know, extreme examples, but I wonder if one of them was a General in the army, would they get left out of a war related question after all others had a chance to answer? Don't you think it is pertinent to the discussion to talk to someone who worked in healthcare before and after the existence of medicaid and medicare when discussing the subject of government involvement in healthcare?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
perhaps...but he's running for POTUS...not surgeon general...on that stage, he's a politician, not the nation's doctor...
and yes, he says the same thing over and over...personally, I'd stop asking various questions if the answer was always the same for each question....I guess his platform is very small....
ok.
I am not sure when consistency became a bad thing.
They all say the same things over and over. What has Santorum said before last night that he changed during last night's debate? what has Gingrich changed since the last debate? what has Romney? They all say the same answers.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
perhaps you're right...maybe the "end the fed" and "get the gov't out our lives" has grown old to me...
I guess I'm just not buying what paul is peddling...