and let's not forget his staunchly anti-reproductive choice stance. i wouldn't vote for him strictly based on that.
he's not anti-choice. he is against abortion, from a moral standpoint, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should decide who can have one or not. he's libertarian in that way across the board on all issues pertaining to individuals.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
he's not anti-choice. he is against abortion, from a moral standpoint, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should decide who can have one or not. he's libertarian in that way across the board on all issues pertaining to individuals.
he has said that he wants to overturn roe v. wade. makes it kinda difficult for states to keep it legal, doesn't it?
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
he has said that he wants to overturn roe v. wade. makes it kinda difficult for states to keep it legal, doesn't it?
not necessarily. paul's take on that is that roe v. wade is invalid because abortion isn't a constitutional issue. it's a social issue, that should be left to the states to decide how they want to handle it without a blanket ruling from the federal gov't - one way or the other.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
Unlike other candidates, his poll numbers and financial numbers are RISING, and he actualy has visible support via signs and bumper stickers.
First thing I learned when I got involved in politics is that signs don't vote. Have you ever studied politics or been involved in a campaign? If you had you would understand that at this point of the game Ron Paul is out of the race and will not win.
His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.
I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.
First thing I learned when I got involved in politics is that signs don't vote. Have you ever studied politics or been involved in a campaign? If you had you would understand that at this point of the game Ron Paul is out of the race and will not win.
His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.
I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.
signs dont vote,
but polls aren't really accurate either - especialy not for Dr. Paul - and i think there in lies the rub, namely:
If he IS gaining in the polls - standing at 11% currently -- but those polls are only showing numbers for individuals who were registered republicans who voted in 2004s primary AND who have land-line phones, wouldn't it stand to reason that you've missed ALL of the following who will be voting for Ron Paul:
1. any one who doesn't have a land line
2. everyone who wasn't old enough to vote in 2004
3. anyone who was a registered democrat or voted independent in 2004
4. all those apathetic non-voters who never voted in a primary, but whom Dr. Paul has rallied?
I think that is a SUBSTANTIAL base for this man, and it appears to me that it is never represented in the polls.
Personally, i fall somewhere in between 1, 3 and 4.
I don't have a landline, i was registered democrat and voted independent in 2004 but have NEVER voted in a primary race.
I truly believe that MOST of his supporters fall in one or more of those categories, so you add that to 11% and what do you get?
I guess we'll have to reserve judgement until AFTER the primaries.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I understand what you mean, but if you want to run as an independent decide that before you run in a primary. If for nothing else, it gives you more time to raise money for a general election campaign w/o having to spend money on a primary you know you won't win.
I truly believe that MOST of his supporters fall in one or more of those categories, so you add that to 11% and what do you get?
Not the 10+ points he needs to be in the first tier of candidates. There are a lot of people who don't have landlines, and I would think that their support might lean more towards the Paul crowd, but you're talking of maybe a percentage point or two gain over the rest of the candidates who also pick up points.
Not the 10+ points he needs to be in the first tier of candidates. There are a lot of people who don't have landlines, and I would think that their support might lean more towards the Paul crowd, but you're talking of maybe a percentage point or two gain over the rest of the candidates who also pick up points.
a. i guarantee you EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline.
b. You forgot the other 3 categories. People who voted Democrat, Independent or DID NOT vote and EVERYONE who was not 18 in 2004 but no may be 18-22 ... a LOT of people, from what i understand and LOTS AND LOTS of them voting for Ron Paul.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
a. i guarantee you EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline.
b. You forgot the other 3 categories. People who voted Democrat, Independent or DID NOT vote and EVERYONE who was not 18 in 2004 but no may be 18-22 ... a LOT of people, from what i understand and LOTS AND LOTS of them voting for Ron Paul.
You are still not going to make up the ground needed to win. Sorry man. I would make a friendly wager that Ron Paul doesn't even finish in the top three on the Republican side of things.
Also, EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline...put down the Ron Paul kool aid and put your realistic glasses on.
Because i've read enough in the last half year to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt organizations that has EVER been allowed to run a country.
It is so far from the best interests of the average american that is nearly incomprehensible.
Beyond that,
the Feds cousin --the income tax -- could stand to go away.
Beyond that?
He is brutaly honest.
Beyond that?
He wants to end the war,
and imperialist ambitions in general.
Beyond that?
He would let me opt out of the failed Social Security system (that is ALSO realy bad scam, invented by an ottoman emperor as a scam to fund war)
Beyond ALL of that?
I just plain think he is the only one capable of "turning around" America.
All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends while trying to appease you with either some sort of socialist leanings, or blatherings about "saftey" and "security" ... see my quote for reference on that.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Because i've read enough in the last half year to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt organizations that has EVER been allowed to run a country.
It is so far from the best interests of the average american that is nearly incomprehensible.
Beyond that,
the Feds cousin --the income tax -- could stand to go away.
Beyond that?
He is brutaly honest.
Beyond that?
He wants to end the war,
and imperialist ambitions in general.
Beyond that?
He would let me opt out of the failed Social Security system (that is ALSO realy bad scam, invented by an ottoman emperor as a scam to fund war)
Beyond ALL of that?
I just plain think he is the only one capable of "turning around" America.
All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends while trying to appease you with either some sort of socialist leanings, or blatherings about "saftey" and "security" ... see my quote for reference on that.
:(
do you find it funny that people will alway say that "so and so" is not like the others when they agree with "so and so"
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
are you aware that you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? Most people who voted Democrat, etc, aren't registered Republicans now.
And the people who take the polls correct for all the variables you are talking about, like the under 24 age group and who has a landline. They have pretty good estimates of who will change party, how many new voters there will be, etc.
Ron Paul can't win because the media has (correctly) labeled him as a raging lunatic and people don't vote for candidates with that image. Most voters are too stupid to do the research themselves. And most who do the research on Ron Paul would come to the conclusion that he is a nutcase anyway. So he will lose.
are you aware that you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? Most people who voted Democrat, etc, aren't registered Republicans now
Not true. I work in elections in Illinois and can tell you this is very untrue. I'm sure it might be different for various states, but in Illinois you become a registered member of a party when you vote in their primary. One problem that occurs from this is people switching party affiliates in a primary to vote for a weaker candidate on the other side so your party has an easier time in the primary.
His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.
I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.
18-25 year olds generally don't vote, but is that because they are not involved in the process? Maybe they have never seen a candidate worth voting for? I think you will be surprised at how many new Republicans, 18-25, will vote and we all know who they will be voting for.
But keep towing the party line, somebody has to do it.
if you're right about the ticket; we can look forward to another republican government for another 4 years. the democrats are not offering a candidate capable of beating a republican ticket.
are you aware that you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? Most people who voted Democrat, etc, aren't registered Republicans now.
And the people who take the polls correct for all the variables you are talking about, like the under 24 age group and who has a landline. They have pretty good estimates of who will change party, how many new voters there will be, etc.
Ron Paul can't win because the media has (correctly) labeled him as a raging lunatic and people don't vote for candidates with that image. Most voters are too stupid to do the research themselves. And most who do the research on Ron Paul would come to the conclusion that he is a nutcase anyway. So he will lose.
In Delaware, you have to be registered with a party to vote for them in the primary
that is the ONLY reason i am a registered Democrat... otherwise i would be a Registered Independent... because that is what i think everyone should be, an independent... blind loyalty to any "party" is just silly to me... and quite foolish
Actually, her mother posts with more tact and decorum. Because I greatly respect her mother I didn't want to get into it, but to dismiss people whose focus is individual liberty as crazy says a lot about why we currently live in a nanny state.
As far as the primary process, it does vary from state to state. In my state we've switched from strictly a caucus system, to an open primary (you could vote for any candidate in any party), to a system where you have to ask for a Rep or Dem ballot. The parties still also hold caucuses and retain the authority to use or ignore the results of the primaries when selecting delegates. The Republicans will use the primaries to allocate 51% of its delegates. The Democrats will not use the results of the primaries to allocate delegates.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
and they will be sworn in on 1-20-09 as the President and Vice-President of the U.S.A.
Write it down.
Gauranteed.
my2hands has made his official prediction :cool:
this is one exciting time in America... at least on the Democrat's side... a black man... a woman... a latino... a Senator from Delaware ... outspoken peace candidates that are ahead of their time...
Of course the Republicans are coming to the party with the same old white men they usually come with... perhaps they dont realize that the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority... oh well, too bad for them and their 18th century agenda...
waddya folks think? either side?... and dont just say who you support... because the guy i am voting for has no chance it appears (Dennis Kucinich)
and you forgot the democrat candidate who is being censored and thrown to the curb by his own party and a bunch of its candidates who are either
1. Lying to you
2. Not answering questions asked in debates.
and you are all falling for these democrats cuz youre fucking blind and should have your voting abilities taken away from you.
if the polls aren't rigged, i think he has a very valid chance.
Rudy seems to have a lack of REAL support on the ground.
I have traveled through 4 states in the past 2 months on several occassions, and everytime i see Ron Paul signs ALL over town (i was just in Orlando, and RPaul signs are RAMPANT down there) ... on the flip side, signs for other candidates (in EITHER party) are 100% missing. NONE.
What does that say?
Is it 100% proof of anything?
No.
Does it indicate that Ron Paul may have more support than what other candidates truly possess when it comes to motivated voters\supporters at a local level?
I think it is a fair indication.
If Rudy and Romney have all these supporters, where are they!?!
Are they just quietly sitting at home, not donating $, not putting up signs, not joining meetup groups, not attending the rallies ... waiting to go to the polls, confident that their candidate will win the primaries, campaigning be damned?
What i mean is,
why are Ron Paul supporters so visible EVERYWHERE in action, but the other candidates support ONLY seems to come from campaign $ and mainstream media coverage received? And increasingly these candidates have SHRINKING contributions while Paul is about to break 10 million by months end with a huge surge on the 16th of Dec?
How many Giuliani or Romney bumper stickers have you seen?
I haven't seen ANY. Why not? Because he doesn't seem to really have any support localy. Corporations are forking over the $ but the people remain silent.
Last i checked coporations still cant vote, only people can! lol
So WHERE ARE THE OTHER CANDIDATES CONSTITUENTS?
Are they SO confident that they dont need to get out and stump?
I find that idea a bit far fetched.
did you SEE this video?
He isn't sounding so fringe anymore.
"more signs on the ground than any other candidate", "a real chance if he concentrates his efforts" ???
IN THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS, the numbers are showing that roughly 500 BILLION in adjustable rate mortgages will reset ... foreclosures are expected to DOUBLE again in the next quarter. Things are getting REALY BAD for the average american, the blue collar worker, and the lower-middle class family.
As that happens, quotes like this from JEFFERSON will seem disturbingly relevant:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson
and there is ONE candidate that understands that message, who can act on it, and who can bring that message to the people.
The prophecies and nightmares of our founding fathers are coming to pass, and the people will come around.
Once millions actualy DO WAKE UP HOMELESS, you will see the people seek REAL answers, answers involving tough questions, and answers that NO OTHER CANDIDATE is willing to offer.
who told you ben franklin said that quote in your signature
who told you ben franklin said that quote in your signature
it was thomas paine.
I think the actual authorship of the quote is a bit unclear, but i never saw ANY evidence it was Paine.
Not that i would care either way who wrote it, but let me know your source on that, cause i don't see it.
THE POINT i am making is that the founding fathers warned us about so much of what is occuring at this very moment in history. If we would only trust their judgement on these issues and follow the guidelines they wrote for us, we would have some hope. As it is, it appears people would prefer to continue and give up their liberties, sell off their treasury to the arabs, print more fake money and devalue all of it, spend wrecklessly, and allow corporations to rule the day, with no hope of an honest politician having affect on anything.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and you forgot the democrat candidate who is being censored and thrown to the curb by his own party and a bunch of its candidates who are either
1. Lying to you
2. Not answering questions asked in debates.
and you are all falling for these democrats cuz youre fucking blind and should have your voting abilities taken away from you.
clowns
hahahahahahaha
i guess reading comprehension is not your strong point my good friend.
where did i say i supported these 2 candidates? i was simply making a prediction, thats all.
or maybe you missed my last line in my OP where i stated i was voting for Kucinich, you know the guy who is being thrown to the curb by hins own party? or maybe you missed where i refernenced "peace candidates that are ahead of their time"
me and you, we generally agree on most things from what i have read. so perhaps you should actually read what i write before jumping down my throat stating i am "fuckign blind" and should have my "voting rights should be taken away" and call me a "clown"
read and comprehend, before you post chief, thanks. :rolleyes:
Comments
he's not anti-choice. he is against abortion, from a moral standpoint, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should decide who can have one or not. he's libertarian in that way across the board on all issues pertaining to individuals.
most of all, the fact that presidential elections are rigged is what sucks just about all of the hope out of me.
he has said that he wants to overturn roe v. wade. makes it kinda difficult for states to keep it legal, doesn't it?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
not necessarily. paul's take on that is that roe v. wade is invalid because abortion isn't a constitutional issue. it's a social issue, that should be left to the states to decide how they want to handle it without a blanket ruling from the federal gov't - one way or the other.
First thing I learned when I got involved in politics is that signs don't vote. Have you ever studied politics or been involved in a campaign? If you had you would understand that at this point of the game Ron Paul is out of the race and will not win.
His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.
I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
that could be the plan...
I hope not. I hate it when people who lose a primary turn around and run as an independent like Lieberman. Drives me crazy
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
signs dont vote,
but polls aren't really accurate either - especialy not for Dr. Paul - and i think there in lies the rub, namely:
If he IS gaining in the polls - standing at 11% currently -- but those polls are only showing numbers for individuals who were registered republicans who voted in 2004s primary AND who have land-line phones, wouldn't it stand to reason that you've missed ALL of the following who will be voting for Ron Paul:
1. any one who doesn't have a land line
2. everyone who wasn't old enough to vote in 2004
3. anyone who was a registered democrat or voted independent in 2004
4. all those apathetic non-voters who never voted in a primary, but whom Dr. Paul has rallied?
I think that is a SUBSTANTIAL base for this man, and it appears to me that it is never represented in the polls.
Personally, i fall somewhere in between 1, 3 and 4.
I don't have a landline, i was registered democrat and voted independent in 2004 but have NEVER voted in a primary race.
I truly believe that MOST of his supporters fall in one or more of those categories, so you add that to 11% and what do you get?
I guess we'll have to reserve judgement until AFTER the primaries.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i want as many people running as possible...
I understand what you mean, but if you want to run as an independent decide that before you run in a primary. If for nothing else, it gives you more time to raise money for a general election campaign w/o having to spend money on a primary you know you won't win.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Not the 10+ points he needs to be in the first tier of candidates. There are a lot of people who don't have landlines, and I would think that their support might lean more towards the Paul crowd, but you're talking of maybe a percentage point or two gain over the rest of the candidates who also pick up points.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
a. i guarantee you EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline.
b. You forgot the other 3 categories. People who voted Democrat, Independent or DID NOT vote and EVERYONE who was not 18 in 2004 but no may be 18-22 ... a LOT of people, from what i understand and LOTS AND LOTS of them voting for Ron Paul.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
You are still not going to make up the ground needed to win. Sorry man. I would make a friendly wager that Ron Paul doesn't even finish in the top three on the Republican side of things.
Also, EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline...put down the Ron Paul kool aid and put your realistic glasses on.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Because i've read enough in the last half year to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt organizations that has EVER been allowed to run a country.
It is so far from the best interests of the average american that is nearly incomprehensible.
Beyond that,
the Feds cousin --the income tax -- could stand to go away.
Beyond that?
He is brutaly honest.
Beyond that?
He wants to end the war,
and imperialist ambitions in general.
Beyond that?
He would let me opt out of the failed Social Security system (that is ALSO realy bad scam, invented by an ottoman emperor as a scam to fund war)
Beyond ALL of that?
I just plain think he is the only one capable of "turning around" America.
All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends while trying to appease you with either some sort of socialist leanings, or blatherings about "saftey" and "security" ... see my quote for reference on that.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Generalization much?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
do you find it funny that people will alway say that "so and so" is not like the others when they agree with "so and so"
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
And the people who take the polls correct for all the variables you are talking about, like the under 24 age group and who has a landline. They have pretty good estimates of who will change party, how many new voters there will be, etc.
Ron Paul can't win because the media has (correctly) labeled him as a raging lunatic and people don't vote for candidates with that image. Most voters are too stupid to do the research themselves. And most who do the research on Ron Paul would come to the conclusion that he is a nutcase anyway. So he will lose.
Not true. I work in elections in Illinois and can tell you this is very untrue. I'm sure it might be different for various states, but in Illinois you become a registered member of a party when you vote in their primary. One problem that occurs from this is people switching party affiliates in a primary to vote for a weaker candidate on the other side so your party has an easier time in the primary.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
18-25 year olds generally don't vote, but is that because they are not involved in the process? Maybe they have never seen a candidate worth voting for? I think you will be surprised at how many new Republicans, 18-25, will vote and we all know who they will be voting for.
But keep towing the party line, somebody has to do it.
You got to spend it all
You know what drives me crazy? Stooges.
You got to spend it all
I agree.
http://inthepresenttense.blogspot.com/
i can tell yuo are your mothers daughter
and that is a good thing!
that is the ONLY reason i am a registered Democrat... otherwise i would be a Registered Independent... because that is what i think everyone should be, an independent... blind loyalty to any "party" is just silly to me... and quite foolish
Actually, her mother posts with more tact and decorum. Because I greatly respect her mother I didn't want to get into it, but to dismiss people whose focus is individual liberty as crazy says a lot about why we currently live in a nanny state.
As far as the primary process, it does vary from state to state. In my state we've switched from strictly a caucus system, to an open primary (you could vote for any candidate in any party), to a system where you have to ask for a Rep or Dem ballot. The parties still also hold caucuses and retain the authority to use or ignore the results of the primaries when selecting delegates. The Republicans will use the primaries to allocate 51% of its delegates. The Democrats will not use the results of the primaries to allocate delegates.
and you forgot the democrat candidate who is being censored and thrown to the curb by his own party and a bunch of its candidates who are either
1. Lying to you
2. Not answering questions asked in debates.
and you are all falling for these democrats cuz youre fucking blind and should have your voting abilities taken away from you.
clowns
who told you ben franklin said that quote in your signature
it was thomas paine.
I think the actual authorship of the quote is a bit unclear, but i never saw ANY evidence it was Paine.
Not that i would care either way who wrote it, but let me know your source on that, cause i don't see it.
THE POINT i am making is that the founding fathers warned us about so much of what is occuring at this very moment in history. If we would only trust their judgement on these issues and follow the guidelines they wrote for us, we would have some hope. As it is, it appears people would prefer to continue and give up their liberties, sell off their treasury to the arabs, print more fake money and devalue all of it, spend wrecklessly, and allow corporations to rule the day, with no hope of an honest politician having affect on anything.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
hahahahahahaha
i guess reading comprehension is not your strong point my good friend.
where did i say i supported these 2 candidates? i was simply making a prediction, thats all.
or maybe you missed my last line in my OP where i stated i was voting for Kucinich, you know the guy who is being thrown to the curb by hins own party? or maybe you missed where i refernenced "peace candidates that are ahead of their time"
me and you, we generally agree on most things from what i have read. so perhaps you should actually read what i write before jumping down my throat stating i am "fuckign blind" and should have my "voting rights should be taken away" and call me a "clown"
read and comprehend, before you post chief, thanks. :rolleyes:
Both Zogby and Gallup have Edwards or Obama winning against any of the Republican nominees. It's Hillary that struggles in the general elections.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm