The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7949
Page 1 of 5

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html

Quote:
“What has me concerned is that on Main Street Iowa people are coming up to me and saying, ‘What do you think about Dr. Paul?’” said Cable. “These are folks who have to be informed. They have to get past the 30 and 60 second ads. If you ask Iowans if they’re for legalizing marijuana or legalizing heroin, they’d say no. But Dr. Paul has said on many occasions that that’s ok. But people don’t all know that.”

So far, Paul has been largely ignored by his Republican rivals. But as he increasingly appears to be a serious contender here two weeks out, that’s changing.

Rick Perry is now hitting his fellow Texan over earmarks and Bachmann and Newt Gingrich have begun targeting his foreign policy views. And their in-state surrogates have begun testing another line of attack — that Paul and his backers have “hijacked” the caucuses.

“To see the process hijacked would be a concern for those who consider the honor we have of being first in the nation,” said conservative activist Tamara Scott, a Bachmann state co-chair.


A lot of these Republicans have issues. I also disagree that independents would run back and vote for Obama in the general election.

Author:  Hannibal [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Its even hitting the talk radio guys, parroting the same crap. The RNC should deem Romney the nominee shortly after Iowa, tho I do believe that they will keep multiple candidates in the field so the Democrats have to spread their attacks out.

If Paul wins Iowa and still gets snubbed the RNC will have an uphill battle to get any of his supporters. I know the RNC is banking on the concept that Republican voters will vote for anyone but a Democrat or 3rd party but that's a risky bet.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hannibal wrote:
I know the RNC is banking on the concept that Republican voters will vote for anyone but a Democrat or 3rd party but that's a risky bet.


and it paid off sooooo well four years ago.

*sarcasm detector explodes*

Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 

I'm going to do the same thing that I did back in 2008, and if the Republicans want to nominate Romney or Bachman instead, I'm going to let Obama beat them. They deserve it.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

For all his complaining about being ignored by the media, Ron Paul's current level of popularity is because the media's largely ignored him. The more the general populace (and the republican base) learn about him, the less interested they will be.

Author:  Taskiss [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

A Paul administration would, in my opinion, fall under the heading "be careful what you wish for".

I'd be happy if the direction of the nation were MORE like what Paul would bring, but not LiKE what he would bring. It's a matter of degree.

That said, even were he to win the office, his ability to do anything hinges on the other two branches, and they'd never agree on instantiating his vision. It would be four years of gridlock. I'd be ok with that.

Author:  Mookhow [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win

Hmm. Let's say Ron Paul gets elected, and Congress decides to balk at any of his initiatives. Assuming he vetoes anything they try to pass that he doesn't like, things would be at a standstill. Would Congress be able to muster the required votes to override the veto? Alternately, would he willing to go through with a government shutdown if Congress can't write up anything he's willing to sign?

Author:  Lenas [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
For all his complaining about being ignored by the media, Ron Paul's current level of popularity is because the media's largely ignored him. The more the general populace (and the republican base) learn about him, the less interested they will be.


The more I learn, the better he sounds.

Not everything he's campaigning for is going to happen. He's going to try to get some things done, but he'll settle eventually. It's not like the day after election everyone is going to be shooting up heroin.

Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win

Mookhow wrote:
Hmm. Let's say Ron Paul gets elected, and Congress decides to balk at any of his initiatives. Assuming he vetoes anything they try to pass that he doesn't like, things would be at a standstill. Would Congress be able to muster the required votes to override the veto? Alternately, would he willing to go through with a government shutdown if Congress can't write up anything he's willing to sign?

If that happened I would imagine it would be the death knell of the Tea Party.

Author:  Rynar [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lenas wrote:
Not everything he's campaigning for is going to happen. He's going to try to get some things done, but he'll settle eventually. It's not like the day after election everyone is going to be shooting up heroin.

Well then... I guess I know whose election day party I won't be going to.

Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

You've got a crazy gal who hates Muslims, a guy who hates fags so much his name is associated with *** lube, a guy who can't count to three, a hypocrite who crows about family values while he bangs hookers, and Herman Cain.

None of them can beat Obeezy.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul can actually get Democrats away from Obizzle.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lenas wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
For all his complaining about being ignored by the media, Ron Paul's current level of popularity is because the media's largely ignored him. The more the general populace (and the republican base) learn about him, the less interested they will be.


The more I learn, the better he sounds.

Not everything he's campaigning for is going to happen. He's going to try to get some things done, but he'll settle eventually. It's not like the day after election everyone is going to be shooting up heroin.


I'll make two points on this:

First, if this is true, then I don't think you represent the Republican base, or the general populace. The Republican base would be fairly horrified by his foreign policy objectives. The general populace would be horrified by quite a bit more.

Second, every Ron Paul supporter I've met, and myself as a matter of fact, have always qualified their support by saying that he won't get everything he wants done. In other words, they/we don't want him to get everything done, only some stuff. So the support basically requires you to ignore some of the things he says. I don't think that willingness by his supporters to dismiss his statements will carry him through the primary, not to mention the general election, once the media begins printing/airing some of these tidbits.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ron Paul is on the edge of lolbertarian, but overall I think his policies that he could feasibly accomplish are pretty good. So I agree with Arathain.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Corolinth wrote:
You've got a crazy gal who hates Muslims, a guy who hates fags so much his name is associated with *** lube, a guy who can't count to three, a hypocrite who crows about family values while he bangs hookers, and Herman Cain.

None of them can beat Obeezy.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul can actually get Democrats away from Obizzle.


Well, since we're using wildly inaccurate predjudical language, then we can add a total whackaloon with foreign policy ideas from before the Spanish-American war. Taking away votes from Obama isn't a plus. If Bachman wins, I'd merely not vote, if Paul wins I'd be hard pressed not to vote for Obama.

Author:  shuyung [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

To be fair, have foreign policy ideas since the Spanish-American war achieved the results you want?

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

shuyung wrote:
To be fair, have foreign policy ideas since the Spanish-American war achieved the results you want?

DE's Jackboots say, "Yes."

I think that's a decent question, posed to the wrong person. ;)

Author:  Lenas [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
...if this is true, then I don't think you represent the Republican base...


I would hope not, I'm registered Democrat.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will take my vote from Obama. It's not that I think Obama is great, it's just that I think the rest of the GOP candidates are mouth-breathers and I'm not particularly fond of abstaining. Ron Paul is the only candidate that isn't completely full of ****.

Author:  FarSky [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lenas wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
...if this is true, then I don't think you represent the Republican base...


I would hope not, I'm registered Democrat.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will take my vote from Obama. It's not that I think Obama is great, it's just that I think the rest of the GOP candidates are mouth-breathers and I'm not particularly fond of abstaining. Ron Paul is the only candidate that isn't completely full of ****.

++

Edit: Well, Huntsman seems sane. And hell, I'm not even a Democrat. The Republicans are just that offensive to me.

Author:  shuyung [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I think that's a decent question, posed to the wrong person. ;)

I don't think it's posed to the wrong person. If foreign relations is DE's priority, and if active military engagements on diverse fronts is a favorable condition from his view, then I think we can arguably disregard his demographic. Nobody has to care that his vote (and his peers) is going to Obama. We can see that Lenas offsets him, and though it's hard to pin down Lenas's demographic, I would go out on a limb and say it's larger than DE's.

Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

shuyung wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I think that's a decent question, posed to the wrong person. ;)

I don't think it's posed to the wrong person. If foreign relations is DE's priority, and if active military engagements on diverse fronts is a favorable condition from his view, then I think we can arguably disregard his demographic. Nobody has to care that his vote (and his peers) is going to Obama. We can see that Lenas offsets him, and though it's hard to pin down Lenas's demographic, I would go out on a limb and say it's larger than DE's.

Sweet. So according to you my choices are: Absolute isolationism or all-out-war on multiple fronts?

Author:  Lenas [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win

Sure, if you're into hyperbole.

Author:  FarSky [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

NUANCE HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS! IT IS VERBOTEN!

Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iowa Gov: Ignore Paul Win

Lenas wrote:
Sure, if you're into hyperbole.

and a half...

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

shuyung wrote:
To be fair, have foreign policy ideas since the Spanish-American war achieved the results you want?


I'm pretty happy with them, and even if I weren't, trying to go back to that point with our foreign policy while the rest of the world... doesn't live with that era is not likely to improve things either.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

shuyung wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I think that's a decent question, posed to the wrong person. ;)

I don't think it's posed to the wrong person. If foreign relations is DE's priority, and if active military engagements on diverse fronts is a favorable condition from his view, then I think we can arguably disregard his demographic. Nobody has to care that his vote (and his peers) is going to Obama. We can see that Lenas offsets him, and though it's hard to pin down Lenas's demographic, I would go out on a limb and say it's larger than DE's.


Since I'm not looking for active military engagement for it's own sake, and neither is practically anyone else, you're wildly underestimating my "demographic".

Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/