For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II

[Archbob]

So Ron Paul has gained big in SC and is at 20% now. Mittens still leads Newt but Newt is dropping. Can we hope to see an upset in SC and upsets in other primaries and perhaps a run by R.P. as third party?

 

[Earthling]

Paul hasn't been polling at 20% in South Carolina in several recent polls - he's a few points below that. Sure, there might be one poll that has him at that (what's your source? Not public policy polling or Rasmussen or anything I'm finding) but it's not the average. Obviously there could be shifts in the remaining days but it looks to me like Paul outright winning South Carolina is unlikely. Gingrich is the best shot to upset Romney especially considering the money and advertising he's pushing out and there's a good chance Romney still wins.

Ron Paul running as a third party after losing the nomination this year would be devastating to his subgroup of the libertarian/Tea Party movement and to the Republican party, as of course Obama would win in a landslide. The better move for Paul would be just trying to get the Republicans to adopt more of his positions in their platform or setting the stage for something like a Rand Paul presidential campaign in a future election. We can't know for sure he wouldn't try to run as an independent, but it would fail disastrously and diminish any chance of future political gains on the issues he and his supporters want.

 

[Hygro]

Paul running as a 3rd party candidate would eat up a lot of democratic votes though, as many as Republican votes.

 

[NYHunter]

Ron Paul will not win South Carolina because it's an incredibly Hawkish state I'm afraid. Outside of a few small caucus states, I don't think Ron Paul can upset anywhere to be honest. And probably not even those.

 

[Traitorfish]

Paul running as a 3rd party candidate would eat up a lot of democratic votes though, as many as Republican votes.

Would it have the same impact in swing states, though? Impressionistic as this is, it seems that Paul's left-wing sympathisers are more likely to be opportunistic in how they cast their votes, while the essentially right-wing core of his following tend more heavily towards principle/idealism, delete as you think as necessary. A lot of people will vote Paul as anti-war, pro-drugs candidate, but they don't buy into this "fightin' big guvment!" narrative in quite the same way that the Tea Party crowd do. He's the candidate they find least repugnant, rather a candidate that they particularly want.

I mean, he's a pro-life, anti-secular conservative from Texas. However much your stereotypical Paul-sympathising college kid likes his weed and less extensive corporate bailouts, there's limits, y'know?

 

[Hygro]

The only reason I'd vote for him over the other candidates is that he's not for terrifying nonsense like the NDAA. Stuff that makes the patriot act look like a city park ordinance.

The thing is, there's a lot of people who will or would vote for Paul over single issue passion that no other candidate can capture.

 

[mangxema]

Ron Paul will not win South Carolina because it's an incredibly Hawkish state I'm afraid. Outside of a few small caucus states, I don't think Ron Paul can upset anywhere to be honest. And probably not even those.

Virginia: Only Paul and Romney are on the ballot. Granted, the nomination may be pretty much a done deal by that point, but you may get strong support from the 'You know what? **** you, Romney!' crowd.

 

[kochman]

The only reason I'd vote for him over the other candidates is that he's not for terrifying nonsense like the NDAA. Stuff that makes the patriot act look like a city park ordinance.

The thing is, there's a lot of people who will or would vote for Paul over single issue passion that no other candidate can capture.

So, how do you feel about Obama signing into law the ability to detain US citizens indefinitely in violation of the 6th amendment?
How would you have felt if Bush did that?
And, I know... Obama says "I won't use it"... ok, but maybe one of the next 100 presidents will?

It's the frigging aliens and sedition act all over again...

Virginia: Only Paul and Romney are on the ballot. Granted, the nomination may be pretty much a done deal by that point, but you may get strong support from the 'You know what? **** you, Romney!' crowd.

Yeah, Paul is insane... Mitt has this in the bag.

 

[MjM]

For every sane, reasonable position Paul has (and he does have a few!) there's an equally idiotic, unreasonable position on the flipside.

So no, sorry, no Ron Paul 2012. Maybe with a few edits, sure, but as he is now, no way.

 

[kochman]

For every sane, reasonable position Paul has (and he does have a few!) there's an equally idiotic, unreasonable position on the flipside.

So no, sorry, no Ron Paul 2012. Maybe with a few edits, sure, but as he is now, no way.

I completely agree... I don't hate everything he stands for at all... but man, he is out there!

 

[Ajidica]

I support a Ron Paul candidacy. It would make the election much more fun as real news agencies get to play with his newsletters on primetime news shows. If the best he can come up with for an annoying 3rd tier CNN reporter is "I didn't read what was in my newsletter" and walk away, I would love to see how Barbara Walters savages him in the interviews and the attack ads. (I can see it now: "Ron Paul is a racist old coot that can't even come up with some good excuses. Vote Obamny in 2012!")

 

[Archbob]

The ARG has Paul at 20%

 

[Archbob]

I completely agree... I don't hate everything he stands for at all... but man, he is out there!

I find that better than the other republicans who are completely bought out by large corporations.

 

[NYHunter]

Virginia: Only Paul and Romney are on the ballot. Granted, the nomination may be pretty much a done deal by that point, but you may get strong support from the 'You know what? **** you, Romney!' crowd.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I view this as highly unlikely. Exit polls, so far, have suggested that most voters, will actually be satisfied with Romney as a nominee. He's just not most people's first choice. It seems to be the case that voters want to rally around an alternative but only if it's the anti-Romney candidate they like.

 

[GamezRule]

Ron Paul might attract some of the independent vote if he ran independently.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

Ron Paul's "Out there" ideas would never be supported by Congress.

I'd rather have a President being blocked by congress and not pushing this constant war agenda than one who has the utmost need to drop nuclear bombs on every Muslim, then turn those bombs on Americans.

 

[Hygro]

So, how do you feel about Obama signing into law the ability to detain US citizens indefinitely in violation of the 6th amendment?
How would you have felt if Bush did that?
And, I know... Obama says "I won't use it"... ok, but maybe one of the next 100 presidents will?.

Uh, I think I just addressed that it's horrifying and offensive. Obama might use it, and definitely a future president will. That was my point.

 

[Traitorfish]

Attention to all self-proclaimed liberals and progressives.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an entirely revamped Middle East policy, in which the U.S. will no longer subsidize the oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports either abolishing or fundamentally reforming the Federal Reserve system, and he opposed bailing out the banks with public funds.

Unlike Barack Obama, this individual opposes government spying and believes in absolute freedom of speech and the press, and as he puts it, “reduced government intrusion into our lives.”

Clearly, with such a progressive vision, no one of the left would want to pass up the opportunity to support a candidate such as this for president! Surely it would be a vast improvement over Barack Obama, that Wall Street- friendly, imperialistic, war-monger, who promised to close Guantanamo but didn’t, among other unforgivable crimes.

So by all means, let’s get behind someone who will close down the national security state, stand up for civil liberties, and stop handing out money to bankers.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the left, I give you your perfect candidate for 2012:

David Duke.

Oh I’m sorry, did you think I was talking about someone else?

I lol'd.

 

[useless]

Haha, that article is correct; Ron Paul is a scumbag with bigoted and out of date views.

 

[Camikaze]

Haha, that article is correct; Ron Paul is a scumbag with bigoted and out of date views.

Moderator Action: The last thread was over 1000 posts, and in that time I *think* most of us managed to gather that this is your opinion. So instead of restarting a mud slinging contest with a post that doesn't really add anything productive or novel to the thread, please aim for some higher quality discussion.