Presidental Straw Poll

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Yes indeed, however, doing what Jeff says would be both courageous and a brilliant campaign tactic and could change my mind.

I would personally love to see an army of young people with John S’s sincerity and enthusiasm for first American principles. No offense John as I’ve told you as well how much I like you, but you have not been around my friend. I have a feeling some of us have been engaged in more elections than you’ve been alive for.

Jeff is right. You are setting yourself up for heartbreak. Donald Duck has a better chance of being elected president of the United States than Ron Paul for a whole list of reasons. I will give you that Ron Paul would not bend on anything in office. I will also say that much of his domestic philosophy is right on, but he has zero chance of getting the GOP nomination nevermind winning a general election.

The whole “neo con” thing is a red herring too. This is not 1800 during which era, as has been pointed out, it was not even possible to live in Ron Paul’s world. Forget about today. There ARE things that must be handled “over there” lest they make their way over here at which time it will be far too late.[/quote]

You don’t understand this election, this is make or break. There is no short stepping this, this is either a complete 180 turn or we head straight off a cliff. The real estate bubble combined with the stimulus running out is going to cause some massive damage to our financial sector. Once this happen anyone with a pulse could beat obama. Add to the massive youth movement pushing Ron Paul and we will do just like we did with Rand Paul, Ignore the GOP establisment and send our own guy.

There is a reason the GOP is wooing the tea party, because they know that if they don’t they will go find there own guy, now the GOP wanting to stay in power will adopt the guy we put in place(wait till after may and watch the GOP establisment do a 180 on Rand and start supporting him). This is not the time for weak willed individuals.

Remember much of Obama’s votes came from people saying fuck Bush, expect a big Fuck Obama storm to come after the economy “double dips”.

All is takes is “enough” people…

I honestly think in a national election, evangelicals and other devout Christian groups would not vote for Mitt Romney.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

John, I think you are a good guy. I understand how one could be interested in a candidate that trumpets the Constitution.

But, I wish you’d give up the ron paul cheerleading.

He is NOT the answer to obama. He’s simply unelectable. If we move toward a strict Constitutionalist, it won’t be him. It isn’t the Republican “machine” that dooms ron paul. It’s ron paul himself. In order to lead, you have to actually make allies. ron paul fails miserably on that score. Way too preachy/holier than thou/and simply wrong on many of his historical assertions.
JeffR[/quote]

Quite true. I think he could also benefit from focus on incremental changes that will have the largest impact. He has to take into account who he speaking to and who will be casting votes. You need to make things very simple. Speaking in political and moral absolutes is not going to win him the presidency. We are too far from his political moral absolutes for the masses to wrap their heads around them. They will simply tune out.

I agree with about 90% of what he says and writes, but he needs to be a bit more pragmatic about what can actually be accomplished. He should focus on positive steps he could realistically take if elected. I’d vote for him either way, but it’s not going to be my vote he needs.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Gingrich, SHOULD be the guy. He’s brilliant (I don’t use that word very often). Has plenty of experience. But, his personal life, unfortunately, dooms him with much of the party.
[/quote]

He has had some questionable policy stances, but overall I like him. People might overlook his personal issues in preference for a leader with his political experience - and his intellectual qualities & commitments. In who else can we find all that? I can’t think of many.

More and more I’m doubting that a “dark horse” candidate would really be viable - by the time we’re sizing candidates up, the country will be totally exhausted with Bambi’s inexperience and incompetence (and maybe we already are?). We’ll have little patience with someone who lacks substantive experience; and who also doesn’t have a strong history of actual committments to Conservative values.

I love how the headline the media writes is that Mitt Romney won the straw poll. Yeah, by one vote!!! The headline should have been “Romney and Paul in dead heat”.

Mitt Romney is an empty suit with a fake smile. I can’t stand these people trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. Remember this one…

Romney would be an absolute disaster - I think many people like you have an instinctive dislike and distrust for him. Empty suit indeed.

You guys are acting as if this actually means something. Did you know that out of all the polls in both parties that have been taken two years away from an actual Presidential election not one person who won actually went on to win the White House?

Hillary was far out in front of everyone two years away from 2008.

In 1990 no one was aware of who Bill Clinton was.

In 1978 the odds on favorite was George Bush (the 1st) he was later beaten in primary after primary by a popular Governor by the name of Ronald Reagan.

In 1974 two years before wining the Presidency Jimmy Carter was so unknown that he appeared on a game show “What’s My Line” and panelists tried to guess who he was and he did for a living.

Forget about this early polling nonsense, it is a complete waste of time. The next republican nominee will probably be some unknown (at this point) Governor.

All of you just hunker down take your Obama beating like men and focus on the mid-trm elections which are now only 7 months away.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You guys are acting as if this actually means something. Did you know that out of all the polls in both parties that have been taken two years away from an actual Presidential election not one person who won actually went on to win the White House?

Hillary was far out in front of everyone two years away from 2008.

In 1990 no one was aware of who Bill Clinton was.

In 1978 the odds on favorite was George Bush (the 1st) he was later beaten in primary after primary by a popular Governor by the name of Ronald Reagan.

In 1974 two years before wining the Presidency Jimmy Carter was so unknown that he appeared on a game show “What’s My Line” and panelists tried to guess who he was and he did for a living.

Forget about this early polling nonsense, it is a complete waste of time. The next republican nominee will probably be some unknown (at this point) Governor.

All of you just hunker down take your Obama beating like men and focus on the mid-trm elections which are now only 7 months away. [/quote]

I doubt that is the case this time around, people are not going to trust someone without experiance, the last time we where in this much debt we where a manufacturing giant, now we are not. This is about to get real ugly and we need someone with experiance and honesty.

The internet candidate has been found and it is Ron Paul.

There is no reason to look forward to the primaries. The GOP will take controll again, they will immediatly compromise with Obama and push legislation through. Sure we are getting good people in like Rand Paul and Peter Schiff but for the most part it will be more of the same republicrats. They will continue to drive this country right off the cliff, the only difference is they will slow down a bit.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Romney would be an absolute disaster - I think many people like you have an instinctive dislike and distrust for him. Empty suit indeed. [/quote]
Romney has to this point given me no reason to believe that he has either a core or a spine.

[quote]John S. wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You guys are acting as if this actually means something. Did you know that out of all the polls in both parties that have been taken two years away from an actual Presidential election not one person who won actually went on to win the White House?

Hillary was far out in front of everyone two years away from 2008.

In 1990 no one was aware of who Bill Clinton was.

In 1978 the odds on favorite was George Bush (the 1st) he was later beaten in primary after primary by a popular Governor by the name of Ronald Reagan.

In 1974 two years before wining the Presidency Jimmy Carter was so unknown that he appeared on a game show “What’s My Line” and panelists tried to guess who he was and he did for a living.

Forget about this early polling nonsense, it is a complete waste of time. The next republican nominee will probably be some unknown (at this point) Governor.

All of you just hunker down take your Obama beating like men and focus on the mid-trm elections which are now only 7 months away.

I doubt that is the case this time around, [/quote]

Yes, this one time will be different because you have become aware, of course.

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out. Who said a current unknown will have to be inexperienced? There is a solid republican governor who will most likely carry the banner.

[quote]
The internet candidate has been found and it is Ron Paul.[/quote]

It’s talk like this that caused quite a few people to waste their money a few years ago. You can do that again if you like, but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.

Wrong again, you’re three for three on this post. The republican party got the wake up call you don’t have to worry about that anymore.

I’d guess it’s going to be an unknown too.
It’s early. The electoral mood is anti-incumbent. It makes the most sense to pick up a governor with little Washington experience. And everybody in the running has drawbacks.

Sarah Palin has high negative ratings. Romney is too liberal for the base, and has the RomneyCare issue and the Mormon issue. Newt Gingrich is old and did his most important work more than a decade ago. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

I like Paul best, actually. I’m now, belatedly and ashamedly, antiwar, and for that reason I’m very reluctant to vote to reelect Obama. But it’s all pretty hopeless.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.
[/quote]

The worse “it” gets, the more likely him becoming a candidate becomes.
Thats my thoughts.

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but I assure you that Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President. I would give some very large odds and a lot of money on that. He hasn’t got it and will NEVER be the candidate.
[/quote]

The worse “it” gets, the more likely him becoming a candidate becomes.
Thats my thoughts.[/quote]

I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can; Ron Paul will never become, ever. He looks like a withered old man and comes off as cranky and at times darn right hostile. The vast middle of the road voter (that everyone tries to get) will steer as far away from Ron Paul as one would who was driving near a cliff.

If things get worse another star will emerge with experience that will become the next President.

This whole Ron Paul things would be funny if not so stupid.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
I love how the headline the media writes is that Mitt Romney won the straw poll. Yeah, by one vote!!! The headline should have been “Romney and Paul in dead heat”.

Mitt Romney is an empty suit with a fake smile. I can’t stand these people trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. Remember this one…

- YouTube [/quote]

Charlie, I agree with you here.

Good post and good video.

(Now…do you dislike Romney because you suspect he might have semitic blood coursing through his veins?)[/quote]

HaHa. Yeah good one. I’m surprised that you think this was a good post because Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t bending over backwards to kiss AIPAC’s ass.

I hope you noticed during those debates that everyone of those “conservatives” up there except Ron Paul was willing to start another war with Iran, sacrifice thousands of more lives, spend billions more taxpayer money, and isolate us even more from the rest of the world.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
I love how the headline the media writes is that Mitt Romney won the straw poll. Yeah, by one vote!!! The headline should have been “Romney and Paul in dead heat”.

Mitt Romney is an empty suit with a fake smile. I can’t stand these people trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. Remember this one…

- YouTube [/quote]

Charlie, I agree with you here.

Good post and good video.

(Now…do you dislike Romney because you suspect he might have semitic blood coursing through his veins?)[/quote]

HaHa. Yeah good one. I’m surprised that you think this was a good post because Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t bending over backwards to kiss AIPAC’s ass.

I hope you noticed during those debates that everyone of those “conservatives” up there except Ron Paul was willing to start another war with Iran, sacrifice thousands of more lives, spend billions more taxpayer money, and isolate us even more from the rest of the world.
[/quote]

What I liked about that video was Ron Paul’s concern for the Constitution not his unwillingness to go to war. War is not something to be avoided at any cost. Agreed?

BTW, the “isolate us even more from the rest of the world” pile of hog slop? If it were possible, fine by me. Popularity contests don’t interest me, Miss Suzie Highschoolgirlcharlie.[/quote]

I agree that we shouldn’t avoid war at any cost. But for once, just maybe, we could actually follow the constitution and have congress officially declare war if we are going to have a military engagement. Something that has not happened since WW2.

And as far as isolating us even more from the rest of the world. Yeah that is something we want to avoid. America went from the envy of the world, a country that was the most respected, to one that is the most loathed. And our ridiculous foreign policy is a big part of that.

As far as economics goes we need to get back to trading with each other. There is nothing that Americans cannot make or do right here in America. Support you local community and buy American. We don’t need to keep buying a bunch of worthless, toxic shit from China.

Oh and by the way, I love the child like name calling you resort to. It really adds to your arguments.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out. [/quote]

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.