T Nation

Soldier Quits Army

His speech sounds like an eighth grade US history essay.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
His speech sounds like an eighth grade US history essay.[/quote]

I thought he sounded more like a robot. The army does that…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
His speech sounds like an eighth grade US history essay.

I thought he sounded more like a robot. The army does that…[/quote]

Yessss, notihng like a foreigner speaking on his US Army experience. Do tell more…

[quote]snipeout wrote:
lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
His speech sounds like an eighth grade US history essay.

I thought he sounded more like a robot. The army does that…

Yessss, notihng like a foreigner speaking on his US Army experience. Do tell more…[/quote]

…He said US army…? Where?

So, how come nobody’s talking about Paul coming in second in the Nevada caucus?

http://thenevadacaucus.com/

Final results

Romney 51%
Paul 14%
McCain 13%

Predicted outcome

Mitt Romney 38%
John McCain 20%
Ron Paul 14%

TB? Mick28? Anyone? I’m sure you have ever more theories about Paul’s lack of “electability”.

And, as usual, some people remain “fair and balanced” in their coverage.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4906/nvqo0.jpg

Uh… probably because Romney didn’t just win Nevada, he won by a great margin.

[quote]lixy wrote:
So, how come nobody’s talking about Paul coming in second in the Nevada caucus?

http://thenevadacaucus.com/

Final results

Romney 51%
Paul 14%
McCain 13%

Predicted outcome

Mitt Romney 38%
John McCain 20%
Ron Paul 14%

TB? Mick28? Anyone? I’m sure you have ever more theories about Paul’s lack of “electability”.[/quote]

Paul was predicted to garner 14% and lose by 24 pts, and in reality garnered 14% and lost by 37 pts. That’s a victory?

Unless a primary result has slipped past me, I don’t recall Paul ever finishing within 10 pts of the winner(s) in any primary. Nevada was his best rank-order finish to date, yet he still lost by 37 pts to the winner.

Put it this way, Paul’s losing margin was five points away from tripling Paul’s total share of the vote! That’s not seriously contending.

As for his “electability”: he has none, and never did. He’s not even seriously challenging in the primaries.

[quote]And, as usual, some people remain “fair and balanced” in their coverage.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4906/nvqo0.jpg[/quote]

Take a closer look at those three candidates, and you’ll see that all three of them have won at least one primary (Paul hasn’t), and as of right now, those are the three legitimate contenders for the Republican nomination (Paul isn’t).

They are the candidates that most people care about (because they are relevant), so those are the three candidates on which FNC is focusing.

Common sense usually trumps conspiracy theory.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

Paul was predicted to garner 14% and lose by 24 pts, and in reality garnered 14% and lost by 37 pts. That’s a victory?

Unless a primary result has slipped past me, I don’t recall Paul ever finishing within 10 pts of the winner(s) in any primary. Nevada was his best rank-order finish to date, yet he still lost by 37 pts to the winner.

Put it this way, Paul’s losing margin was five points away from tripling Paul’s total share of the vote! That’s not seriously contending.

As for his “electability”: he has none, and never did. He’s not even seriously challenging in the primaries.

And, as usual, some people remain “fair and balanced” in their coverage.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4906/nvqo0.jpg

Take a closer look at those three candidates, and you’ll see that all three of them have won at least one primary (Paul hasn’t), and as of right now, those are the three legitimate contenders for the Republican nomination (Paul isn’t).

They are the candidates that most people care about (because they are relevant), so those are the three candidates on which FNC is focusing.

Common sense usually trumps conspiracy theory.[/quote]

Well stated, TGun - and folks, this is why we love our First Amendment: the more Lixy posts, the more we come to realize how awful he really is.

“Spot the idiot” - the great virtue of free speech.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
As for his “electability”: he has none, and never did. [/quote]

I’ll have to disagree. He is doing better than some and worse than others.

His base was probably the fastest growing in the last few months. He raised lots of money from individual donations. His ideas are radically opposed to what the last 40 years have been about, but he is the most consistent of the lot. His supporters are extremely motivated. He is the most popular among non-party voters.

To say that he has no “electability” whatsoever, and never had any, is preposterous at best.

[quote]lixy wrote:

I’ll have to disagree. He is doing better than some and worse than others. [/quote]

You don’t have the knowledge to be able to disagree - and your statement does not speak to Paul’s electablity: the guys who did worse didn’t have a shot at being elected either.

His base was a gaggle of diehard fringe types, a loose coalition of libertarian-leaning voters (not all), and scores of dumb, impressionable young people. That was never a recipe for any kind of electoral success - and it just appeared larger than it was because of the effect of the internet.

Nothing preposterous about it - and you only say that because you wish it wasn’t true. Paul never even had an opportunity at winning any kind of general election - the mainstream was never interested to begin with, and the more the light was shined into his brand of politics, his chances actually got worse.

Lixy, do yourself a favor and stick to things as they are - not as you want them to be. The American voter, by and large, has not truck with Paul’s politics - and we are better for it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the guys who did worse didn’t have a shot at being elected either. [/quote]

That’s a bold statement given his result in Nevada.

[quote]lixy wrote:

That’s a bold statement given his result in Nevada.[/quote]

No, Lixy, it isn’t - and if you paid even some attention to American politics, you’d know this. Nevada was basically a foregone conclusion - it was going to be a Romney-fest. There was no real second-place to be had. In fact, Romney’s dominance there kept some voters at home. Go learn up.

You have this need to believe that a candidate that shares your foreign policy theory and “blowback” attitudes has a chance - any chance - in an American election. You need this, so you suspend reality in hopes of convincing yourself that the antiwar “blowback” idea is gaining traction as legitimate policy.

It’s juvenile and pathetic - and it’s clear you cling desperately to some hope (rather than reality) that there is something “bigger” underlying Pauls’ candidacy for your own immature needs rather than one of objective analysis.

the only candidate that gives a rat ass about your freedoms and rights and some people have to crap all over him. When we are in the midst of the worst economic disaster in history, you people will wish you listened the Dr. Paul. The guys on Wall St. are starting to listen

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There was no real second-place to be had. [/quote]

That’s rich. You’ll say just about anything to dismiss the man and his message.

Lemme guess…you voted Bush?

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
the guys who did worse didn’t have a shot at being elected either.

That’s a bold statement given his result in Nevada.[/quote]

I like Paul a great deal, voted for him in the New Hampshire primary, but he is not really electable, and certainly not in a Republican Party still dominated by fealty to the president’s position on Iraq.

And he did pretty well in Nevada because no one else was contesting it with Romney. Pretty simple.

lixy, we humored the Paul supporters during the campaign season knowing full well that Paul was going to get whacked. But now the official results are coming in and Paul is getting whacked.

He’s done, lixy. He’s not going to win any nomination, much less the Presidency. He’s as likely to be America’s next President as I am, thus, his “electibility” is zippo.

This is just like the tOSU-LSU National Title Game a couple of weeks ago. Everyone but tOSU fans knew that the Buckeyes were going to get stomped, but we humored them anyway.

Then, despite trailing 31-10 late in the 3rd, some tOSU still believed that they were the better team and that they could still win, all evidence to the contrary be damned.

lixy, you’re that tOSU fan. Paul has lost in a blowout, and you just don’t believe it.

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
the only candidate that gives a rat ass about your freedoms and rights and some people have to crap all over him. When we are in the midst of the worst economic disaster in history, you people will wish you listened the Dr. Paul. The guys on Wall St. are starting to listen

[/quote]

Oh my Lord, I went to bed in 2008 and woke up in 1929!

[quote]lixy wrote:

That’s rich. You’ll say just about anything to dismiss the man and his message.

Lemme guess…you voted Bush?[/quote]

Well, I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but that is irrelevant to the issue, which you should know.

Pretty typical of you, Lixy - completely unable to meet the merits of the debate rationally and objectively, you try and snake out of it be trying to attack my “bad faith” motives for tearing down your hero: “you hate Paul because you are a Bushie!!”

Stupid. Despite my dislike of Paul, I am talking about his electability and the electoral landscape outside of my personal preferences.

It’s pretty easy. For example, I don’t like Hillary Clinton or her politics, and wouldn’t vote for her in the general election - but I can speak objectively on her ability to get elected, which is pretty good, given the landscape. See? I dislike her, but I am rationally observing her electability outside of my personal preferences.

You have no ability to do that - and that makes you silly and dull to those of us who would like to talk about such things.

Seriously, Lixy - very time you post, it just gets worse and worse for you. Have you ever considered stopping digging your own hole?

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

lixy, you’re that tOSU fan. Paul has lost in a blowout, and you just don’t believe it.[/quote]

I used to think Lixy was merely naive, like a young person obsessed with ideology. Adding to that initial impression, now I think Lixy frankly isn’t that bright, but hasn’t caught on that we all are aware of it.