• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Paul third among Republican Presidential candidates...

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
If by "inordinate number of democrats" you mean every conservative democrat, along with all the democrats who are undecided right up to election day, in conjunction with a Texas-sized chunk of those who are, at the moment, Barack Obama supporters, I'll be forced to agree.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; democrats are not going to abandon a sitting President for a third party nominee who sought the Republican nomination. Will some of them? Sure. A few thousand conservative democrats might be disillusioned with the party to the extent of throwing away their vote this time. But to imagine the number of them that would be required for a Ron Paul win are going to suddenly up root and essentially switch parties (and be in favor of no government as opposed to better government) is to delude yourself pretty thoroughly.

You're looking at polling data from more than a year away from the election. The attacks on Ron Paul haven't even started yet (as the Democrats won't dignify the suggestion at this point and the Republicans get more out of ignoring him like the kid in the class with his hand raised.)

The "major upset" in terms of Ron Paul would be securing 5% of the popular vote in the general election (making him the 12th person to do so from a third party.) He's not going to be the Republican nominee. I've no doubt he'll run but I think it's... unhealthy to inflate his chances based on what a poll says given how drastically the field will change in the coming months (year.)



JSZ
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Reaction score
0
Points
161
But with the field changing and possibly people joining, I see votes being taken away from everyone but Paul. I do not know what will happen, but the unexpected is going to happen.

Not abandon Obama? He has showed little to no leadership (nor PR sense) and no one is overly happy with him. He is the only one offereing change, says exactly what he will do, and wants to end the "wars."
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
What I'm genuinely more curious about is what ardent supporters of Ron Paul will blame when he doesn't win and when this Presidential bid ends the same way the other two did. Will it be the media? Will it be unfair characterizations by the two major political parties? Will it be something that hasn't happened yet (like a gaff that gets taken out of proportion)? In 14 months what will the reason be?


You're (probably) the strongest Paul advocate currently active in this forum. What do you think it will be?



JSZ
 

snakembl14

Lurker
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Reaction score
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
I think its ridiculious to assume Ron Paul supporters will "blame" anybody if they lose.

Your posts continually marginalize him just like the media. "He has some great ideas on **, but has no chance of winning"

When he does win, who are you going to blame his win on?
 

snakembl14

Lurker
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Reaction score
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Interesting comment from user Rjohnsonfamily at Time...quoting him because I'm not good with words:"Ron Paul can't win because he appeals to traditional conservatives who believe in small government, to leftists who believe in personal liberty, to 'blue' democrats who believe Obama has betrayed the party, to independents who voted for Obama but are disgusted with the Hopey-Changy that never happened, by gays who don't want government dictating marriage rules, by straights who don't want to be forced to live by a 'gay agenda'. Gee...left, right, young, old, conservative, liberal, gay, straight...with all that support, he doesn't have a chance!"
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Interesting comment from user Rjohnsonfamily at Time...quoting him because I'm not good with words:"Ron Paul can't win because he appeals to traditional conservatives who believe in small government, to leftists who believe in personal liberty, to 'blue' democrats who believe Obama has betrayed the party, to independents who voted for Obama but are disgusted with the Hopey-Changy that never happened, by gays who don't want government dictating marriage rules, by straights who don't want to be forced to live by a 'gay agenda'. Gee...left, right, young, old, conservative, liberal, gay, straight...with all that support, he doesn't have a chance!"

And, of course, you realize how every one of those appeals to one group is a deal-breaking turn off to another. :smile:
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
I think its ridiculious to assume Ron Paul supporters will "blame" anybody if they lose.

Your posts continually marginalize him just like the media. "He has some great ideas on **, but has no chance of winning"

When he does win, who are you going to blame his win on?


I only ask because there's been such a strong "reason why" (as opposed to an excuse) in the past.

Who will I blame his win on? Lex Luthor will have successfully re-engineered the space time continuum in spite of Superman's best efforts to stop him and we'll all be existing in some sort of alternate reality without knowing it in that scenario... so if he wins... I blame the Man of Steel. Or the Justice League I guess (surely Batman could have done something about the whole manipulation of the laws that form the foundations of the universe bit.)




JSZ
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Reaction score
0
Points
161
5,000,000 things could happen between now and the primary's to shift things one way or another. But, every other top tier candidate in the republican field is business as usual. Paul is NOT business as usual and is the only candidate, republican or democrat who has not only brought the message of change, but said how he will do it. Simply bringing the troops home, which he can do the second he takes the oath, will do a lot towards cutting down on spending.

Anyways, I have seen this polls breakdown among what age groups support whom, and Paul overwhelmingly wins the young vote (and does the worst among his age group). The young voter (who are most likely to not be polled because of the way polls are set up, such as calling landlines, while younger people tend to not have land lines) is the least likely group of possible voters to not vote. That fact alone could throw a whole monkey wrench into things.

Like I said, if the top three candidates, it is evident that Paul voters are the most enthusiastic as a candidate. Have you ever met an ex-Ron Paul supporter? Romney is the compromise candidate at this point with no real excitement and as Perry is vetted, people look at his record and he is slammed at debates, he could be crushed. What can people slam Paul about?

Plus, you still doubt the crossover vote. You say, correctly, history points to this not happening. But, things are greatly lining up for the unexpected to happen.

And the biggest bullet that Perry and Romney might be able to use, I am the most electable, is not possible. There now have been multiple polls that says Paul is the most competitive head-to-head with Obama.

I dont think he gets the nomination because his anti-war stand goes against the neo-cons and neo-libs who dominate the media. But, he has more of a chance to get the nomination and win then you give him credit for. And circumstances with the economy all line behind Paul.

And that hit piece of what he owns in the stock market and equities was a joke. When the stock market does crash and the impending inflation because of "print baby, print" happens, he will be financially set.
 

mephistopheles

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Posts
1,292
Reaction score
133
Points
208
Location
Hell
Website
www.nomoreroominhell.com
A few weeks ago I was browsing the forum and in some thread I can't remember I saw a link to a Jesse Ventura video involving Dick Cheney waterboarding in Bbucko's sig, so I clicked.

I knew a little about Jesse Ventura and found a lot of his consipracy theories to be pretty interesting and found out he was acquaintances with Ron Paul, so I watched a few videos from youtube and decided to visit RP's website.

I've been watching every interview, speech or debate I can find and I've been going over his website and any other resources I can find on him.

The more I learn the more I like, especially compared to his current competition. I would vote for him tomorrow, but we'll see where he's at on election day.
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
Simply bringing the troops home, which he can do the second he takes the oath, will do a lot towards cutting down on spending.
Well it might help the government current accounts a bit. To save money you have to stop spending. But that would mean 100,000 sacked soldiers who will join the unemployed, no ammunition purchases or new tanks for said soldiers so arms companies start laying off staff. Sure, much much better to sack 100,000 soldiers than 100,000 nurses or road repair men, but even cutting back on this national disaster of spending on the military is also bad news for the economy.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
Well it might help the government current accounts a bit. To save money you have to stop spending. But that would mean 100,000 sacked soldiers who will join the unemployed, no ammunition purchases or new tanks for said soldiers so arms companies start laying off staff. Sure, much much better to sack 100,000 soldiers than 100,000 nurses or road repair men, but even cutting back on this national disaster of spending on the military is also bad news for the economy.


I'm sorry but I think worrying over the economic impact on the Military Industrial Complex ending the wars the tax paying American public no longer support will have is probably the worst reason not to do so I've ever heard. We're talking about organizations that have made unfathomable amounts of money in the last decade thanks directly to our military engagements in the Middle East. Knowing they've gone from trillionaires back down to just regular ole' billionaires won't break any hearts here, I assure you. Also... when soldiers return from active deployment we don't fire them.


Anyway, in spite of my sort of tongue-in-cheek assessment of Ron Paul's chances, DazedandConfused- we can agree the biggest upset at this point would be a Ron Paul nomination from the Republican Party, yes? In order for this to really get serious, he's going to need to run from a starting position that isn't several hundred kilometers behind everyone else. In a head to head? Maybe... but one step at a time.

He needs the nomination from the Republicans because no third party Candidate has ever won the American Presidency. The closest a third party ever came was with Roosevelt and he had been President before...twice. Financially speaking, to be competitive with an incumbent President, he's going to need the backing of one of the major political parties. At this stage in the game no third party is positioned to be a serious contender (if he were polling as well as he is from that standpoint, it might be more realistic, but he's not- he's still gunning for the nomination at this point-)

A nomination it is extremely unlikely he'll get. So before the conversation drifts into democrats uprooting and voting for Ron Paul and what the Ron Paul presidency will look like, shouldn't the concentration be on how he's going to get the nomination and the monumental detour that being relegated to a third party bid will mean?

So far as I can glean, there's no plan for making a third party viable nor for salvaging his run after he doesn't get the Republican nomination. So far as I can tell there isn't really a plan for getting the nomination which tells me he and his staff are aware of how unrealistic it is. So we're stalled at the gate; if we're really going to talk about a competitive Ron Paul, step one is the nomination. If they've given up on that as unlikely, step two is how to make a third party candidate a realistic alternative, and thus far I've year to hear anything on that subject let alone how it could possibly work.


Unlike a lot of people I don't think Ron Paul is any more extreme (maybe more idealistic) than any of the other Republican contenders so I've no bias upon which to base an immediate dismissal of his likeliness as a serious opponent for Barack Obama other than the current state of affairs and his two failed bids in the past.



JSZ
 
Last edited:

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,047
Reaction score
58
Points
193
Ron Paul is not viable simply because he will not tow the party line and will not do what the extremists want. As a result the popular vote will be meaningless. Remember that it was later discovered that Al Gore won the popular vote and the Electoral College gave us the gift of George Bush.

Ron Paul will be dispatched one way or another by the GOP. No question about it. The same fate will be given to Bachmann and Palin and I don't see Cain going the whole race either. If they are bright the party will back Romney, if they are stupid they will back Perry. Remember that billions and billions of dollars to "big business" are at stake here!
With the GOP these days it is not who will do the job it is who will "play ball".

The GOP made this same mistake in the past. They recalled a Dem that they knew would not play ball and put Swarzenegger in the Governor's chair in California. He did such a "great" job that their stooge and the guy they backed who did not cooperate not only did not do what they wanted, he placed "Jerry Brown" in the Governor's chair by virtue of a dismal performance.

They won't make that mistake again!

They want a yes man to the party goals which will be either Perry or Romney.

The smart choice would be Romney because he could attract swing voters.
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
I'm sorry but I think worrying over the economic impact on the Military Industrial Complex ending the wars the tax paying American public no longer support will have is probably the worst reason not to do so I've ever heard.
My guess is that it is one of the more serious reasons for not doing so in Obama's mind. The problem when in the middle of a crisis is all the things you wish had been done before there was a crisis. Sure, it is another thing which must be done sometime. The government just indulged in a massive cash giveaway to inject money into the economy so hiring some people on makework soldiering isnt much different. Most important, the republicans agree to this being done via the military so it is a way of injecting cash into the economy which gets political agreement.


We're talking about organizations that have made unfathomable amounts of money in the last decade thanks directly to our military engagements in the Middle East.
Now Bush, on the other hand, should have been cutting the military.

when soldiers return from active deployment we don't fire them.
We do if we are serious about saving significant amounts of money.


Ron Paul's chances..Financially speaking, to be competitive with an incumbent President, he's going to need the backing of one of the major political parties.
Maybe its just me, but advertising seldom influenced my vote. We dont get bombarded with adverts in the UK but I dont usually even listen to the main party political broadcasts which the parties get free on all TV networks. I know where they stand already. Are Americans really influenced by all that advertising spend? Or is it more likely most have already made up their minds or will do so on broad background issues. Advertising only affects the minority of swing voters? This still means advertising is worthwhile if it gives you that extra few votes and a few extra congressmen in a fairly even match, but it also means that if the public really sees a candidate who stands out on his own merits, no amount of advertising spend will change that.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Reaction score
6
Points
258
Age
68
Location
Capitola CA USA
Website
Visit site
Ron Paul will not be elected president. neither will Rick Perry . or Michelle Bachman. their views on social issues are SO extreme they cant win the moderate middle , which is the majority of the voters.
Romney is a political chameleon or a mood ring; he changes every week.
fortunately we have Obama. He said and did the same thing about Libya that he said her would 1 month ago, 2 months ago and months before that.
AND IT WORKED TOO! ISNT THAT AMAZING ? QADDAFI AND BIN LADEN GONE THANKS TO FOREIGN POLICY FROM A LEFTIST, MARXIST, SOCIALIST KENYAN SECRET MUSLIM.
it doesnt matter which of the imbecilic twits gets the GOP nomination. together they couldnt lead a dog out of a mud puddle.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Reaction score
0
Points
161
Ron Paul will not be elected president. neither will Rick Perry . or Michelle Bachman. their views on social issues are SO extreme they cant win the moderate middle , which is the majority of the voters.
Romney is a political chameleon or a mood ring; he changes every week.
fortunately we have Obama. He said and did the same thing about Libya that he said her would 1 month ago, 2 months ago and months before that.
AND IT WORKED TOO! ISNT THAT AMAZING ? QADDAFI AND BIN LADEN GONE THANKS TO FOREIGN POLICY FROM A LEFTIST, MARXIST, SOCIALIST KENYAN SECRET MUSLIM.
it doesnt matter which of the imbecilic twits gets the GOP nomination. together they couldnt lead a dog out of a mud puddle.

It is a bit of a long shot for Paul to get the noimination, but multiple polls for a couple of months have shown Paul being one of the best, if not best, republicans against Obama and the majority have Paul in a statistical tie.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,415
Reaction score
144
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
dazedandconfused- Ron Paul would be a DISASTER. I like some of what he says- but as I've said on here before- this isnt the 1800s. We can't live off of excise taxes and import tariffs. It just won't work. He won't have ANY allies in Congress for his agenda- and as a result the U.S. will be governed by whichever lawmakers can muster up a coalition. The Congress would soon shatter all records for overriding presidential vetoes- and Paul will become nothing more than a cantankerous old figurehead.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Ron Paul will not be elected president. neither will Rick Perry . or Michelle Bachman. their views on social issues are SO extreme they cant win the moderate middle , which is the majority of the voters.
Romney is a political chameleon or a mood ring; he changes every week.
fortunately we have Obama. He said and did the same thing about Libya that he said her would 1 month ago, 2 months ago and months before that.
AND IT WORKED TOO! ISNT THAT AMAZING ? QADDAFI AND BIN LADEN GONE THANKS TO FOREIGN POLICY FROM A LEFTIST, MARXIST, SOCIALIST KENYAN SECRET MUSLIM.
it doesnt matter which of the imbecilic twits gets the GOP nomination. together they couldnt lead a dog out of a mud puddle.
I don't think he is very secret about being muslim. Does the top of your head unhinge for BHO to just shit directly inside?
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Even if he were a Muslim- what the fuck would the problem be? Last time I checked, there was no religious qualification test to become President. Bigot.

Exactly the point I was making.

Did you call me a bigot? I hope not, I hope that was intended for crustybone, or a generic statement as name calling is prohibited here. Not that I'll report you, its just impolite.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,415
Reaction score
144
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Exactly the point I was making.

Did you call me a bigot? I hope not, I hope that was intended for crustybone, or a generic statement as name calling is prohibited here. Not that I'll report you, its just impolite.

Bigotry is also prohibited- and calling someone out for it is not. Thanks for playing. :smile:
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Bigotry is also prohibited- and calling someone out for it is not. Thanks for playing. :smile:

Seeing as how I have not made a racially bigoted post, your name calling is entirely unfounded. Why is it, when you're in the wrong, you cannot apologize for it. Or, at the very least, acknowledge your folly? Is that an inherent trait of the liberals? Californians? Or were you just not raised with enough hugs?

On second thought, perhaps I should alert the mod team to your violation since you refuse to allow that you've made a mistake. Maybe they could show you where the error lies?

Nah, that's just not my style.

Next time you are out calling names maybe the next recipient of them won't be as nice as I am.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Nah, that's just not my style.

Next time you are out calling names maybe the next recipient of them won't be as nice as I am.

Regardless of your "style," it's just silly to call Obama a Muslim. And even sillier to suggest that he's open about it. I mean . . . what???

And notice that I only said "silly." See, I can be nice, too. :smile:
 

houtx48

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,918
Reaction score
206
Points
208
Ron Paul could lead Jesus Christ riding a donkey down Main Street and still could get elected President. Not now not ever.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Obama Admits He Is A Muslim - YouTube


Maybe you'll believe it when he says it himself?

Cool video clip. I think some of it must be missing, though. Could you give me a link to the second part? The part where Obama, you know, admits he is a Muslim?

Then again, since the guys who made the video admit themselves that he never said any such thing, never mind. :smile:

LOL. For a minute there, you almost had me going. Pretty funny, though.

Here, I got one for ya'.

Obama = Hitler
 
Last edited:

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Cool video clip. I think some of it must be missing, though. Could you give me a link to the second part? The part where Obama, you know, admits he is a Muslim?

Then again, since the guys who made the video admit themselves that he never said any such thing, never mind. :smile:

LOL. For a minute there, you almost had me going. Pretty funny, though.

Here, I got one for ya'.

Obama = Hitler

In all seriousness, he does reference "his Muslim faith.". You can take it for what it's worth though, as the audio clip is just that, an audio clip.

Hitler was a lot more liked than obama ever has been.

Change It Back Tee Shirt