Ron Paul is winning against Mitt Romney

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Sinwin, big ups for all the information. Lots of informative reads; you are a scholar among men, kind sir.
 

LuciferChild

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Posts
706
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
53
Location
Uk
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Which is why there's that brilliant advanced technical option called "don't read it."

I didn't , just came here to say that, because it appears too many threads on the threads list with most of the same subject...and it forces people to read the title.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I didn't , just came here to say that, because it appears too many threads on the threads list with most of the same subject...and it forces people to read the title.
There's an upcoming Presidential election, Obama is President, and his two most likely opponents are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. What exactly were you expecting to find in the Politics forum?
 

LuciferChild

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Posts
706
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
53
Location
Uk
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
There's an upcoming Presidential election, Obama is President, and his two most likely opponents are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. What exactly were you expecting to find in the Politics forum?

I was expecting to find just one thread about American Elections, and that's it...
France and greece are also on elections and I don't see any hysteria around it here like I see with you....
 

dwa

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Posts
282
Media
8
Likes
30
Points
113
Age
78
Gender
Male
He said the opposite, best pastries for lesser populated France. Purely on food Im voting French

As far as Ron paul policy it would not fit into character that he was trying to hide a racist attitude, but there is no doubt some people really believe he is. The campaign background has allowed that to be true, the winner will be the most slick guy who has nothing like this to stick on. They wont be the best leader or have the best policies for the country but they will sound good, look good and appear totally slick and fine. Its obvious Mitt is the best clone of Obama they can come up with on this aspect

This is why Republicans will lose this election, they arent trying to forward principles or stand up for anything really different. They are trying to beat Obama at his own game which he is unstoppable on, he is amazing at speeches and all that and Mitt will not compete except as a poor mirror

Actually selecting Ron Paul would take a heck of alot guts to do, they'd have to actually believe in something more then fast talk - Im surprised Gingrinch didnt get further tbh.
Mitt can only win now if Obama really screws up jobs before Nov, they will print money and it will blow up some other year I think so maybe 2016 something will change
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Romney is running scared. Even though he is almost unanimously thought of as the republican nominee, he is doing everything to exclude paul supporters. In Nevada, he is about to lose the 4th largest mormon poulated state. He is also about to lose Maine. There is almost no chance he has enough delagates in Tampa and Paul supporters wont budge.
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Life beginning at conception. I disagree, because we say death begins at being brain dead so when brain function starts should be life, but what would defining life beginning at conception do? He is against abortion personally but still says a woman should have a right to choose.

Building a fence along the border. Dont know if that is the answer, but something needs to be done and no one is addressing the issue. And amnesty is not the answer.

Pull out of the UN. A lot of people are all for. They are a bunch of corrupt idiots who are propped up by the US who hates the US.

Pull birth-right citizenship. A lot of people are in support. Why should someone be able to come here and pop out a kid and that kid is automatically a citizen.

Abolish the federal reserve? The fed was passed into law at the 11th hour in December 1913 with most of Congress not present. It is giving our money to foreign countries. For god's sake, at least audit the damn thing!

As for gay marriage and anything like the ilk, he is personally against gay marriage, but wants the government out of ANY marriage, period. You think the way for homosexuality to be more accepted mainstream is for the government to throw it in our face and allow it? No, it is a religious matter. Hell, Paul does not like the idea of the government issuing marriage certificates.

As for the remarks he made, should not have made and is stereotypical but this stereotype has the basis in truth...
 

dwa

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Posts
282
Media
8
Likes
30
Points
113
Age
78
Gender
Male
wants the government out of ANY marriage, period.

Exactly, thats his stance on everything pretty much. Why the heck is marriage a legal or political debate, its up to nobody but the people concerned.

Big government requires more laws, and RP is about ripping up the endless reams of regulation of people doing no harm to anyone else, such a simple principle.
It is destructive to the economy but people believe printing money & forcing bailouts works so till it collapses we get these elected salesmen for big government
 

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Life beginning at conception. I disagree, because we say death begins at being brain dead so when brain function starts should be life, but what would defining life beginning at conception do? He is against abortion personally but still says a woman should have a right to choose.

Building a fence along the border. Dont know if that is the answer, but something needs to be done and no one is addressing the issue. And amnesty is not the answer.

Pull out of the UN. A lot of people are all for. They are a bunch of corrupt idiots who are propped up by the US who hates the US.

Pull birth-right citizenship. A lot of people are in support. Why should someone be able to come here and pop out a kid and that kid is automatically a citizen.

Abolish the federal reserve? The fed was passed into law at the 11th hour in December 1913 with most of Congress not present. It is giving our money to foreign countries. For god's sake, at least audit the damn thing!

As for gay marriage and anything like the ilk, he is personally against gay marriage, but wants the government out of ANY marriage, period. You think the way for homosexuality to be more accepted mainstream is for the government to throw it in our face and allow it? No, it is a religious matter. Hell, Paul does not like the idea of the government issuing marriage certificates.

As for the remarks he made, should not have made and is stereotypical but this stereotype has the basis in truth...

Couldn't agree more.

The one thing I have never understood is the birth-right citizenship. I just don't see how if you parent\parents aren't citizens of the US how just being born on US soil makes you a citizen. Are we (the USA) the only country that does this?
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Couldn't agree more.

The one thing I have never understood is the birth-right citizenship. I just don't see how if you parent\parents aren't citizens of the US how just being born on US soil makes you a citizen. Are we (the USA) the only country that does this?

Really? Haven't you ever read a little thing called "The Constitution of the United States of America"? The Fourteenth Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

What's not to understand?
 
Last edited:

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
My suspicion is that the text makes sense to him, but not the rationale behind it.

Maybe so. But after 200+ years, I cannot understand the rational of people who continue to raise this issue. I'd love to see which citizens of immigrants with whom they don't have a problem as opposed to those they do. I suspect the list will suspiciously along a racial line.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Maybe so. But after 200+ years, I cannot understand the rational of people who continue to raise this issue. I'd love to see which citizens of immigrants with whom they don't have a problem as opposed to those they do. I suspect the list will suspiciously along a racial line.

I suspect it would also tend to skew along ethnic/racial lines, but not because of racism. You are implying a causal relationship where one likely does not exist.

My suspicion is that certain ethnic groups (Hispanics crossing the southern US border, for example) find the illegal crossings to be practical. Not because of racism, but because of proximity. If all the effort required (and, I know it's a significant effort) is to literally cross the Rio Grande, and then give birth to a baby, then that represents a practical method to establish citizenship through what has become termed "anchor babies."

If it helps, think of it as a legal loophole, an unfair way to skip ahead of those who applied for citizenship through the traditional channels.

Anchor babies are the issue. Not the children of *legal* immigrants. And, a re-examination of birthright citizenship is the form that the debate has taken.

When stepping on to US soil is their first action in this country, and it is clearly illegal, then it could be argued that they represent a problem.
 
Last edited:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
The video doesn't make much sense. These states are not enough to win the majority of delegates nationwide, so why are you titling the topic "Ron Paul is winning against Mitt Romney"? Paul solidly lost the vote in every state, save Maine and (sort of) Iowa. He's winning these delegates because his supporters understand how to manipulate the state delegate system, which a negligible number of lay voters understand or participate in. Then the video implicitly complaints that the mainstream media hasn't reported these as state wins. Of course they haven't...the delegate count has never been what people looked at in a race like this. Remember when Hillary Clinton had a surprise win in New Hampshire? Did the media care that Obama won New Hampshire's national delegates 12-9? No, because that's not what people track, especially when it's not especially relevant. Romney's delegate lead is too high, and his institutional support too strong, for this to matter much.

Paul might be able to cause some embarrassing noise at the GOP national convention, but that's all. There's certainly no sound way this can be characterized as Paul leading Romney, unless I completely misunderstand.
 
Last edited:

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Really? Haven't you ever read a little thing called "The Constitution of the United States of America"? The Fourteenth Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

What's not to understand?

Since when does the Constitution matter to liberals? When it's convenient?