Ron Paul in 2008

[Sanguinius]

Hey, at least I contributed

Can't deny that, and looking over it, I think page 3 of this thread almost deserves to be called a debate, without the use of "".

 

[Escalus]

It was you that came in here and started demanding that we of this forum dedicated to a Japanese manga start issuing specific points to prove to you, a person who has no involvement in this election, that we don't take the 5th place candidate super seriously.

In a situation like this, go in prepared to be mocked. Openly.

/nitpick
Ron Paul got: 10% in Iowa (4th place)
9% in N.H. (4th place)
6% in Mich. (4th place)

He's beaten Guiliani and Thompson thrice...
(I love mockery, it's my shit fo sho')

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

He's beaten Guiliani and Thompson thrice...

Yeah, but it's Giuliani and Thompson. That's barely an accomplishment.

 

[CnC]

/nitpick

The political response would be "some polls have him up, some have him down". But my point about him losing remains.

 

[Sanguinius]

The political response would be "some polls have him up, some have him down". But my point about him losing remains.

I won't disagree with that, in fact, I have always thought that not only would he not win the nomination but I never thought he would win in a single state. That now seems increaingly likely, but as I said several times here, I never seen his nomination bid as a serious attempt to become President but rather to start a battle of ideas in the Republican part.

 

[Escalus]

I won't disagree with that, in fact, I have always thought that not only would he not win the nomination but I never thought he would win in a single state. That now seems increaingly likely, but as I said several times here, I never seen his nomination bid as a serious attempt to become President but rather to start a battle of ideas in the Republican party.

the Economist proclaimed this back in Oct...
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9946972
The last sentence highlights the sentiment.

 

[Oburi]

I'm not going to pretend like I know politics very well, but I will say Ron Paul has won me over. I have full confidence in this mans judgment... yet sadly, not in his ability to win. Its a shame he has no chance. He's our best bet and not just because of some "lesser of many evils" mentality. He's a republican in the traditional sense, fuck all these other guy's (and girl). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

not the most credible platform of for me to show off, but it did bring a tear to my eye!

 

[_Noone_]

I have never been exited about political stuff before. I mean I am no Republican, but no Democrat either. I never voted before because I couldn't bring myself to choose between the lesser of all evils. But this election has really gotten my blood boiling.

Ron Paul has won me over. Other than being a male gynecologist (well, mostly obstetrics, but still you gotta wonder about those guys) I am all for his ideals on limited bureaucracy and government. He has never voted to raise taxes (thats awesome). He voted against the Patriot Act (yay for him). He reminds me of a founding father.

So on the other hand you got Hillary (and as much as I would like to see a woman president) I would rather see her incarcerated for being so unscrupulous. And Obama (as much as I would like to see some ethnic diversity in the presidency) I've heard disturbing things about.

 

[Escalus]

Re: 2008 Presidential Election

(that insignificant win alone netted him more delegates than little Ronnie Paul),

Griff, you're full of shit.
Thompson got 3 delegates in Wyoming. 3<6 mon ami.

and Fred Thomson even came in second there. That's right, Fred "I'm a big stiff who just dropped out despite being a favorite of conservatives in the party, though I still have more delegates than Captain Ron" Thompson.

Lie #2. No, Thomps has 0 delegates. Delegates are ppl too, Griff. When a candidate drops out they pick someone else, big boy.

Also, let's not forget that second is just first loser, so please, enough with the second place moral "victories" in flyover states

Illinois, with 70 delegates, qualifies as a flyover state per your sardonic reply.

that's like being a double loser, that's losing at losing, that's like coming in 2 out of 3 in a losing contest... wait, nevermind, just post about it in the Ron Paul thread if you must.

Why don't you go fuck yourself? I think a hallmark of double loserdom is jumping all over someone's ass when they're trying to create a dialogue. I don't take myself too seriously, but I'm kinda sick and tired of everyone flaming me for no good fuckin' reason besides that I like a cantankerous old fart who's pushing peace. No Griff, I'd rather stick around this thread and play devil's advocate till we see his name as a choice in your 'fair and balanced' poll.

I don't even mean to especially pick on Dr. No here,

hahahahahaha

t's just that when you make fun of someone like Fred Thompson, you don't have to respond to his fan club for days after. =)

Again, I'm not a member of the fanclub. I'm just the prick who has dared to call your bullshit into question (and yes, I'm kinda enjoying it).

Soon he and Ron Paul might be running for the office of Dog Catcher of the District of Columbia.

OH SNAP!!!

LOL. Discursive practice. OH, and humblest apologies for double-posting...

 

[Griffith]

Get off my plane.

There, now we may commence quote warfare on this more "worthy" battlefield.

Griff, you're full of shit.
Thompson got 3 delegates in Wyoming. 3<6 mon ami.

I said Romney got more delegates in Wyoming. A little reading comprehension would be a plus.

Lie #2. No, Thomps has 0 delegates. Delegates are ppl too, Griff. When a candidate drops out they pick someone else, big boy.

I was simply pointing out he had more delegates than Ron at the time he DROPPED OUT (hint to Ron). And by your point, Ron has as good as zero himself since he'll be joining Fred sooner rather than later. Furthermore, if the delegates could ignore the vote, I imagine Fred would have gotten much more than Ron than he already did.

Illinois, with 70 delegates, qualifies as a flyover state per your sardonic reply.

Huh? I didn't say anything about Illinois, unless you're taking me totally literally in that you fly over it from one side of the country to the other. Yeah, and screw Texas too then! Anyway, you're reaching.

Why don't you go fuck yourself? I think a hallmark of double loserdom is jumping all over someone's ass when they're trying to create a dialogue. I don't take myself too seriously, but I'm kinda sick and tired of everyone flaming me for no good fuckin' reason besides that I like a cantankerous old fart who's pushing peace. No Griff, I'd rather stick around this thread and play devil's advocate till we see his name as a choice in your 'fair and balanced' poll.

The machine, it has been thoroughly raged against. I don't take it personally, so good luck, because this is one instance where I think Ron Paul will sooner be President. =)

hahahahahaha

Again, I'm not a member of the fanclub. I'm just the prick who has dared to call your bullshit into question (and yes, I'm kinda enjoying it).

I'd have an easier time taking this daring boast seriously if you threw in a statement here and there that wasn't confused, belligerent, or erroneous. I do hope you're having fun, that's what it's all about, and I think we're all pretty amused by your antics at this point. I just have a way of bringing out the best in people for maximum entertainment value.

OH SNAP!!!

LOL. Discursive practice. OH, and humblest apologies for double-posting...

Apology accepted, viva la Ron.

 

[Escalus]

Get off my plane.

um, Okay. Boss-check...?

There, now we may commence quote warfare on this more "worthy" battlefield.

All Hail!

I said Romney got more delegates in Wyoming. A little reading comprehension would be a plus.

Point.

I was simply pointing out he had more delegates than Ron at the time he DROPPED OUT (hint to Ron).

No you didn't. You used the present tense...nice try. No point.

And by your point, Ron has as good as zero himself since he'll be joining Fred sooner rather than later.

The Humble Prognosticator Strikes Again...

Furthermore, if the delegates could ignore the vote, I imagine Fred would have gotten much more than Ron than he already did.

2nd time...

Huh? I didn't say anything about Illinois, unless you're taking me totally literally in that you fly over it from one side of the country to the other. Yeah, and screw Texas too then! Anyway, you're reaching.

Okay, I won't take your adjectives seriously anymore...(Enter: a stretching, attenuated motion)

The machine, it has been thoroughly raged against. I don't take it personally, so good luck, because this is one instance where I think Ron Paul will sooner be President. =)

???

I'd have an easier time taking this daring boast seriously if you threw in a statement here and there that wasn't confused, belligerent, or erroneous.

Confused, Belligerent, Erroneous...the trifecta!! It's not often I get cooked like this...ah, the old college try.

I do hope you're having fun, that's what it's all about, and I think we're all pretty amused by your antics at this point. I just have a way of bringing out the best in people for maximum entertainment value.

Is that groupthink, or the royal "we"? (He's humble too)

Apology accepted, viva la Ron.

Let me make a point here that isn't confusing, erroneous, or belligerent. In fact, I'll be terse.

Your exclusion of Ron Paul in your poll is confusing, erroneous, and belligerent. Why? Your #1 argument is to denigrate his chances at winning. You also flippantly said (that's a split-infinitive, I know) that you were in power, and since he had a thread already...no go. BTW, you are SO in power, as illustrated by your moving my post and...kicking me off of your plane. So, since he had a thread dedicated to him, and because you said he didn't have a shot, and because you are the powerful poll creator, no inclusion for good ole "RP".

Griffith No More!, the ultimate comeback would be to include him in the poll so the meager stats would make me eat crow. You could easily 'win'. You included 4 Republican candidates, one of whom is gone. Space open. Ante up, Flex.

 

[Griffith]

Who dropped among McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney? Those are my four, and it's two too many as it is as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, you're really misinterpreting my intentions (despite teasing Ronites, that is true, but he'd be gone from the poll now anyway); yes, I disregard Ron Paul, but not because of what I think of him, but because he isn't a serious contender; he's not treated as one by the other candidates, or given the necessary attention by the media to contend. I didn't make the rules, and if I thought there was a chance he could fly back into serious contention, I'd add him, but at this point, I'd rather drop Huckabee, Giuliani, and Edwards instead (and probably will depending on the results of S.C./Florida). If I'm wrong about Ron's chances, I'll gladly except the egg on my face.

 

[Sanguinius]

One of the reasons he won't win is precisely because he is being deliberately sidelined to try and stop people from hearing his message. The main argument put about Ron Paul is the fact that they say he won't win, but this is a self fulfilling prophecy. When you ignore and exclude him how can he possibly have a chance to win?

 

[Griffith]

What came first, the chicken, or the egg? Does he have no chance because he's being ignored? Or is he being ignored because he has no chance? I tend to believe the latter is true by default, that's just how it works. It isn't unequal in the sense that each candidate has a base of support, and they're trying to try to suppress the other candidates in the media and on the campaign trail. If Ron is being suppressed, then he doesn't have a strong enough base of support to begin with, if his message isn't getting through, that's his failure. It doesn't mean he or his ideas are bad, just maybe not what people are looking for, not enough people are buying what he's selling. Despite all this change talk this year, people really want basically the same thing done a little differently. By offering something truly different, good or bad, Paul becomes perceived as an unelectable fringe candidate (and in politics more than anything, perception is reality).

He's gotten enough attention that if he was going to catch fire on a larger scale, he would have. That's what the early smalltime caucuses are about, giving guys a chance to win and get noticed on the small stage so they have a chance at the big time (like Huckabee in Iowa). It's how guys nobody expected to be in the running can become superstars and end up as the nomination, it just didn't happen for Paul. Look at someone like McCain though, over the summer his campaign was dead, the media was giving him negative attention if anything, saying it was all over for him, then boom, he defies expectations by winning New Hampshire and suddenly he's a frontrunner. That's what Paul needed to do if he was going to have a chance, win Iowa or New Hampshire, get some real buzz going, and get some momentum. It just didn't happen, the people spoke, and if they don't want him, they don't want him.

 

[Sanguinius]

What came first, the chicken, or the egg? Does he have no chance because he's being ignored? Or is he being ignored because he has no chance? I tend to believe the latter is true by default, that's just how it works. It isn't unequal in the sense that each candidate has a base of support, and they're trying to try to suppress the other candidates in the media and on the campaign trail. If Ron is being suppressed, then he doesn't have a strong enough base of support to begin with, if his message isn't getting through, that's his failure. It doesn't mean he or his ideas are bad, just maybe not what people are looking for, not enough people are buying what he's selling. Despite all this change talk this year, people really want basically the same thing done a little differently. By offering something truly different, good or bad, Paul becomes perceived as an unelectable fringe candidate (and in politics more than anything, perception is reality).

He's gotten enough attention that if he was going to catch fire on a larger scale, he would have. That's what the early smalltime caucuses are about, giving guys a chance to win and get noticed on the small stage so they have a chance at the big time (like Huckabee in Iowa). It's how guys nobody expected to be in the running can become superstars and end up as the nomination, it just didn't happen for Paul. Look at someone like McCain though, over the summer his campaign was dead, the media was giving him negative attention if anything, saying it was all over for him, then boom, he defies expectations by winning New Hampshire and suddenly he's a frontrunner. That's what Paul needed to do if he was going to have a chance, win Iowa or New Hampshire, get some real buzz going, and get some momentum. It just didn't happen, the people spoke, and if they don't want him, they don't want him.

Unless you're a creationist the answer is the egg. I know what you're saying and I think you're largely right but Ron Paul only emerged recently as trying to be a major figure in the RP. While McCain has run before so people knew him then rejected him, they then changed their minds again. With Ron Paul there're still a lot of people who don't know him and what he stands for, so by suppressing his message it limits his support as people who would have supported him are unaware of him.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

I know what you're saying and I think you're largely right but Ron Paul only emerged recently as trying to be a major figure in the RP. While McCain has run before so people knew him then rejected him, they then changed their minds again. With Ron Paul there're still a lot of people who don't know him and what he stands for, so by suppressing his message it limits his support as people who would have supported him are unaware of him.

I wouldn't say a lot of people didn't know him. I didn't hear about the guy till one day I saw one of those random Ron Paul revolution banners hanging over something while i was driving. Then by the second time I saw another ron paul supporter being mugged in baltimore I figured I'd check out the website. That's how I heard.

Mitt Romney was someone I only heard negative about and didn't really even notice the guy till he won in NH. That's a much better example then McCain I think.

Honestly I think a lot of people consider him being another Rose Perot or Nader. I won't be shocked if the guy changes parties after the primary and runs as a 3rd party candidate.

 

[Griffith]

Well, he already ran as the Libertarian candidate in '88, and got third in the popular vote (with like half a percentage point though). What it really comes down to is money, Perot is a good example, he was removed from the status quo in many similar ways, and ran as a successful and colorful outsider, but the reason it worked was because he had a ton of money. You just couldn't get rid of him (and the Dems and especially the Republicans sure wanted to), he was literally drawing millions viewers with his campaign infomercials (remember that shit?) and got a large chunk of the vote. In '96 he wasn't so successful, he didn't spend as much, and he was also held out of the debates (there's some suppression for you).

Anyway, that's the real deal maker or breaker on suppression or getting one's message out there; money. Candidates don't always drop due to lack of support, or if they do it's more represented by lack of money than lack of votes, so they go on because they have money to burn still, you hear it all the time, not "Do they have enough support?" but "Do they have enough money to stay in until Super Tuesday?" It makes it sound more like a game of poker.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

It makes it sound more like a game of poker.

That's pretty much what it is. All the presidents we've had have always been wealthy.

 

[Escalus]

Perot is a good example, he was removed from the status quo in many similar ways, and ran as a successful and colorful outsider, but the reason it worked was because he had a ton of money. You just couldn't get rid of him (and the Dems and especially the Republicans sure wanted to), he was literally drawing millions viewers with his campaign infomercials (remember that shit?) and got a large chunk of the vote.

Remember the Admiral? Perot fucked that one up big time.
I'll always blame that old fart for his loss in '92.

 

[Sanguinius]

Ron Paul giving his thoughts on the campaign to date and what he thinks of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nJH6zB9VM

 

[CnC]

Ron Paul giving his thoughts on the campaign to date and what he thinks of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nJH6zB9VM

wait.. did I hear that right? the guy who worked for Pat Robertson is going to be RP's new political director?? oh, wonderful

sadly, imo, it's all but over for RP it seems.

 

[Sanguinius]

wait.. did I hear that right? the guy who worked for Pat Robertson is going to be RP's new political director?? oh, wonderful

sadly, imo, it's all but over for RP it seems.

People really do get the politicans they deserve, enjoy your next President.

 

[Uriel]

Fuck you, mate.

Here's to more Gordon Brown leading the country, eh?

Anyway, as much as I'd like to see Ron Paul do well on Super Tuesday -- it's looking bleak. But hey, Guiliani was a favourite not so long ago, so maybe some kind of freak accident will occur? It'll be the Internet Miracle...

 

[CnC]

People really do get the politicans they deserve, enjoy your next President.

I echo Uriel's sentiment on this post.

Do I _really_ need to explain to you how picking out a Pat Robertson (king of all douchebags) subordinate as a point of pride in your campaign would be a BAD thing? That's why I phrased it the form of question, 'cause I had difficulty believing it.

Quite frankly if this shows his taste in picking out people that could fill out his cabinet than he truly does deserve to lose.

so maybe some kind of freak accident will occur? It'll be the Internet Miracle...

Is it just me or is the internet's interest in RP seriously waining? Digg, in particular, seems to have all but forgotten RP and is promoting an Obama story ever 2 minutes.

 

[Sanguinius]

Fuck you, mate.

Here's to more Gordon Brown leading the country, eh?

Anyway, as much as I'd like to see Ron Paul do well on Super Tuesday -- it's looking bleak. But hey, Guiliani was a favourite not so long ago, so maybe some kind of freak accident will occur? It'll be the Internet Miracle...

What? I like Gordon Brown because he is the Prime Minister of my country? Why all Americans must be in love with George Bush then because he is the PRESIDENT of their country. Yes, everyone knows that everyone in their country whatever country that is, fully supports whatever person is in the top political position of that country.

I echo Uriel's sentiment on this post.

Do I _really_ need to explain to you how picking out a Pat Robertson (king of all douchebags) subordinate as a point of pride in your campaign would be a BAD thing? That's why I phrased it the form of question, 'cause I had difficulty believing it.

Quite frankly if this shows his taste in picking out people that could fill out his cabinet than he truly does deserve to lose.

Is it just me or is the internet's interest in RP seriously waining? Digg, in particular, seems to have all but forgotten RP and is promoting an Obama story ever 2 minutes.

Well I don't know who worked for Pat Roberson, and unless you know everyone of that name whichever guy you mean, as you don't say his name, then I'm guessing you're just assuming it's this guy who worked for Pat Roberson. Even if he did work for Pat Roberson I don't see how that truly matters. Ron Paul is hiring someone who is good with media relations to fulfil a set function of his campaign namely advertising and publicity. It's Ron Paul's views that matter and whatever the views of technocrats he appoints are, is not that important if they remain professional and do their job and follow the views of their employer namely Ron Paul. If they don't he can replace them and will replace them as he has shown because he is bringing in these people because he thinks the people currently doing the job have not performed well enough. Also my comment was because he gave a very direct open assessment of his campaign it's record and goals you try and tackle him whatever he says. While your own preferred candidate Obama is as vague and indirect as ever.

As for waning support for Ron Paul, I don't know about that, I'm not sure how you measure support online. It's possible some people are floating away as he fails to win states, but a core will have been created. The much bigger question will come next presidential election, and that will be if a similar movement comes about much stronger and earlier that time around and if Ron Paul or someone else carrying his mantle can get through then.