Update on Ron Paul's demographic conquest of the GOP

Ron Paul is like 90....its a little late to be ascending now dont you think ?

 

Ron pauls base is growing. 20%? wonder how much that will change once the media is FORCED to address him more.

That and your attempt to demean us RP supporters with you basement comment is pathetic. Ask any of the candidates and they will tell you that RP supporters are on the streets doing what Mitt Romney supporters are paid to do. Except RP supporters are mostly volunteers and they work harder.....

Even Mitt admits to that.

 

The younger, under 40 generation, especially the 17-29 year olds, are far more intelligent and informed than the 40+ generations, especially those over 60. That's why I chuckle when older folks say the young know nothing. Fact is their are plenty of 17-29 young people smarter than their older counterparts.

That said, it's no surprise the youth are for Ron Paul. We don't like the wars, the corporatism, welfare abuse, among other things. We also aren't racist for the most part, and have no problem with gay people. We just need to wait for the old to die, and the sub 18 voters to come of age, and then we can take the establishment down in about 20 years or so.

 

when will that be? he better win now....isnt he leaving congress?

 

exactly, teenagers always know it all....thats been true since the dawn of time.

just ask anyone who was a teenager, and they will tell you they knew EVERYTHING back then....

 

Actually, I'm the one who agrees with the 4/5 Americans who think your "mainstream" policies have failed. I'd look in a mirror if I were you.

And, like I've said, half of the GOP voters of my generation (i.e. the generation that's replacing you) have enough figured out to vote against presidential dictatorship, endless war for no reason, and economic fascism.

I would admit, though, that many of us do still live with our parents; that's because you "mainstream" charlatans told us to take out 100k in high interest student loan debt and then destroyed our jobs with your lunatic--oh, I mean "mainstream"--economic policies.

First you Paul-phobes say Paul is "fringe" because he's too old. Then you say he's "fringe" because his supporters are too young. Riiiight..."Nothing to see here. Move along."

 

Just ask any old fogy, and they will tell you that they know everything now.

 

lol you cant even get 25% of the GOP, but you think you have 80% of the country....ok

well lets hope....anything would be better than the current GOP voters

gosh for a voluntarist you sure do what youre told and then blame other people. lol

you Paulistas arent aware youre allowed to work while in college?

lol reading comprehension must not be featured much on infowars.com...

Pauls age suggests you folks better hurry as your messiah is pushing 100 before most of you reach 40.....not that his age makes him fringe lol

 

nonsense, most adults realize what they dont know.....while teenagers think their limited life experience has showed them everytrhing.

 

The 17-29 demographic is pretty much all adults, with the exception of 17 year olds, who are on the verge of adulthood, so we're not talking about little children, we're talking grown men and women. And let's not act like older people don't have know it all syndrome either.

And yes, the 18-29 year olds are smarter than 40+, at least when it comes to politics. You guys think Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is the answer. LOL.

 

You keep harping on this teenager point, and it's just nonsense. Firstly, 20-29 year olds aren't teenagers. Secondly, 18 and 19 year olds are adults, not children, with 17 year olds on the verge. It's not like were talking about 13 year olds here.

 

The 80% that hates your power structure, even if they somewhat disagree on the diagnose and solutions. Why are you always conflating everything

Sorry, it is your fault that tuition costs are sky high, it is your fault that unemployment for the young is even higher than the terribly high national average, and it is your fault that the money we do manage to scrap together is spent of ever higher prices for gas, food, and medical insurance. "Naw, you young whippersnappers are just lazy. Why, when I your age back when the economy was healthy..." Boy, are you out of touch.

Good thing he's not our messiah, just a current representative of the blooming philosophy of freedom to replace to the dying and regression philosophy of the absolute state.

 

Amazing how you wise elders have managed to botch everything up so cataclysmically.

 

thats what happens when you do something or actually put a plan into effect...

results, sometimes good...sometimes bad.

but the Paulista technique of whining from the sidelines is fun too....it just doesnt give much chance to show if it works.

 

so you grab on to an 80% number that you admit shows nothing about the uspport for your views or positions....typical paulista deception

Ron Paul will prevent you from getting sick and make college free now? again, your alternate reality confidence is reassuring if a bit alarming.

at some point anarchists always grow up....maybe something happens for them to understand the idea of community and society, im not sure.

do you think youre the first group of teenagers to think they figured it all out? or even the first group of teen anarchists who think that?

 

well you are right....people in their 20s have a wide range of knowledge and life experience.

a 22 yo american college student has a different life experience than 22 yo veteran or a 22yo immigrant...

its just that the paulistas souind like the 20somethings who are sleeping on moms couch and taking a couple classes a week at the CC

 

Coming within four points of winning Iowa is "whining from the sidelines"? You are simply stuck in a perception that is not reality.

The free market policies he proposes would vastly deflate medical and tuition costs. But keep deflecting from the obvious failure of the establishmentarians.

Society = the violence inherent in an absolute state? Okay...

Actually, I'm in my later twenties and spend my time in college at the professor's desk. But keep assuming that you have everything figured out.

 

Doesnt matter if your 70 with all the life experience if your just going to vote how some stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) on tv tells you too without question.

 

IOWA, Paul finished 3rd with 25.6% of the votes.

N. HAMP. Paul finished 2nd with 35.2% of the votes.

Paul also won the youth vote in S CAROLINA. But Paul finished 4th with 13.2% of the vote.

This has been true throughout the primary.

So if your point is that the young and naive swallow Paul's all talk, no action agenda, while those that are older, wiser, and more experienced do not. Then you've made you point.

If you had some other point to make, you're just whistling in the wind. There will never be a time when ONLY a small segment of the votes are counted and the rest discarded. ALL of the votes count, both the naive and the awake and alert.

Through TODAY, 5/12, Paul has won 11.1% of the primary votes. And has 8.7% of the delegates needed to become the nominee.
Romney has 83% of the delegates needed to become the nominee on his own and 120% of the delegates needed when including the Santorum and Gingrich delegates released to Romney.

This time next year Ron Paul will be quietly in retirement and rightfully fading into obscurity. There is no such thing as a Paul-phobe, Paul has never been a threat to any position, be it moderate left or right or radical left or right.

 

One only has the look at the national debt to witness the glorious achievement of that older and wiser generation, with its rigorous pragmatism and take-action mentality Oh, please, keep acting, wise ones. Keep acting, right into the poorhouse.

Thanks for pointing out why democracy was a lousy idea from the start. But the question is: who is awake and who is naive?

God bless the King! (I mean our faith's defender!)
God bless! (No harm in blessing) the Pretender.
But who Pretender is, and who is King,
God bless us all! That's quite another thing!

And yet you expend so many calories talking about him. You don't see me seeking out the Ralph Nader threads, do you?

 

How much time has Nader been IN Congress and accomplished absolutely nothing? Since 1976? No, but Paul has. He has wasted space in Congress that could have been better used by someone else. And the national debt has increased by $15.2 trillion WHILE Paul has been in CONGRESS, which in case you did not know, controls the spending.

People that were young, naive, and stupid at age 20 when Paul went to D.C. for the first time are now 56 and completely tired of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with no results.

How long does a person have to accomplish absolutely nothing to be called a failure by the naive and stupid? 3 decades don't seem to be enough. 4 decades? 5? 10?

 

Once again, you're operating under the illusion that doing bad things is an accomplishment. Apparently, you would have preferred that Paul sponsor bad bills, just so he could say that he passed a lot of bills. Of course, men like Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer are "accomplished" by that metric. That's precisely why I don't like them. I'd vote for a rock over any one of them, precisely because I'd know that the rock wouldn't amass such "accomplishments."

And yet they keep voting for it.

Name me a congressman you consider "successful." Nancy Pelosi? Mitch McConnell? I don't count making things worse an accomplishment.

 

On the contrary, YOU are operating under the illusion that doing absolutly nothing is an accomplishment. Try to remember we are talking about what Paul has done, or rather not done. NOT what others have or have not.

Paul has accomplished NOTHING in 3 decades in Congress.

And I guess your reading challenges caused your second comment. Again it is Paul's LACK of doing anything that is in debate. Not what "they keep voting for it."

Paul has 11% of the vote and 8.7% of the delegates. OBVIOUSLY only the naive are voting for him.

And 3rd, Paul is the one running and Paul is the one that won't be elected. Now IF you're asking if Paul is as bad as Nancy, "the WWOTW" Pelosi, then no he's not that awful. She does insane things, Paul does nothing. In that contest I'd take Paul. And Paul IS 100% equally to blame as all 435 Representatives, and Paul carries that blame for 3 decades.

Gingrich actually achieved a surplus as Speaker. That alone is far more success than Paul has ever even thought about. Paul has talked and talked and talked about spending. Gingrich brought about a surplus.

This is like teasing a puppy.

 

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You have to present an alternative. Who is your alternative? Unless you want to argue that all politicians up there are bad. Then you'd either need to find mean a new guy who you think would engineer positive accomplishments to a greater extent than Paul or you'd have to argue we should swear off politics altogether. Which is it?

Ah, so you're alternative is Gingrich. Unfortunately, Gingrich has a laundry list of evil deeds on his record a mile long, rendering him anathema to all decent people. I'll go to the trouble of listing them if you want. No, I'd vote for a rock over Newt Gingrich as well.

 

The REALITY that you cannot grasp is that the alternative, which I'm under no obligation to present, IS Romney and he has already defeated Paul. The race is OVER, REALITY, deal with it.

And you evidently are comprehension challenged by your own scribblings. You asked for a more successful Congressman. I gave you one. You DID not ask for a more viable candidate. But Gingrich HAS received MORE VOTES and more delegates than Paul. REALITY, recognize it and deal with it, or remain in your completely make-believe imaginary world where Paul has any meaning whatsoever.

Call for help, you're making this entirely too easy.