Ron Paul in 1st place in South Dakota

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by AbsoluteVoluntarist, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ron Paul first choice for SD GOP, says poll

    True, South Dakota isn't an early state; in fact, it's one of the last. However, this is more evidence of Ron Paul's long term viability as a candidate. According to another recent poll, Ron Paul is neck-and-neck with Gingrich for 1st in Iowa.

    In addition, he also does better against Obama than almost any of the other candidates.

    How many states will Ron Paul need to be in 1st or close 2nd in before the apologists of the status quo are forced to admit he may very well be the next President of the United States?
     
  2. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Ron Paul wins the nomination, people like myself will vote for Obuma. So no he won't win.

    I will not vote for someone who wants to get rid of the minimum wage while at the same time also wants to give any foreigner that wants one a work visa.

    I will not vote for someone who will turn his back on our ally Israel while ignoring Iran's attempts to get a nuclear bomb.
     
  3. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You think you're that representative a voter? According to polls, he has a better chance of beating Obama than any other candidate except Romney.

    Where has he suggested giving visas to all foreigners? He favors stronger border control. I disagree with him on that, actually. I favor a complete free market in labor, which will strengthen the economy and raise the standard of living of most people.

    There's no proof their seeking a nuclear bomb and if they were, sanctioning and bombing them would only further incentivize them to do.
     
  4. Teutorian

    Teutorian New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the John McAmnesty supporting progressive Republicans go to Obama where they belong and we take all of the independents and some of the democrats to take the Presidency with Ron Paul.

    I'm good with that.
     
  5. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say "all foreigners" I said "all foreigners who want to work here" and yes he does he said so during the debates and he said so in his book.

    And you have to be blind and dumb not to see Iran's attempt at research into the nuclear bomb. Research you don't do, you don't pay for, unless you intended on making the nuclear bomb.

    And if sanctions don't work then war is warranted.

    Iranians, like Ahmed, aren't afraid of death. They have no problem becoming Martyr's as long as they get to destroy Israel in the process. So we need to bring them death before they destroy Israel instead of waiting until afterwards to do it like Ron Paul would do. Or would Ron Paul bother to attack Iran, after they've attacked and destroyed Israel either?
     
  6. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. Let's import all the 3rd worlders who want to live here. I'm sure we'll all have higher standard of living. :roll:
     
  7. Leftcoastconservative

    Leftcoastconservative New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Paul is nominated, I'm voting third party.
     
  8. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In which debate? What is the quote? If so, good. All people who want to work should be free to come and work. Sorry if you don't like the competition, but as a consumer, I want people competing to serve me.

    The CIA is blind and dumb? They also say there's no conclusive proof it.

    Not only will sanctions not work, they'll actually make it more likely Iran will obtain a bomb. Another war would cause even more chaos in the Middle Eastern and drive the United States into financial collapse even sooner.

    I don't believe you because that's the same thing everyone says about their ostensible enemy when they advocate war: "They're insane! Suicidal! They'll kill anyone that stands in their way!" Meanwhile, YOU are the ONLY one here advocating killing people that have not attacked you. Projection?

    If anyone actually set off a nuke in Tel Aviv, Mecca and Medina and most of the rest of the Middle East would be obliterated by Israel before the US president had a chance to say "boo."
     
  9. Teutorian

    Teutorian New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's disappointing that election after election we've all held our noses and voted for your corrupt sell out GOP establishment candidates and now that we might finally get a constitutionalists nominated you're threatening to vote for a Bolshevik solely so Israel doesn't have to fight its own battles.

    Go ahead.

    If Ron Paul gets the nomination he'll get the entire independent voting block and a lot of disappointed democratis who are sick of war.

    Then, like with Ronald Reagan who the establishment also despised, you can all say in 20 years you're "Ron Paul conservatives" while campaigning for office.

    If he gets the nomination we won't need the Lindsey Graham's of the party to take the election so don't go away mad, just go away.
     
  10. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just cannot bring myself to like Ron Paul... Anyone with two first names unsettles me. lol
     
  11. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, I suggested having a free market in labor, which means allowing the market to allocate labor by allowing people to freely go to where their labor is most needed. Just like the free flow of goods across borders increases prosperity, so does the free flow of labor.

    Unlike me, you seem to agree with Ron Paul on this :-D
     
  12. Roon

    Roon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,431
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And if Paul doesn't get the nod you can pretty much count on losing 10-15% of the GOP vote depending on what polls you look at. So either way its another 4 years of Obama?

    :).
     
  13. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Invoking Reagan? The guy Ron Paul didn't like and didn't support?
     
  14. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you'll be very happy when that happens, too. The good of the country can't match that thrill Paul sends up the leg of his supporters. It's almost like Obamamania.
     
  15. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ugh ! Ugh ! ... 3 Stooges Film Festival warranted.
     
  16. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Fox news if Ron Paul wins Iowa it will be a victory for Romney. WTF

    They are suck asses.
     
  17. Teutorian

    Teutorian New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, heard that too. That's been the narrative for a few days now.
    And did you see Bret at the debate? "Congressman Paul, will you give your WORD you won't run as a third party candidate if you don't get the nomination?"

    Fox News is disgusting. It's a chicken-hawk network.
     
  18. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    RP was one of the few that supported Reagan early on. He publicly withdrew his support for him later. He has never lied about this.

    Here is his resignation letter sent to the GOP Chairman in 1987.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

    Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

    Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

    In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

    Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

    Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

    All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

    Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

    Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

    Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

    Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

    Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

    Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

    Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

    President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

    Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

    I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

    After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

    If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

    I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

    I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
     
  19. Jash2o2

    Jash2o2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tough to say. I have noticed so much neglect for even the slightest possibility of him winning. You have people like Mark Levin that claim to be against the establishment republicans and say that Ron Paul will not get the nomination all while giving no reasons as to why other than the typical semantics. They really like to take one of his positions and misrepresent it and say "see how crazy he is!?!? what a crackpot!" Not even once have I heard a legitimate and logical explanation as to why Ron Paul's views are wrong. Any time I or anyone else asks it is usually followed by a "If you don't know then you wouldn't understand." or "Its right out in front of you, I'm not going to explain it." or something along those lines.

    With the current polls showing Ron Paul having a good chance at winning these early states, I think he has a really good chance at winning the nomination. I can almost guarantee he will win Texas and I bet his chances for California are pretty good too.

    What I find funny is how the anti-paul people try to make it seem as if Ron Paul doesn't have that much support when in reality that isn't true. Instead the amount of people who's vote is based solely on foreign policy instead of the economy or budget crisis and won't vote for Ron Paul because of that is what is really low but the media will never tell you that.

    Edit: I'd also like to point out something I thought to be quite interesting. I remember back when everyone thought that Bachman was going to win. That died quickly. Then Perry joined and he was considered to be the top choice but oh look, he fell too. And then Cain was at the top and just a few weeks later he drops out of the race! Gingrich is at the top now but that will not last. Romney has shown that he essentially has a support ceiling of around 30% I don't see Santorum or Huntsman climbing to the top. All that's left is Ron Paul, who just so happens to be tied for 1st place in Iowa.
     
  20. Roon

    Roon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,431
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Any Republican other than Ron Paul will do about the same (*)(*)(*)(*) Obama has been doing so I really don't see a difference.
     
  21. MnBillyBoy

    MnBillyBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To the original post.

    You know how many fools live in South Dakota..about the same that live in Iowa ?

    You think by carrying Iowa and SD. you can beat Obama's big cities ?

    Nice political strategy.
     
  22. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't want to end up competing for third world wages. It might be fine and dandy for foreigners to sleep in a tent while they work their butts off for pennies it's not good enough for me and my family. American jobs should be reserved for American workers and a minimum wage set up so that those who work for a living can earn a living. Then set up tariffs for those countries that don't pay their workers a living wage.

    Ron Paul would turn us into a third world country full of have's, those who own businesses, and have nots, those who are employees working for barely enough to sustain themselves.
     
  23. Roelath

    Roelath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Extend your thoughts further than using vague words which leaves others guessing what you find so conflicting with his ideology. Also extend your thoughts as to why his ideology will bring about what you've said...
     
  24. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still haven't given me the quote where Ron Paul advocates open borders...

    Anyway, monopolizing the labor market will make you much poorer as a consumer; it might boost your nominal wages but it will reduce your real wages by causing the prices of goods and services to skyrocket. You also haven't given me a reason why I should care more about your welfare than that of a "foreigner" who wants a better life. My sense of compassion doesn't stop at the border. Regardless, free trade and free movement of goods and labor improves the lot of everyone, as David Ricardo showed 200 years ago.

    As for the minimum wage, the minimum wage forces young and inexperienced workers in unemployment by forcing them to charge more for their labor that it is worth in the marketplace. It is disastrous for these workers.
     
  25. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I already did.
    1. removing minimum wage laws will allow companies to give jobs to the lowest bidder, not completely a bad thing.
    However when matched up with the fact that Ron Paul also wants to open the border, give work visas, to any foreigner who wants to work here, most of which will come from third world countries, will mean we will be forced to compete for third world country wages.

    It's simple logic really.
     

Share This Page