|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I'd like to see the polls that have him beating Obama head to head, especially considering how low he polls in his own party. |
He does better than any other GOP candidate against Obama, other than Romney, because he can pull in a MASSIVE amount of the independent vote. And as is probably obvious, a republican who appeals to moderate independents will have a tougher time appealing to establishment republicans.
Here are three different polls, all conducted nationally, which match Paul evenly against Obama within the polls margin of error. And for a bit of crystal-balling, I expect Cain's newfound appeal to the GOP base will further deteriorate HIS head-to-head score against Obama.
But I get the impression that none of that matters to you Leon. I think you don't like Paul, but would rather find a way to say he's unelectable instead of debating his character or policies. Since he polls as well as any other Republican against Obama, what is left but to actually discuss his policies? |
The first two polls the articles were locked for me, so I couldn't get much out of them. The third was in August and had him losing, and doing worse than the others in the race. The latest poll has him at 5% and shows his support has been cut in half. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/10/cain-leads-nationally.html
It's not stretch to say that he is unelectable, and won't make the cut of the primary. As for his character I do find him to be unlikable and self righteous. His policies are pretty bad as well, as to what to do, well just look forward to when he's done and all the people on the internet will have to find something new to support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
It's not stretch to say that he is unelectable, and won't make the cut of the primary. As for his character I do find him to be unlikable and self righteous. His policies are pretty bad as well, as to what to do, well just look forward to when he's done and all the people on the internet will have to find something new to support. |
That wasn't so hard, was it? You can admit that you dislike him as a person, and I'm sure we could debate his Constitution-based policies if you want. In all three of those polls he was statistically tied with Obama, based on their margin of error.
As for what happens if he loses the nomination... "all the people on the internet" will still support the cause of Constitutional freedom. And we will still resist establishment media intentionally ignoring candidates who believe in it. Expecting that to disappear from America when one man leaves office is a little naive 
Oh, and other polls show him at 12%, #4 in a field of 8 ^_^
http://www.people-press.org/2011/10/06/obama-motivates-supporters-opponents-in-early-2012-matchups/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's not stretch to say that he is unelectable, and won't make the cut of the primary. As for his character I do find him to be unlikable and self righteous. His policies are pretty bad as well, as to what to do, well just look forward to when he's done and all the people on the internet will have to find something new to support. |
That wasn't so hard, was it? You can admit that you dislike him as a person, and I'm sure we could debate his Constitution-based policies if you want. In all three of those polls he was statistically tied with Obama, based on their margin of error.
As for what happens if he loses the nomination... "all the people on the internet" will still support the cause of Constitutional freedom. And we will still resist establishment media intentionally ignoring candidates who believe in it. Expecting that to disappear from America when one man leaves office is a little naive
Oh, and other polls show him at 12%, #4 in a field of 8 ^_^
http://www.people-press.org/2011/10/06/obama-motivates-supporters-opponents-in-early-2012-matchups/ |
You do realize that polls putting people against Obama are mostly referendums on Obama and not for the Republicans? Also 5% or 12% it's all losing, and losing badly. Many of the other fringe candidates have even enjoyed surges but not Paul. What do you mean when you say constitutional freedom, and why do you support this particular buzz word so ferverntly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Leon"]
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's not stretch to say that he is unelectable, and won't make the cut of the primary. As for his character I do find him to be unlikable and self righteous. His policies are pretty bad as well, as to what to do, well just look forward to when he's done and all the people on the internet will have to find something new to support. |
That wasn't so hard, was it? You can admit that you dislike him as a person, and I'm sure we could debate his Constitution-based policies if you want. In all three of those polls he was statistically tied with Obama, based on their margin of error.
As for what happens if he loses the nomination... "all the people on the internet" will still support the cause of Constitutional freedom. And we will still resist establishment media intentionally ignoring candidates who believe in it. Expecting that to disappear from America when one man leaves office is a little naive
Oh, and other polls show him at 12%, #4 in a field of 8 ^_^
http://www.people-press.org/2011/10/06/obama-motivates-supporters-opponents-in-early-2012-matchups/ |
You do realize that polls putting people against Obama are mostly referendums on Obama and not for the Republicans? Also 5% or 12% it's all losing, and losing badly. Many of the other fringe candidates have even enjoyed surges but not Paul. What do you mean when you say constitutional freedom, and why do you support this particular buzz word so ferverntly? After the leading figure is gone, in a couple of months, the more casual supporters will move on. This is a bit interesting to me, if I understand your previous posts you last voted for Obama. You do realize that Paul and Obama hold very differnt values, and I'm talking about what they campaigned on, not actual performance. Did your opinions drastically change in the last 3 some years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Also 5% or 12% it's all losing, and losing badly. Many of the other fringe candidates have even enjoyed surges but not Paul. What do you mean when you say constitutional freedom, and why do you support this particular buzz word so ferverntly? After the leading figure is gone, in a couple of months, the more casual supporters will move on. This is a bit interesting to me, if I understand your previous posts you last voted for Obama. You do realize that Paul and Obama hold very differnt values, and I'm talking about what they campaigned on, not actual performance. Did your opinions drastically change in the last 3 some years? |
First, thanks for asking about my opinion. And I welcome (polite) criticism of it. Also, the most recent poll puts him in 3rd, ahead of Perry... and it's not uncommon for someone with low numbers in the early nominating process to eventually take the nomination, just as those with high numbers can quickly descend into the fringe *cough*Bachmann*cough*
Here are a few things I support:
1. Government transparency (especially the privately owned Federal Reserve)
2. Limiting the power of the Executive (wars should be declared by Congress)
3. Reducing "corporatism", the practice of government choosing winners and losers in the free market based on lobbying dollars and the opinions of politicians (especially bailouts)
4. Dramatically reduced foreign interventionism, while maintaining secure borders and a strong military (with easy, legal immigration, by the way)
5. Increasing/maintaining other "moral" freedoms: ending the war on drugs, abortion rights, marriage rights, Federal legality of prostitution, etc.
6. Universal healthcare
After Bush, Obama seemed the clear choice for all of these things. Unfortunately, literally none of them have worked out as advertised. Ron Paul directly supports #s 1-4. Paul supports leaving all of #5 to the States, which is an unfortunate loss on the cause of abortion, but one I'm willing to accept as a State decision on the basis of a State defining it's "moral laws" across the board.
#6 is the interesting one and takes the most time to explain. Back when Obama's healthcare bill was being envisioned, the idea of universal healthcare was tossed around. It was shot down violently by "give me private insurance or give me death" States. So the national healthcare bill became a watered-down husk of what it could have been. But EVEN NOW, it's being challenged both in the courts Constitutionally and in Congress politically.
Since then I've realized that the Federal path is not the best way for universal healthcare. But if Federal taxes are low enough for States to generate sufficient revenue, and few Federal regulations get in the way... States can institute their own universal healthcare programs. Once that occurs, the "private insurance" family in Alabama will hear about Uncle Bill's great healthcare in "universal healthcare" California and start demanding it in their home State. States could experiment with different healthcare systems and the ones that worked would be replicated. I believe that this will get us to a point where all Americans have universal healthcare coverage MUCH faster than if we tried to force a Federal solution. And I take some gratification in the fact that there is no wrangling with the Constitution for this to happen... the States have the power to do these things if the tax burden is low enough and Federal regulations are not an issue for them. This system would be not only possible, but likely during Paul's presidency.
Finally, a #7 that I've added since Obama took office is our monetary system. If you'd like a full description of that, I'd recommend you watch this informal documentary. TL;DW - I'm rather unhappy with the way inflation is a hidden tax on the poor and middle classes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| But I get the impression that none of that matters to you Leon. I think you don't like Paul, but would rather find a way to say he's unelectable instead of debating his character or policies. Since he polls as well as any other Republican against Obama, what is left but to actually discuss his policies? |
Yes. The mental calisthenics through which Leon has been going to discredit RP have been notable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Also 5% or 12% it's all losing, and losing badly. Many of the other fringe candidates have even enjoyed surges but not Paul. What do you mean when you say constitutional freedom, and why do you support this particular buzz word so ferverntly? After the leading figure is gone, in a couple of months, the more casual supporters will move on. This is a bit interesting to me, if I understand your previous posts you last voted for Obama. You do realize that Paul and Obama hold very differnt values, and I'm talking about what they campaigned on, not actual performance. Did your opinions drastically change in the last 3 some years? |
First, thanks for asking about my opinion. And I welcome (polite) criticism of it. Also, the most recent poll puts him in 3rd, ahead of Perry... and it's not uncommon for someone with low numbers in the early nominating process to eventually take the nomination, just as those with high numbers can quickly descend into the fringe *cough*Bachmann*cough*
Here are a few things I support:
1. Government transparency (especially the privately owned Federal Reserve)
2. Limiting the power of the Executive (wars should be declared by Congress)
3. Reducing "corporatism", the practice of government choosing winners and losers in the free market based on lobbying dollars and the opinions of politicians (especially bailouts)
4. Dramatically reduced foreign interventionism, while maintaining secure borders and a strong military (with easy, legal immigration, by the way)
5. Increasing/maintaining other "moral" freedoms: ending the war on drugs, abortion rights, marriage rights, Federal legality of prostitution, etc.
6. Universal healthcare
After Bush, Obama seemed the clear choice for all of these things. Unfortunately, literally none of them have worked out as advertised. Ron Paul directly supports #s 1-4. Paul supports leaving all of #5 to the States, which is an unfortunate loss on the cause of abortion, but one I'm willing to accept as a State decision on the basis of a State defining it's "moral laws" across the board. |
I agree with number one. Paul would probably be the best choice for this particular issue. 2 is a bit harder to make the case for. Certianly Paul isn't going to declare any wars, but as the commander in cheif he would still have lots of power, and would probably be very influential in terms of what happened, and more likely what doesn't happen. In terms of influence of the executive he would probably have more direct power and influence than the rest in that he would veto most bills that comes accross his desk, similar to how he did in congress. He is called Dr. No for a reason. He would, in his own manner, increase the power of the office. It's hard to not imagine the government shutting down under his watch, given his strict interpertation of the constitution he would likely veto most of the budgets, and the other budgets wouldn't have enough support to pass. Government inaction is not what I want.
As for 3, he would pick a winner and it would be corporations as a whole. Less taxes for them, less regulations, less safe guards for consumers, less things like minimum wage, greater chances for enviromental degradation, etc. Are some regulations unnecessary, of course. Should corporations be allowed to do whatever they want, no way.
Number 4, I'm not sure about the strong military bit. I would think given his positions he would defund it. I support defunding the military to a degree. Also I don't support wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think that being the most powerful country in the world, and being isolationist, is a huge mistake. As for things like dropping out the UN and NATO, well that is kind of an obvious mistake, but if you want to claim otherwise I'd like to see your reasoning.
| comm wrote: |
#6 is the interesting one and takes the most time to explain. Back when Obama's healthcare bill was being envisioned, the idea of universal healthcare was tossed around. It was shot down violently by "give me private insurance or give me death" States. So the national healthcare bill became a watered-down husk of what it could have been. But EVEN NOW, it's being challenged both in the courts Constitutionally and in Congress politically.
Since then I've realized that the Federal path is not the best way for universal healthcare. But if Federal taxes are low enough for States to generate sufficient revenue, and few Federal regulations get in the way... States can institute their own universal healthcare programs. Once that occurs, the "private insurance" family in Alabama will hear about Uncle Bill's great healthcare in "universal healthcare" California and start demanding it in their home State. States could experiment with different healthcare systems and the ones that worked would be replicated. I believe that this will get us to a point where all Americans have universal healthcare coverage MUCH faster than if we tried to force a Federal solution. And I take some gratification in the fact that there is no wrangling with the Constitution for this to happen... the States have the power to do these things if the tax burden is low enough and Federal regulations are not an issue for them. This system would be not only possible, but likely during Paul's presidency. |
It's already passed man, sure it's being challenged, but so was Roe V. Wade and other things of that nature. This reasoning is bizare to me. The bill as it is has its problems, but as a first step it's the farthest we've come on this issue. I can't understand what you're getting at. As to state rights, it took me a while to figure out why conservatives liked it so much. I'm not saying that this is why Paul supports it, but it allows them to get what they want. Conservatives want to ban abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc. etc. They figure that nationally the odds are against them, and places like California and Mass. are a lost cause. If states rights pass than they can get all sorts of regressive in their strong holds, places like Mississippi and Texas. I don't see why one citizen should be substansially less free than another based on what state they live in.
| comm wrote: |
| Finally, a #7 that I've added since Obama took office is our monetary system. If you'd like a full description of that, I'd recommend you watch this informal documentary. TL;DW - I'm rather unhappy with the way inflation is a hidden tax on the poor and middle classes. |
Yeah, inflation sucks. Don't have much here. I don't know enough, but auditing the Fed is a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| But I get the impression that none of that matters to you Leon. I think you don't like Paul, but would rather find a way to say he's unelectable instead of debating his character or policies. Since he polls as well as any other Republican against Obama, what is left but to actually discuss his policies? |
Yes. The mental calisthenics through which Leon has been going to discredit RP have been notable. |
The mental skills required to think that he is electable must be on the Jedi level. Please make you case on how he might win, I'm mighty curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| But I get the impression that none of that matters to you Leon. I think you don't like Paul, but would rather find a way to say he's unelectable instead of debating his character or policies. Since he polls as well as any other Republican against Obama, what is left but to actually discuss his policies? |
Yes. The mental calisthenics through which Leon has been going to discredit RP have been notable. |
The mental skills required to think that he is electable must be on the Jedi level. Please make you case on how he might win, I'm mighty curious. |
Go back and read again, as I've already made my case. Basing your vote on who is most likely to win merely assures that no one else will have a chance.
I am a horse player. It is a regular (although not very frequent) occurrence that a horse who appears to have no chance of winning a particular race comes through and beats the field at a long price.
In the case at hand, Paul does best among Republican challengers to BO. More and more people keep coming aboard the R3VOLution train. How you could consider him unelectable is beyond me, especially now as more people come to see the bailouts as the corporate giveaways they are and how the Federal Reserve is just a money printing press which is eroding the value of our dollars and is responsible for the hidden inflation tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| But I get the impression that none of that matters to you Leon. I think you don't like Paul, but would rather find a way to say he's unelectable instead of debating his character or policies. Since he polls as well as any other Republican against Obama, what is left but to actually discuss his policies? |
Yes. The mental calisthenics through which Leon has been going to discredit RP have been notable. |
The mental skills required to think that he is electable must be on the Jedi level. Please make you case on how he might win, I'm mighty curious. |
Go back and read again, as I've already made my case. Basing your vote on who is most likely to win merely assures that no one else will have a chance.
I am a horse player. It is a regular (although not very frequent) occurrence that a horse who appears to have no chance of winning a particular race comes through and beats the field at a long price.
In the case at hand, Paul does best among Republican challengers to BO. More and more people keep coming aboard the R3VOLution train. How you could consider him unelectable is beyond me, especially now as more people come to see the bailouts as the corporate giveaways they are and how the Federal Reserve is just a money printing press which is eroding the value of our dollars and is responsible for the hidden inflation tax. |
He does poorly in every poll in regards to the republican primary. If he doesn't win that he doesn't face Obama. Even jokes like Bachman had good poll numbers at one point or another. Paul never has. Can't win the primary means not electable. Last time he made it to the big race he won about .5% of the entire vote. Goofy slogans like R3VOLution train aside. What does that even mean by the way? He's leading a poorly spelled revolution? Why is the 3 there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Null, host of Progressive Commentary Hour, the most downloaded program in the US with 180,000 unique individuals DLing it last week, and who is a leading health guru and commentator on social issues, stated on this week's show that Ron Paul stands far above any other Republican or Democrat in the running right now. He does not agree with everything Paul stands for, but the issues of agreement are compelling so much so that he supports his campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The mental skills required to think that he is electable must be on the Jedi level. Please make you case on how he might win, I'm mighty curious. |
Well, he's been elected to Congress how many times? A dozen or so? Yes, he lost in '88 and '08, but things have changed a lot since both of those elections, in the electorate and his campaign efforts. What hasn't changed is his views. Watch his '88 election speech, given at at a college to a small audience, and you'll hear a much younger Paul say the same things he says now. Truly a man of principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
It's hard to not imagine the government shutting down under his watch, given his strict interpertation of the constitution he would likely veto most of the budgets, and the other budgets wouldn't have enough support to pass. Government inaction is not what I want.
As for 3, he would pick a winner and it would be corporations as a whole. Less taxes for them, less regulations, less safe guards for consumers, less things like minimum wage, greater chances for enviromental degradation, etc. Are some regulations unnecessary, of course. Should corporations be allowed to do whatever they want, no way. |
Vetoing bills is pretty much the only power that the President was originally intended to have, other than executing national defense. More importantly though, a 2/3 majority would override the veto anyway... So even if Paul was determined that something shouldn't pass, a 2/3 majority would get it done. No, not as easily done, but it would happen.
| Leon wrote: |
It's already passed man, sure it's being challenged, but so was Roe V. Wade and other things of that nature. This reasoning is bizare to me. The bill as it is has its problems, but as a first step it's the farthest we've come on this issue. I can't understand what you're getting at. As to state rights, it took me a while to figure out why conservatives liked it so much. I'm not saying that this is why Paul supports it, but it allows them to get what they want. Conservatives want to ban abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc. etc. They figure that nationally the odds are against them, and places like California and Mass. are a lost cause. If states rights pass than they can get all sorts of regressive in their strong holds, places like Mississippi and Texas. I don't see why one citizen should be substansially less free than another based on what state they live in. |
On the other hand, I want to legalize gay marriage, legalize drugs, institute universal healthcare, etc. and I figure that nationally the odds are against me. I figure that places like Texas and Oklahoma are a lost cause. If these are made into State issues, I can get all sorts of progressive in places like California and Mass.
Federalization of these issues leads to B.S. like DOMA, which Paul is determined to repeal (and voted against). Federal authority on moral issues is both unconstitutional imo, but also cuts both ways. What really appeals to me about keeping them State issues, as they originally were under the Constitution, is that the citizens of each State can live under the "moral laws" that they want. It's not a perfect solution, but it lets the most people have what they want, while permitting people who hate it to move to a place where those laws are acceptable.
Note: Hard-won, broadly accepted civil rights can and should be solidified in the form of a Constitutional amendment as part of this process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's hard to not imagine the government shutting down under his watch, given his strict interpertation of the constitution he would likely veto most of the budgets, and the other budgets wouldn't have enough support to pass. Government inaction is not what I want.
As for 3, he would pick a winner and it would be corporations as a whole. Less taxes for them, less regulations, less safe guards for consumers, less things like minimum wage, greater chances for enviromental degradation, etc. Are some regulations unnecessary, of course. Should corporations be allowed to do whatever they want, no way. |
Vetoing bills is pretty much the only power that the President was originally intended to have, other than executing national defense. More importantly though, a 2/3 majority would override the veto anyway... So even if Paul was determined that something shouldn't pass, a 2/3 majority would get it done. No, not as easily done, but it would happen.
| Leon wrote: |
It's already passed man, sure it's being challenged, but so was Roe V. Wade and other things of that nature. This reasoning is bizare to me. The bill as it is has its problems, but as a first step it's the farthest we've come on this issue. I can't understand what you're getting at. As to state rights, it took me a while to figure out why conservatives liked it so much. I'm not saying that this is why Paul supports it, but it allows them to get what they want. Conservatives want to ban abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc. etc. They figure that nationally the odds are against them, and places like California and Mass. are a lost cause. If states rights pass than they can get all sorts of regressive in their strong holds, places like Mississippi and Texas. I don't see why one citizen should be substansially less free than another based on what state they live in. |
On the other hand, I want to legalize gay marriage, legalize drugs, institute universal healthcare, etc. and I figure that nationally the odds are against me. I figure that places like Texas and Oklahoma are a lost cause. If these are made into State issues, I can get all sorts of progressive in places like California and Mass.
Federalization of these issues leads to B.S. like DOMA, which Paul is determined to repeal (and voted against). Federal authority on moral issues is both unconstitutional imo, but also cuts both ways. What really appeals to me about keeping them State issues, as they originally were under the Constitution, is that the citizens of each State can live under the "moral laws" that they want. It's not a perfect solution, but it lets the most people have what they want, while permitting people who hate it to move to a place where those laws are acceptable.
Note: Hard-won, broadly accepted civil rights can and should be solidified in the form of a Constitutional amendment as part of this process. |
The last bit is the kicker isn't it? That's not what the states rights people, or the strict interperters of the constitution like Paul, want. They don't want the abortion, some place would love to get rid of states rights. This next bit isn't against Paul, he can't help it, but some very racist people support him and states rights. Racist articles have appeared in his newsletters, I again don't put any blame on him for this, but their goals in supporting states rights are clear. Also the chaos of having 50 differnt immigration policies. Are some marriages and unions recognized in one state, but not the other, etc. Note, I don't necessarily think that the state should be in marriage, I like the idea of people being able to form unions for things like visitation and tax purposes, but this is the system that we have.
I don't want to have a lame duck president who can't do anything, and a country where nearly every single vote takes a 2/3's super majority. If you look at the disfunction we have now, it would be like that, but worse. While I am certianly sympathetic to some of his causes, and it is nice to have some one speaking the truth on the war on drugs and some other issues, he would make a terrible president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The mental skills required to think that he is electable must be on the Jedi level. Please make you case on how he might win, I'm mighty curious. |
Well, he's been elected to Congress how many times? A dozen or so? Yes, he lost in '88 and '08, but things have changed a lot since both of those elections, in the electorate and his campaign efforts. What hasn't changed is his views. Watch his '88 election speech, given at at a college to a small audience, and you'll hear a much younger Paul say the same things he says now. Truly a man of principle. |
A sparsely populated rural house district in Texas isn't comparable to the United States by a long stretch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
