Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In all the honesty, Ron Paul would get votes from GOP, independent and Dem, he would have chance to win.
Have you noticed how the GOP has treated him? Republican voters in his district treat him well, just like McCain, but not the party at large and Repub voters at large.
Or you can keep voting for the same horrible policies that ruined the economy and makes us less safe. Your way we have have seen the evidence first hand, we the people are getting crushed. The nutjobs are the ones who think doing the same thing will yield different results. It's time those nutjobs woke up.
what mountain of evidence do you have, that a libertarian society has been 100% successful. Unless you can prove that a libertarian society has no flaws, you have no room to talk. Government isn't perfect, but it has had its good and bad. You seem to be of the impression that government has never done anything good, and all they have done is screwed things up.
A libertarian might get votes from all parties, but won't get enough to ever win. You put Gary Johnson or whatever nutjob you guys support in 4 years, and watch him/her get crushed.
I think Gary really wanted to be president just to get marijuana decriminalized around the nation.
As for Ron Paul, he is an honest man who wanted to run a country but not something like ours. He wouldn't be willing to maintain America's power as the world's best. He has some great ideas that are plausible but then he has ones that are absolutely insane; particularly, his entire foreign policy. He'd be better at running a second-rate nation, but he would have made a great VP and would have won the election.
Die-hard libertarians like to say how the GOP abandoned them, etc. But they have libertarian ideologues in the GOP (or once in it, like Gary) yet they are always bashing the Republican Party as a whole. Then they wonder why the GOP distances themselves from them. Die-hard libertarians don't get it.
what mountain of evidence do you have, that a libertarian society has been 100% successful. Unless you can prove that a libertarian society has no flaws, you have no room to talk. Government isn't perfect, but it has had its good and bad. You seem to be of the impression that government has never done anything good, and all they have done is screwed things up.
Practically Somalia... which is why a conservative-libertarian society would be best.
Have you noticed how the GOP has treated him? Republican voters in his district treat him well, just like McCain, but not the party at large and Repub voters at large.
actually in a little over a month he will not have a district anymore. BTW, most people even in Texas, do not really like his politics, He was a typical incumbant, in a very small district and very well known there. This helped him win over and over.
actually in a little over a month he will not have a district anymore. BTW, most people even in Texas, do not really like his politics, He was a typical incumbant, in a very small district and very well known there. This helped him win over and over.
Typical incumbents these days who have constituents who don't like their politics get voted out-even the longstanding well known ones. Tom Daschle and Richard Lugar are prime examples of this. Even in the primaries, Ron Paul did well enough to collect delegates. Ron Paul really had 3 main obstacles in the Republican Party:
1. Neo-con war mongering Republican power brokers
2. Country club establishment Republican power brokers who support the next old establishment white guy in line: Dole, McCain, Romney.
3. The religious right who become almost enraged, and certainly outraged, at the concept of personal liberty.
His problem is really how fragmented and obstinate Republicans are. But I'm keeping my eye on Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. His views are similar to Ron's, but he so far isn't really tagged with the outsider label that Ron is. And he has a larger constituency than Ron did/does. What remains to be seen is whether the country club Republican establishment ultimately turns on him too and if/when he decides to run for president how much grass roots traction he gets. Ron's base will be solidly with him most likely, AND the American demographic shift noted in this year's election should bode well for a candidate with his policies. But still many old Republicans are set in their ways and are loathe to change with a changing demographic.
Most Americans believe in the idea of not policing the globe, but instead focusing defense on protecting America. Most Americans believe in the idea of living within our means fiscally. Most Americans are shifting to more and more of a belief in personal liberty in social politics. Those are Ron and Rand's positions. Where Ron has lost many mainstream voters is in the fact that most Americans believe in government doing what it can to bolster the economy, so Ron's message of government standing out of the way and letting the economy crash and recover at its own pace doesn't sell them. If Rand can keep those other policies but moderate on government's role in fostering economic stability and growth, then I think he has a real shot and building on the limited success that Ron has established. But again, we'll have to see how the hardcore right wingnuts and establishment power guys react to that.
Typical incumbents these days who have constituents who don't like their politics get voted out-even the longstanding well known ones. Tom Daschle and Richard Lugar are prime examples of this. Even in the primaries, Ron Paul did well enough to collect delegates. Ron Paul really had 3 main obstacles in the Republican Party:
1. Neo-con war mongering Republican power brokers
2. Country club establishment Republican power brokers who support the next old establishment white guy in line: Dole, McCain, Romney.
3. The religious right who become almost enraged, and certainly outraged, at the concept of personal liberty.
His problem is really how fragmented and obstinate Republicans are. But I'm keeping my eye on Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. His views are similar to Ron's, but he so far isn't really tagged with the outsider label that Ron is. And he has a larger constituency than Ron did/does. What remains to be seen is whether the country club Republican establishment ultimately turns on him too and if/when he decides to run for president how much grass roots traction he gets. Ron's base will be solidly with him most likely, AND the American demographic shift noted in this year's election should bode well for a candidate with his policies. But still many old Republicans are set in their ways and are loathe to change with a changing demographic.
Most Americans believe in the idea of not policing the globe, but instead focusing defense on protecting America. Most Americans believe in the idea of living within our means fiscally. Most Americans are shifting to more and more of a belief in personal liberty in social politics. Those are Ron and Rand's positions. Where Ron has lost many mainstream voters is in the fact that most Americans believe in government doing what it can to bolster the economy, so Ron's message of government standing out of the way and letting the economy crash and recover at its own pace doesn't sell them. If Rand can keep those other policies but moderate on government's role in fostering economic stability and growth, then I think he has a real shot and building on the limited success that Ron has established. But again, we'll have to see how the hardcore right wingnuts and establishment power guys react to that.
not really, more than in the past yes, but incumbants still have an edge and have you checked to see how many viable candidates have run against him or do you know anything, whatsoever about the region he represents?
not really, more than in the past yes, but incumbants still have an edge
Incumbents always have an advantage of incumbency. But that advantage alone does not save them when the voters disagree with their job performance. Tom Daschle and Richard Lugar had incumbency as an advantage but it did not save them from voters who did not approve of the job they were doing.
Like I said, Ron Paul faced the Republican obstacles I indicated, and now it remains to be seen if Senator Rand Paul will face them as well or if he will be capable of building a larger coalition. Remember that Rand's politics are very similar to Ron's politics, so conclusions can be made about their policy stances based on Rand's performance now and going forward. Rand's success in Kentucky suggests that there IS an American constituency out there who is open to libertarian philosophy. Whatever limits are attempted to be placed on the philosophy, ie. the viability of the message, of the political position, based on the size and conditions of Ron Paul's constituency tend to be disproven by the size and conditions of Rand Paul's constituency. Now we just have to see the extent to which Rand can build on support for the libertarian policy stance.
Implies. It should be "The GOP nomination IMPLIES......"
To imply is to give; to infer is to receive.
If you wanted to use the word infer you should have written "We can infer from the GOP nomination....."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
