Paul Beats Nader

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Keep in mind that in a three way race Bloomberg pulls in 11%.

Bloomberg's doing terrible, but Bloomberg has the money reserves to keep the race up. He can outspend the Republicans and Democrats. But still, I can't imagine him finishing and better than Perot. Not third party candidate this time around has a shot in hell of winning.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bloomberg could win senator or Governer if he ran. He'd be an innefective senator - neither party would likely decide to caucus with him, they don't won't to throw support around him and legitimize a senator in a seat that they want one of their boys in, so he won't be on a committee and will be one of the weakest people (that's an effective strategy the two parties use to strangle third parties, deny them committee seats, then call them inneffective in the next general race and take the seat back). As governer, he'd have a lot more leeway, but still, without working with one of the two parties he'd end up being a lame duck after a year or two.

 

[blackascoal]

Nader is a well known person. It is not as if he needs to get his name out to the people. Most know who he is and even with lower name recognition Paul beats him.

I'm sorry that makes no sense for a lot of reasons .. not the least of which is you reliance on this poll given your disdain for them.

Maybe Nader supporters don't have land lines.

But more correctly, Nader had more name recognition 8 years ago and he's hardly the household name he was when he was simply an advocate. Additionally, being a Green myself, I know that Nader has not declared that he's even a candidate so this hypothetical of Paul beating Nader is confusing .. but what's even more confusing is that if you're trumpeting the widespread acceptance of Paul, this poll does not make your argument. If what you think is true, Paul should be way way more than a few percentage points ahead of him.

This may escape you, but your thread makes my point.

WTF RU Talking about? How does this make any sense to you? Settle down, wipe the foam from your mouth and make a coherent argument.

I'm pretty sure that I'm the calm and logical one in our tit-for-tats. I'm just having fun .. I know very well that Paul is just the sideshow.

It's unfortunate that you and I can't communicate more civily .. but I play with the hand that's dealt to me.

:sigh:, the poll asked if he ran as a Libertarian. As I pointed out, Paul has gained name recognition, Browne and Badnarik had none at all.

I agree with you that Paul has gained more recognition .. but he gained that recognition as a republican. Had he been running as a Libertarian, he wouldn't even been part of the debates and he's still be roasting in obscurity. Most people have no clue who is even running as a Libertarian.

Paul recognized the problems of running as a third party candidate, that's all.

Yeah, like most people wouldn't have a clue who the hell he is .. which brings another question to mind .. why is he running? He's a sort-of libertarian, who isn't really a libertarian. and I'm not talking about just party affiliation. He's running in the republican primary knowing that he has no hope of winning the nomination. Why is he running?

Name recognition?

Build a following so he can run again in 2012 when he's 76?

Build a war chest for his congressional race with the funds he's collected .. which he doesn't seem to be spending?

He's much ado about nothing.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bloomberg's doing terrible, but Bloomberg has the money reserves to keep the race up. He can outspend the Republicans and Democrats. But still, I can't imagine him finishing and better than Perot. Not third party candidate this time around has a shot in hell of winning.

He isn't even in the race though. Yet, he still polls better than Ron Paul.

 

[blackascoal]

Depends on your view of what is regressive and progressive. It's all relative. If you view the government involvement as a detriment more than a positive entity, he has progressive ideas. If you view government as an entity to supply services, you view Paul's ideas as regressive.

Correct .. some people think looking 200 years in the past for the future is progressive, but those who understand the very definition of regressive don't believe that.

Some people view progress as citizens taking more control over their welfare rather than the government.

Unfortunately you can make a lot of people believe a lot of shit that ain't (eb) real .. and citizens taking control of their welfare rather than the government sits near the top of the list of bullshit things you can make people believe. It plays real well among the right-wing .. you know .. the very same group of "thinkers" who led America into this disaster and the very same group of people "antiwar" libertarians claim they stand against.

He's the boogey man in every childs closet.

And like the boogeyman he isn't real and can never be the president.

 

[Timshel]

I'm sorry that makes no sense for a lot of reasons .. not the least of which is you reliance on this poll given your disdain for them.

Huh? What disdain? I have said they might underestimate his support and could possibly need some tinkering to reflect technology changes. That's about it.

Maybe Nader supporters don't have land lines.

But more correctly, Nader had more name recognition 8 years ago and he's hardly the household name he was when he was simply an advocate. Additionally, being a Green myself, I know that Nader has not declared that he's even a candidate so this hypothetical of Paul beating Nader is confusing .. but what's even more confusing is that if you're trumpeting the widespread acceptance of Paul, this poll does not make your argument. If what you think is true, Paul should be way way more than a few percentage points ahead of him.

This may escape you, but your thread makes my point.

Paul has not announced that he is a candidate for the LP either. Nader still enjoys name recognition. You are grasping at straws.

I'm pretty sure that I'm the calm and logical one in our tit-for-tats. I'm just having fun .. I know very well that Paul is just the sideshow.

Yes, because I frequently wish death on Nader, Kucinich etc.. lol

I agree with you that Paul has gained more recognition .. but he gained that recognition as a republican. Had he been running as a Libertarian, he wouldn't even been part of the debates and he's still be roasting in obscurity. Most people have no clue who is even running as a Libertarian.

Definitely. If were not running as a Repub his name recognition would not be up. However, that does not support your point that the LP moniker spells death or that he would not do as well under it, since the poll specifically asked if he were running on the LP ticket.

 

[Timshel]

He isn't even in the race though. Yet, he still polls better than Ron Paul.

That was in a 3 way race and this one has Paul in a 4 way race.

 

[DigitalDave]

Correct .. some people think looking 200 years in the past for the future is progressive, but those who understand the very definition of regressive don't believe that.

The very definition of regressive is 'opposing progress and going to a less advanced state'. I would not view pulling our troops out of Iraq to be regressive at this point even though we would be 'going back'. It is a positive step that needs to be taken. It's progressive. I actually view the Iraq war as regressive. Same as I view expanding Federal powers as regressive. It is all relative to the individual holding the oppinion of what is regressive and progressive, what is better and what is worse. No one can officially claim to be the sole bearers of 'progress', because it is relative to the individual. You just have the benefit of saying our policies go back in time as well, but that doesn't mean they are 'less advanced'.

Unfortunately you can make a lot of people believe a lot of shit that ain't (eb) real .. and citizens taking control of their welfare rather than the government sits near the top of the list of bullshit things you can make people believe. It plays real well among the right-wing .. you know .. the very same group of "thinkers" who led America into this disaster and the very same group of people "antiwar" libertarians claim they stand against.

So telling people that it is possible to take care of one's self is bullshit? Interesting theory but the alternative is dependence. How much dependence do you believe is safe before it begins to hamper 'progress'?

 

[blackascoal]

Huh? What disdain? I have said they might underestimate his support and could possibly need some tinkering to reflect technology changes. That's about it.

Paul has not announced that he is a candidate for the LP either. Nader still enjoys name recognition. You are grasping at straws.

Yes, because I frequently wish death on Nader, Kucinich etc.. lol

Definitely. If were not running as a Repub his name recognition would not be up. However, that does not support your point that the LP moniker spells death or that he would not do as well under it, since the poll specifically asked if he were running on the LP ticket.

Considering that everything about this poll is hypothetical about two candidates for political parties that aren't candidates for those parties, I can't see the value of proclaiming it means anything.

 

[blackascoal]

The very definition of regressive is 'opposing progress and going to a less advanced state'. I would not view pulling our troops out of Iraq to be regressive at this point even though we would be 'going back'. It is a positive step that needs to be taken. It's progressive. I actually view the Iraq war as regressive. Same as I view expanding Federal powers as regressive. It is all relative to the individual holding the oppinion of what is regressive and progressive, what is better and what is worse. No one can officially claim to be the sole bearers of 'progress', because it is relative to the individual. You just have the benefit of saying our policies go back in time as well, but that doesn't mean they are 'less advanced'.

Ron Paul is not just about pulling troops out of Iraq. It is indeed a positive step that needs to be taken but many of those who supported the war have finally come to that conclusion.

I have no problem with you calling libertarian or Paul policies advanced, I'm voicing my perspective of why that is far from the truth.

Paul didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but he did support the invasion of Afghanistan which could end in an even greater disaster than Iraq.

It is about perspective and this is a forum to air the differences in perspective .. not about winning or losing an argument. The defining element in any argument is evidence and there is no evidence that things like returning to the gold standard makes any sense whatsoever, but there is plenty of evidence why not returning to it is far more intelligent .. and you can start by examing why we got off it in the first place .. then skip down the road to why no nation on planet earth uses the gold standard now and sane people can come to their own conclusion.

So telling people that it is possible to take care of one's self is bullshit? Interesting theory but the alternative is dependence. How much dependence do you believe is safe before it begins to hamper 'progress'?

"dependence" is a buzz word that keys a controlled response in the invented American mind .. like "force", "coersion", "liberty", "government", and "collectivism."

This nation began as a collective society and not put together by a motley crew of individuals. From my perspective, collectivism is patriotism. The well-being of the whole is more important than the issues of the individual. Individuals should be not only be protected, but their contributions to society cherished. I care about this country and I care about it's people. Assisting the elderly, children, unimployed workers, and people at-risk seems to me to be the American, honest, and spiritual thing to do. I don't call that dependence, I call it being an American, or at least what I thing being American is about or should be.

Even in a religious context, "To whom much is given, much is expected."

 

[Cypress]

This is why I think some on the left are so pissed. Ron Paul is demonstrating that libertarian ideas, advanced by a candidate with some name recognition, are preferred over far left ideas.

Further, Paul's name recognition is up due solely to his ideas, rather than being a media darling like Nader.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ection_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8

From your article:

Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republican


so, evidently most of Paul's support is from Democrats who support him for his opposition to the war, not because of his far right wing libertarian ideas. Once most of those Dems found out Paul wants to defund public education, is anti-abortion, and wants to shrink government services to a size where is can be drowned in the bathtub, what little support paul has in this poll would evaporate to a fraction of its even current relative small size.

 

[TheDanold]

From your article:

Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republican


so, evidently most of Paul's support is from Democrats who support him for his opposition to the war, not because of his far right wing libertarian ideas. Once most of those Dems found out Paul wants to defund public education, is anti-abortion, and wants to shrink government services to a size where is can be drowned in the bathtub, what little support paul has in this poll would evaporate to a fraction of its even current relative small size.

Actually Paul is moderate on abortion and does not favor a federal ban on it. Being anti-abortion does not always mean favoring laws against it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually Paul is moderate on abortion and does not favor a federal ban on it. Being anti-abortion does not always mean favoring laws against it.

You're kidding, right?

Ron Paul is anti-abortion and he not only favors laws against abortion, he favors having fetuses bestowed with the full panoply of constitutional protections. In fact, he authored a bill (not Amendment to the Constitution) stating that human life is deemed to exist at conception and that the term "person" shall mean a human life at conception (read your Constitution and insert the term "fetus" everywhere "person" appears and you'll get the gist of this provision).

Furthermore, the bill stripped the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the measure.

Moderate my ass.

 

[DigitalDave]

Ron Paul is not just about pulling troops out of Iraq. It is indeed a positive step that needs to be taken but many of those who supported the war have finally come to that conclusion.

I have no problem with you calling libertarian or Paul policies advanced, I'm voicing my perspective of why that is far from the truth.

Paul didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but he did support the invasion of Afghanistan which could end in an even greater disaster than Iraq.

It is about perspective and this is a forum to air the differences in perspective .. not about winning or losing an argument. The defining element in any argument is evidence and there is no evidence that things like returning to the gold standard makes any sense whatsoever, but there is plenty of evidence why not returning to it is far more intelligent .. and you can start by examing why we got off it in the first place .. then skip down the road to why no nation on planet earth uses the gold standard now and sane people can come to their own conclusion.

I agree. I won't argue with you about the gold standard, I again don't feel that is a policy he will effectively change, so I ignore his stance on it. It may seem nuts to some, and some make sense of it, but in reality it just ain't gonna happen. When people start to get confused as to what the hell he's talking about, they lose interest. That and maybe a few other issues of his I will not consider to be progressive.

But overall, with my two biggest issues, he seems to hit them right on, and they are also things that he will be able to make an impact on (Control Spending, Iraq War).

"dependence" is a buzz word that keys a controlled response in the invented American mind .. like "force", "coersion", "liberty", "government", and "collectivism."

This nation began as a collective society and not put together by a motley crew of individuals. From my perspective, collectivism is patriotism. The well-being of the whole is more important than the issues of the individual. Individuals should be not only be protected, but their contributions to society cherished. I care about this country and I care about it's people. Assisting the elderly, children, unimployed workers, and people at-risk seems to me to be the American, honest, and spiritual thing to do. I don't call that dependence, I call it being an American, or at least what I thing being American is about or should be.

Even in a religious context, "To whom much is given, much is expected."

Buzz word or not, dependence is the alternative to taking care of oneself. You either take care of yourself or someone else takes care of you. Of course there are different levels of dependence and sometimes it ain't all that bad. My question still is, how much dependence do you believe is safe before it hampers progress? We could go to extremes and point out the level China is at with dependence, or Venezuela, and you could argue how safe complete anarchy is with me. Neither of us believe in these extremes. But maybe you could point out which country you most associate with as far as its citizenship's dependence on government entities. How have these dependencies been good or bad? All that matters, is the context you put those results into, and that context is molded by your own past experiences. A libertarian most likely has viewed his experience with government entities very pessimistically, unlike a liberal who feels it is their duty to society to support others through the government. Libertarians look for alternatives, or just dont care (which I'll admit is a downfall of many libertarians) to contribute to society. Liberals also tend to think that through some of the bad experiences we have had with the 'free-market', we should avoid that or regulate it. We always will have seperate oppinions on what is better.

My beef will always be that there is so much that seperates us, that we view the other as 'moronic' or 'delusional'. I shy away from that of course, I think your a very smart man, but I think you enjoy getting under the Libertarians skin a little too much

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

He isn't even in the race though. Yet, he still polls better than Ron Paul.

WTF?

You're an idiot. A billionaire mayor of the largest city in America (who's not running) against a no-namer congressman from Texas who started out with no campaign funds (who's not running in the general) and he can only manage three measley percentage points better. What a loser.

OMGZ GORE BEATS HILLARY IN THE POLL HE'S NOT RUNNING?1?!!?1 THAT MEANS HILLARIES A LOSER OMGZ NOW WE'VE GOTTA VOTE REPUBLICAN1!?1?!!?!

OMGZ FDR BEATS HILLARY IN A POLL OMGZ HE'S NOT RUNNIGN NOW WE'VE RTHERT REPUBLICAN/!>1.!?1?1

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bloomberg got 11% in a THREE WAY race.

Paul got 8% in a FOUR WAY race - with far less name recongnition.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Man, I drank too many Red Bull's.

 

[cawacko]

From your article:

Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republican


so, evidently most of Paul's support is from Democrats who support him for his opposition to the war, not because of his far right wing libertarian ideas. Once most of those Dems found out Paul wants to defund public education, is anti-abortion, and wants to shrink government services to a size where is can be drowned in the bathtub, what little support paul has in this poll would evaporate to a fraction of its even current relative small size.

Citizen claims Ron Paul supporters are going to just vote for the Republican nominee in the election. This seems to contradict you here citizen.

 

[cawacko]

From your article:

Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republican


so, evidently most of Paul's support is from Democrats who support him for his opposition to the war, not because of his far right wing libertarian ideas. Once most of those Dems found out Paul wants to defund public education, is anti-abortion, and wants to shrink government services to a size where is can be drowned in the bathtub, what little support paul has in this poll would evaporate to a fraction of its even current relative small size.

You have said the most issue in this election is the war and America's standing in the world community. Issues such as taxes etc. are no where near as relevant. Based on that belief Democrats can continue to support Ron Paul based on his foreign policy positions.

 

[Cypress]

You have said the most issue in this election is the war and America's standing in the world community. Issues such as taxes etc. are no where near as relevant. Based on that belief Democrats can continue to support Ron Paul based on his foreign policy positions.

The assertion was made that Ron Paul's support was based on him being able to sell Libertarian Ideology

My point, was to say I don't think that's true. I think many people, including almost all of his Democratic and Independent supporters, support him because of the war. NOT because of his dreams of eliminating public education, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc, and other far rightwing libertarian domestic goals.