[ironknee]

Who will win the Iowa Caucus?

[lpkmckenna]

I predicted Romney last time, but McCain won. But I think Romney will win this time, since most of his opponents are complete losers, and the top contenders (Gingrich and Paul) are hated by most of party members. Romney isn't loved, but he isn't hated, and he isn't crazy.

[turtle777]

Ron Paul FTW.

Romney is same old in terms of politics.

What we need is REAL change. Paul is the only one who can deliver that.

-t

[Big Mac]

And he's completely unelectable primarily because his foreign policy sounds insane, and secondarily the class warfare/Entitlements demagoguery against him would be overwhelming.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And he's completely unelectable primarily because his foreign policy sounds insane, and secondarily the class warfare/Entitlements demagoguery against him would be overwhelming.

LOL, as if the ACTUAL foreign policy of the US in the last 10 years was NOT insane.

Alas, since the majority of Americans are entitled-feeling idiots, he will not have a chance of getting elected.

It has to become much worse before people will realize what a bunch of self-serving, dishonest sociapaths currently occupy Washington.

-t

[Big Mac]

Blaming Israel for America getting attacked on 9/11 is insane. Paul's whole approach to the root causes of Islamic terrorism is insane. He thinks that if we only were to withdraw from the world and become pre-Pearl Harbor isolationists again (leaving Israel all to her lonesome), radical Muslims and all other evil forces wouldn't want to attack us anymore. He has no understanding of what drives radical Islam. He thinks if Israel didn't exist the US wouldn't have a problem with Islamists wanting to kill Americans anymore, and he's an abject moron for thinking that.

His stance toward the Iranian threat-allowing them to obtain nuclear weapons because duh they're just pursuing their interests-is absolutely idiotic. He ignores the fact Iran has directly attacked American troops, as well as the fact that Iran calls for the destruction of both Israel AND the United States. And although I'm sympathetic to his call to bring American troops home from areas of the world that don't serve any strategic security value, the bottom line is that he's an utter fool when it comes to national security.

With all that said, I love 90% of Paul's domestic agenda (which again makes him unelectable for different reasons), and I would still vote for him. But he's unelectable and the party establishment would never let him get the nomination, turtle. That's just the truth. Don't shoot the messenger.

Do you have respect for Amb. Bolton? Watch what he has to say about Paul.

[The Final Dakar]

Paul's greatest strength is he usually has one unconventional position that a person will agree with 100% on.
His greatest weakness, however, is that he likely has several other unconventional positions that the same person will disagree with him 100% on.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Blaming Israel for America getting attacked on 9/11 is insane. Paul's whole approach to the root causes of Islamic terrorism is insane. He thinks that if we only were to withdraw from the world and become pre-Pearl Harbor isolationists again (leaving Israel all to her lonesome), radical Muslims and all other evil forces wouldn't want to attack us anymore. He has no understanding of what drives radical Islam. He thinks if Israel didn't exist the US wouldn't have a problem with Islamists wanting to kill Americans anymore, and he's an abject moron for thinking that.

Like you, I don't agree with Paul's view on Israel.
There is no candidate that you will always agree 100% with.

In most things that matter to this country, Paul is mostly right.

-t

[Shaddim]

That's my problem with Paul. I look down the checklist and think:

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
NO!

I don't have many issues with semi-isolationism, we've paid too much being the world's active police force, but abandoning allies isn't an option.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes but remember the checks and balances, and how little of Obama's agenda he was able to implement. I think that if Ron Paul managed to get both nominated and elected president, his most unorthodox and risky policies would still never see the light of day, but it would be a ginormous wake-up call to the status quo leeches of our government, and Paul would likely manage to get at least 1 or 2 of his more tame goals at least partly achieved, which would be a plus (probably, depending on which ones those were, which I maintain would be the least nutty on the list). Even the president can't just close every overseas mil base and shut down the entire IRS unilaterally.

[turtle777]

I'd already be content if he abolishes the Fed. Everything else would be a bonus.

-t

[ironknee]

The candidates' official "logos"















and just for the hell of it

[ebuddy]

Ron Paul has many of the same problems Newt Gingrich has; a long career with a wealth of published opinions and fodder to continue biting him in the ass. Aside from an abysmal foreign policy platform and slash-and-burn domestic/Fed monetary policies that'll scare the hell out of any sensible voter, he lacks the gravitas and stature of a commander in chief. I voted him as the winner of the Iowa Caucus because that's about how serious the Iowa Caucus should be taken.

[Big Mac]

My strong criticism aside, we definitely differ about Paul regarding the sensibility of his domestic agenda. First of all his position right now isn't to end the Fed outright but rather to audit and restrain the Fed, restoring soundness to our money. I disagree with him that we need to go back to a precious metal standard to have sound money, but that's a side point. Secondly, $15,000,000,000,000 of debt is preposterous to any truly sensible voter, and of all the candidates Paul has the most credibility in dealing with it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

My strong criticism aside, we definitely differ about Paul regarding the sensibility of his domestic agenda. First of all his position right now isn't to end the Fed outright but rather to audit and restrain the Fed, restoring soundness to our money. I disagree with him that we need to go back to a precious metal standard to have sound money, but that's a side point. Secondly, $15,000,000,000,000 of debt is preposterous to any truly sensible voter, and of all the candidates Paul has the most credibility in dealing with it.

I grant you that many become more pragmatic once in office by necessity than they are in rhetoric prior as Uncle mentioned, but advocating the absolute elimination of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Interstate Commerce Commission and the IRS along with substantial cuts to the CIA; regardless of whether or not you agree with the slash & burn views, simply makes you unelectable.

[Big Mac]

It's interesting to see the points of Paul's platform that you deem to make him unelectable, in contrast the ones I have in mind. I think the American people are ready for deep cuts to the monstrous federal bureaucracy that has bloated tremendously under Obama, especially if they see a pay off in the form of balanced budgets and lower taxes. Now you can argue about what such dramatic cuts would do to our GDP, and that's an argument worth having, but it has to be balanced against the threat of runaway debt that we're facing and which the political elites seem to be whistling past the graveyard over.

What do I think makes Paul unelectable a least in 2012? His very correct, principled but very unpopular stance on Entitlements: Preserving them for current retirees but gradually phasing them out in favor of voluntary private solutions. When a very courageous Democrat (I don't remember his name right now) went against his party and attempted to champion some substantial financial reform to Social Security in the 1980s, he was almost torn limb from limb by an unruly group of (brainwashed) octogenarians. And you see the AARP spoiling for exactly the same type of outcome with their attack ads showing the Occupy Old Age Home crowd agitating against any attempts to reform the Socialistic monstrosities that FDR and LBJ cursed us with.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes but remember the checks and balances, and how little of Obama's agenda he was able to implement. I think that if Ron Paul managed to get both nominated and elected president, his most unorthodox and risky policies would still never see the light of day, but it would be a ginormous wake-up call to the status quo leeches of our government, and Paul would likely manage to get at least 1 or 2 of his more tame goals at least partly achieved, which would be a plus (probably, depending on which ones those were, which I maintain would be the least nutty on the list). Even the president can't just close every overseas mil base and shut down the entire IRS unilaterally.

This.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

The candidates' official "logos"

Odd kerning aside, I read this and my mind ignored the RRR and rearranged the remaining letters....

MONEY

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's interesting to see the points of Paul's platform that you deem to make him unelectable, in contrast the ones I have in mind.

Perhaps worth a poll?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the American people are ready for deep cuts to the monstrous federal bureaucracy that has bloated tremendously under Obama

Let's not turn a blind eye to the eight years that preceded Obama, now.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Odd kerning aside, I read this and my mind ignored the RRR and rearranged the remaining letters....

MONEY

I likely picked this up somewhere else, but his R looks like a toothpaste graphic turned sideways.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's interesting to see the points of Paul's platform that you deem to make him unelectable, in contrast the ones I have in mind. I think the American people are ready for deep cuts to the monstrous federal bureaucracy that has bloated tremendously under Obama, especially if they see a pay off in the form of balanced budgets and lower taxes. Now you can argue about what such dramatic cuts would do to our GDP, and that's an argument worth having, but it has to be balanced against the threat of runaway debt that we're facing and which the political elites seem to be whistling past the graveyard over.

What do I think makes Paul unelectable a least in 2012? His very correct, principled but very unpopular stance on Entitlements: Preserving them for current retirees but gradually phasing them out in favor of voluntary private solutions. When a very courageous Democrat (I don't remember his name right now) went against his party and attempted to champion some substantial financial reform to Social Security in the 1980s, he was almost torn limb from limb by an unruly group of (brainwashed) octogenarians. And you see the AARP spoiling for exactly the same type of outcome with their attack ads showing the Occupy Old Age Home crowd agitating against any attempts to reform the Socialistic monstrosities that FDR and LBJ cursed us with.

Occupy Old Age Home crowd I love it!

The problem is, these are all the hurdles one has to get through before you even get to an equally rigid foreign policy. You can't fault Paul for being a consistent, principled representative and on many things I agree with him also, but you've got to attain the office to have a real influence on it and frankly he's just too fringe (today) than he can afford to be and win the Presidency. He's not presented a well thought-out, disciplined approach to working toward agreeable reductions on the bureaucracies you and I may agree are wasteful and he's not going to garner enough support to slash them outright so... we're left with someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama who will have no problem pandering to moderates for the vote. We need someone with a real shot frankly and Paul would be a disaster. Obama is vulnerable, but not that vulnerable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah but, who has a real shot? Romney strikes me as John Kerry's doppelganger.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah but, who has a real shot? Romney strikes me as John Kerry's doppelganger.

At last check Romney polled approximately 5-6 points above Obama among likely voters in a general.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Occupy Old Age Home crowd I love it!

The problem is, these are all the hurdles one has to get through before you even get to an equally rigid foreign policy. You can't fault Paul for being a consistent, principled representative and on many things I agree with him also, but you've got to attain the office to have a real influence on it and frankly he's just too fringe (today) than he can afford to be and win the Presidency. He's not presented a well thought-out, disciplined approach to working toward agreeable reductions on the bureaucracies you and I may agree are wasteful and he's not going to garner enough support to slash them outright so... we're left with someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama who will have no problem pandering to moderates for the vote. We need someone with a real shot frankly and Paul would be a disaster. Obama is vulnerable, but not that vulnerable.

100% Maximum Agreement there.

I think Rand actually has a very strong future because he's Ron Paul Version 2.0, that is if the country survives a few more presidential cycles.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At last check Romney polled approximately 5-6 points above Obama among likely voters in a general.

Yeah, Romney is definitely the safe choice to at least put in a very strong fight against the Obama machine. That's why he's the establishment choice. He's not very attractive to the Republican base, but he appeals to moderates and women. The recent interview he did with O'Reilly made me feel a lot more comfortable about him as a nominee, even though I'm much more of a Newt guy right now.

We also have to remember that President Reagan wasn't always the rock ribbed Republican he ran as in 1980. I see a lot of Reagan-like potential in Romney, although I'm also beginning to realize that Reagan had a unique rapport with the camera and his audience that probably will never be rivaled.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah but, who has a real shot? Romney strikes me as John Kerry's doppelganger.

Totally agreed, down to being from the same state.

[Big Mac]

I don't think Mitt is very similar at all to John Kerry/Herman Munster. Perhaps very superficially, but I don't see it otherwise. They have quite different facial structures, perhaps similar build. They're both white. To me Mitt is more of the Republican establishment ideal when it comes to looks and persona.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think Mitt is very similar at all to John Kerry/Herman Munster. Perhaps very superficially, but I don't see it otherwise. They have quite different facial structures, perhaps similar build. They're both white. To me Mitt is more of the Republican establishment ideal when it comes to looks and persona.

Well, what I see is someone who is out of touch with the regular joe (moreso than your average politician), and comes off as your well educated, wealthy blue blood.

And yeah, they're kinda tall and awkward (though Kerry moreso on the latter). The big difference is I find Mitt to be a more "Hollywood" (Polished and/or greasy).

[Uncle Skeleton]

What I meant most with that comment is that he's the one who "looks presidential" to someone who's got no where else to turn (no better candidate), and he seems like he could be groomed by the party to be whatever they need him to be, again to someone who's got no one better to look to. They both are like their party's "template" candidate, with nothing particularly good going for them, but they have the benefit of nothing actively bad going for them. In 2003 they said Kerry "looked like JFK" (in old footage), and now you're saying that Romney "looks like Reagan" (in old footage). It's what Malcolm Gladwell said about Warren G Harding, that he was selected for looking like what a president should look like (not that I buy anything Gladwell says, but I can recognize the genuine flaw of trying to select a candidate that way). It's like, sometimes you let the candidate stand out, and sometimes you have to draw from a pool of second-stringers. And when you find yourself asking if any of them look like they're supposed to be president, that's when you know you're doing the latter.

Just my 2¢, looking from the sidelines.

[Doofy]

Since Ron Paul appears to be the only US politician who's actually read the constitution manifesto, a vote for anyone else is simply unpatriotic.
But, of course, Dr Paul won't get in because America is a nation full of communism-loving pansies, not freedom-loving Americans. If it were full of freedom-loving people, it'd be called "Russia", wouldn't it?

I don't know why you're worrying guys. You know how these things work by now - the guy with the nicest hair will win the GOP race, and will lose against Barry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Doofy for president! Article 2 be damned!

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah but, who has a real shot? Romney strikes me as John Kerry's doppelganger.

I think somewhere both Romney and John Kerry are offended and don't know why.

[imitchellg5]

In this election, no one wins.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Since Ron Paul appears to be the only US politician who's actually read the constitution manifesto, a vote for anyone else is simply unpatriotic.
But, of course, Dr Paul won't get in because America is a nation full of communism-loving pansies, not freedom-loving Americans. If it were full of freedom-loving people, it'd be called "Russia", wouldn't it?

wait what?

communism-loving pansies

the left....

freedom-loving Americans

the right...

If it were full of freedom-loving people,

as you said the right... (am i right?

Iit'd be called "Russia", wouldn't it?

wait... "Russia would say, "liberal"

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know why you're worrying guys. You know how these things work by now - the guy with the nicest hair will win the GOP race, and will lose against Barry.

then it's romney

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And he's completely unelectable primarily because his foreign policy sounds insane, and secondarily the class warfare/Entitlements demagoguery against him would be overwhelming.

There is a lot of insanity in Paul's politics, because I think he goes too far with most of his ideas.* But in my view, he's the only candidate who is a man of principle, and he has had the same principles for the better part of his political career. That's the core of his appeal to the grass roots. And that's the reason the party establishment is afraid of him and pushes the media to ignore him, he goes against the grain too often. Even though he is an educated man, his messages are quite simple.

He's no slick Romney who changes political convictions with whatever the political necessities dictate. He's no Newt Gingrich who busted Clinton during the Lewinsky affair while having an affair of his own at the time. The list goes on.

A question, Big Mac: do you think Ron Paul is treated unfairly by the media, especially conservative outlets?


* I don't want to get into the details here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is a lot of insanity in Paul's politics

To be honest, I don't actually think there is. I think it's more like "there's a lot of insanity in what the left think is Paul's politics".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be honest, I don't actually think there is. I think it's more like "there's a lot of insanity in what the left think is Paul's politics".

No, you got it wrong. Big Mac and ebuddy have expressed similar concerns.

I'm in favor of stopping to meddle into other countries' politics, because it has come back and bitten the US in its ginormous rear-end. But that doesn't mean in my opinion, the US should go as far as Ron Paul says it should.

Ditto with cutting back the federal government: to cut certain departments (department of energy, IRS, etc.) wholesale may sound appealing at first, but has a lot of unintended consequences.

However, I'd prefer having Paul run for presidency rather than the other second rate shills which are just empty shells who say whatever they think the »electorate« wants to hear (with the possible exception of Huntsman, but he's trailing so far behind, he's not relevant to this discussion). The fact that two candidates which are (according to polls) the cream of the crop haven't managed to take care of simple logistical matters so as to simply run in the primaries in Iowa is an indication of the »quality« of Republican candidates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I meant most with that comment is that he's the one who "looks presidential" to someone who's got no where else to turn (no better candidate), and he seems like he could be groomed by the party to be whatever they need him to be, again to someone who's got no one better to look to. They both are like their party's "template" candidate, with nothing particularly good going for them, but they have the benefit of nothing actively bad going for them. In 2003 they said Kerry "looked like JFK" (in old footage), and now you're saying that Romney "looks like Reagan" (in old footage). It's what Malcolm Gladwell said about Warren G Harding, that he was selected for looking like what a president should look like (not that I buy anything Gladwell says, but I can recognize the genuine flaw of trying to select a candidate that way). It's like, sometimes you let the candidate stand out, and sometimes you have to draw from a pool of second-stringers. And when you find yourself asking if any of them look like they're supposed to be president, that's when you know you're doing the latter.

Just my 2¢, looking from the sidelines.

Valid points all, but IMO there are no first-stringers or ideal candidates. For one, it takes a certain type of individual that would possess the hubris necessary to even seek such a high-level position and I think this comes with inherent flaws. You're going to have to plug your nose on this issue or that, no matter how unique or special the individual is. An individual has to align with you in platform, voting/legislative background, and personal conduct and unfortunately, this cannot be said of any of them for all of us. You're then left with the candidates that align with you on what you consider the larger issues combined with the more shallow criteria of gravitas, stature, and appearance. These things matter in business and they matter in politics, but it's a package deal.

I'd pay money to see Newt vs Obama in debate and I think he'd make a much more effective leader than Obama for example. He's got a 90% conservative rating, was able to make good on much of his Contract with America in spite of a hostile legislative environment, and did more to seat conservative Republicans than almost anyone before or since. However, due to a wealth of baggage professionally, personally, and seasoned with some noteworthy gaffes, he's likely less stable and electable to the populace than Mitt. I think folks could get beyond Newt's sluggish, dopey physique and even his brash demeanor because he's extremely intelligent with some large, aggressive policy ideas, but can they get beyond the sluggish, dopey physique, brash demeanor, kicked out of Congress, checkered past legislatively, several marriages, gaffes etc? Who gets the nod then? Chris Christie who others have hailed as the Republican savior while actually having quite a questionable legislative history himself? Could it be Marco Rubio? (my personal favorite) Maybe, but does he have the hubris to run? Are we sure he wasn't caught on video selling used bubble gum to teenaged girls in 1994? Or is it Romney, the devil we know. The slow, steady candidate that is also intelligent, does not gaffe, but who also has all the intangibles mentioned above.

In short, I think people are a little deeper than we credit them, but as much as we may find the fact distasteful, effective leadership includes the intangibles as much as the tangibles. Besides, there are an awful lot of criteria to consider while still trying to work full-time, raise a family, maintain a home, etc.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Which of those benefits does Ron Paul not have? Don't they all have the same down-side, but Paul has a bigger up-side (assuming you want the biggest nudge away from big government)?

[Doofy]

Now Barry's signed the NDAA 2012, if you've got any sense you'll all vote Ron Paul.

[turtle777]

Obama turned Faschist just in time.

-t

[besson3c]

I'm not happy with that vote, nor do I understand his rationale about how there is enough room for interpretation to ignore the parts he isn't crazy about. Well, what about the next overreaching president *********?

That being said, I don't quite understand why indefinite detention and torture and stuff is wrong under Obama in the name of security, but was right under Bush?

It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Which of those benefits does Ron Paul not have? Don't they all have the same down-side, but Paul has a bigger up-side (assuming you want the biggest nudge away from big government)?

I don't want the biggest nudge away from big government, I want the most effective.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't want the biggest nudge away from big government, I want the most effective.

Chuck Norris isn't running, so Ron Paul is the only nudge away from big government.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That being said, I don't quite understand why indefinite detention and torture and stuff is wrong under Obama in the name of security, but was right under Bush?

It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

Just shows that Obama is not the anti-Bush, but a hyper-Bush.

Bush just ignored the law and violated it, but Obama tries to CHANGE the law to be able to call RIGHT what is clearly wrong.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Just shows that Obama is not the anti-Bush, but a hyper-Bush.

Bush just ignored the law and violated it, but Obama tries to CHANGE the law to be able to call RIGHT what is clearly wrong.

-t

Cheney was adamant in justifying these practices and wanting them to be continued.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't want the biggest nudge away from big government, I want the most effective.

I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference is. In what way is "effect" measured if not by "bigness?"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Cheney was adamant in justifying these practices and wanting them to be continued.

Funny. Obama listened and obeyed. Go figure.

Ron Paul FTW.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Funny. Obama listened and obeyed. Go figure.

Ron Paul FTW.

-t

I thought you were a Rick Perry guy? What happened there?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought you were a Rick Perry guy? What happened there?

Are you trying to be funny ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you trying to be funny ?

-t

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post4085497