Guest American Woman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the information. It's a very interesting process to watch. Political entertainment at its finest! The rules have been changed for the Republican primary/convention, making it less likely that a candidate, who needs to win more than 50% of the delegates, will win the nomination in the primaries. I'm guessing we won't know who won until after the convention, and conceivably it could be anyone at that point. Edited January 22, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 got links showing their support for ron paul? i wasn't able to find anything in the first couple of pages on google. most of the articles i saw was about how the koch brothers like cain and dislike paul. I just watched Ron Paul try to evisverate Rick Santorum for not getting Pennsylvania to agree to a statewide RTW bill... I watched Ron Paul say that there is a "union problem" (even though less than 10% of the workforce in the US is organized) and that the US requires a National RTW bill to "compete" with China so "we keep those jobs here"( see: Drive down the standard of living in the US in keeping with "free market" principles)... And Paul is using the standard NAM/Koch Bros.(and there many anti-union "free market" tentacled think tanks they fund)lingo of "personal freedom and liberty" to sell the point... Yippee!!! The freedom to be poor!!! Let's hear it for poverty!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Paul has more delegates then Santorum and has only 4 delegates less then Romney. Polling data seems to suggest that Paul doesn't have a hope. Should he go into deep debt while staying in the race for the next half dozen states? What's the point. Edited January 22, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 What's the point. The point is to try and promote real reform, not what every other politician is selling. What are the real differences between Romney, Gingrich and Sanitorium? Subtle differences, subtleties of their past voting history which they use against one another but in the end this is just a continuation of the status quo. Or rather, a continuation of the slide downhill toward more government empowerment, less civil liberties, more wars of opportunity and greater divide between the rich and poor. Those are the things Ron Paul and others of his political stripe are trying to change. And Paul has said numerous times, this is about a message and a movement. It may not succeed in Paul's lifetime, but he is compelled to push that message regardless. That's what I get out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yippee!!! The freedom to be poor!!! Let's hear it for poverty!!! Isn't that what they already have now? Their economy is in the gutter and still heading deeper into the hole. The whole approach, bailouts, trickle down theories, all bulshit that sensible people knew wasn't going to work. By encouraging the idea of RTW legislation Paul is showing that he's not a fanatic libertarian, that there is a role for federal government. And that role is to protect the jobs of the American people from ruthless gutting by the elite, who only care about the bottom line, production costs and profit margins. Paul is saying someone has to stand up for the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Isn't that what they already have now? Their economy is in the gutter and still heading deeper into the hole. The whole approach, bailouts, trickle down theories, all bulshit that sensible people knew wasn't going to work. By encouraging the idea of RTW legislation Paul is showing that he's not a fanatic libertarian, that there is a role for federal government. And that role is to protect the jobs of the American people from ruthless gutting by the elite, who only care about the bottom line, production costs and profit margins. Paul is saying someone has to stand up for the people. The problem is that RTW is propogated by the elites who have gutted the US economy... See the history of who promotes "Right to Work"(through the Taft-Hartley Act) and one would have to come to the conclusion that it's not really about "personal freedom" and that it's more about turning the clock back in labour relations. Standing up for RTW is not standing up for those who are being decmated by the ruthless elite...It is in fact empowering the ruthless elite even more... Completely wrongheaded...And definately NOT "new" thinking. Edited January 22, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The point is to try and promote real reform, not what every other politician is selling. What are the real differences between Romney, Gingrich and Sanitorium? Subtle differences, subtleties of their past voting history which they use against one another but in the end this is just a continuation of the status quo. Or rather, a continuation of the slide downhill toward more government empowerment, less civil liberties, more wars of opportunity and greater divide between the rich and poor. Those are the things Ron Paul and others of his political stripe are trying to change. And Paul has said numerous times, this is about a message and a movement. It may not succeed in Paul's lifetime, but he is compelled to push that message regardless. That's what I get out of it. Yes, I agree that this is Pauls strategy and philosophy. Whether Paul actually could enact 'real' reform is another thing, and I don't concur with your assessment of the others, but lets say you're right for the moment. My point is this: Only a very small minority is voting for him. In other words, there will be no movement. So again, I say, what's the point? The Tea Party has the conservative movement all wrapped up so there is no room for a Paul movement. I mean he can carry on until the very end, but there will be no benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Yes, I agree that this is Pauls strategy and philosophy. Whether Paul actually could enact 'real' reform is another thing, and I don't concur with your assessment of the others, but lets say you're right for the moment. My point is this: Only a very small minority is voting for him. In other words, there will be no movement. So again, I say, what's the point? The Tea Party has the conservative movement all wrapped up so there is no room for a Paul movement. I mean he can carry on until the very end, but there will be no benefit. I wonder if Paul's idealogical leanings are little misplaced...He does seem a little out of place with the other candidates on the stage. I wonder if he can attract some disenchanted Democrats and independents plus his Republican support if he tried to be a 3rd party candidate?? It would probably take far too much money,but,I wonder if it increase his numbers?? Edited January 22, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Another 4th place finish for Ron Paul. I've never seen a candidate receive so much attention for consistently finishing in 3rd and 4th place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Another 4th place finish for Ron Paul. I think it's the first time he placed 4th in this race. I've never seen a candidate receive so much attention for consistently finishing in 3rd and 4th place. Interesting, idn't it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 See the history of who promotes "Right to Work"(through the Taft-Hartley Act) and one would have to come to the conclusion that it's not really about "personal freedom" and that it's more about turning the clock back in labour relations. Standing up for RTW is not standing up for those who are being decmated by the ruthless elite...It is in fact empowering the ruthless elite even more... Completely wrongheaded...And definately NOT "new" thinking. Hmm... are we, a union man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Have any of us thought of what happens if Paul grabs 200-300 delegates? Seriously if Newts starts getting up speed we could see it happen and for one reason Virgina there if you win more then 50% you get all 50 delegates. Newt isn't on the ballot so the Newt people might go Paul to stop the Math for Romney. Remember the ONLY ballot at the convention where a delegate must vote for who they pledge to vote for is the first one. Might be a long shot but if Paul gets 200-300 delegates it could get pretty crazy in a tight race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Hmm... are we, a union man? You better believe it,son... Edited January 22, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 ...By encouraging the idea of RTW legislation Paul is showing that he's not a fanatic libertarian, that there is a role for federal government. And that role is to protect the jobs of the American people from ruthless gutting by the elite, who only care about the bottom line, production costs and profit margins. Paul is saying someone has to stand up for the people. No, I think you have it backwards....Ron Paul's populist message is mostly that "the people" need to be protected from a bloated and more intrusive federal government. He will lose on this idea because a good portion of "the people" are addicted to their entitlements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 No, I think you have it backwards....Ron Paul's populist message is mostly that "the people" need to be protected from a bloated and more intrusive federal government. He will lose on this idea because a good portion of "the people" are addicted to their entitlements. I know, but how does that reconcile with his stance on this legislation? (RTW). I meant that this is an exception to his main message, and shows he does see a role for federal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I know, but how does that reconcile with his stance on this legislation? (RTW). I meant that this is an exception to his main message, and shows he does see a role for federal government. I disagree, as RTW legislation is mostly the domain of the states, not the federal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think it's the first time he placed 4th in this race. Interesting, idn't it... Well, there are only four left and someone has to come in last place. Even when he does not, they will mention one of the others coming in 4th or whatever. Complaining about Paul coming in 4th but yet saying even the former top tier who are not longer in the race are more worthy. Does not compute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I disagree, as RTW legislation is mostly the domain of the states, not the federal government. It is? Why is he (Paul) calling it a "national right to work act"? That’s why Ron Paul has been a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act in Congress. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) It is? Why is he (Paul) calling it a "national right to work act"? That’s why Ron Paul has been a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act in Congress. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/ Because he needs to for political expediency. There is no "national" right to work law, as the battle has been fought on a state-by-state basis. This is pure politics, and organized labour is slowly losing the battle regardless of what Congress does. Edited January 22, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) No, I think you have it backwards....Ron Paul's populist message is mostly that "the people" need to be protected from a bloated and more intrusive federal government. He will lose on this idea because a good portion of "the people" are addicted to their entitlements. The corporations and banks must hate him, since those "entitlements" smooth the economic cycle, preventing a populist revolt. Edited January 22, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The corporations and banks must hate him, since those "entitlements" smooth the economic cycle, preventing a populist revolt. Meh...you have no pony in this show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Meh...you have no pony in this show. stfu, troll. Unlike jbg's comment, I didn't make it out like I had some personal tie to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 stfu, troll. Unlike jbg's comment, I didn't make it out like I had some personal tie to this. Not reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The corporations and banks must hate him, since those "entitlements" smooth the economic cycle, preventing a populist revolt. No, it's those entitlements that cause much of the economic problems in the first place. Preventing a stronger expanding economcy where people can work for themselves, and not have to rely on the government. See Greece as an example. Or almost every country in Europe. Or Canada in the 90s before the federal government reformed entitlements and cut spending across the board by almost 20%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 You seem to have no clue what capitalism was like before state intervention. There's a reason the government gets involved in the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.