How to guarantee Ron Paul won't run 3rd party
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
New polling puts Dr. Ron Paul up even higher than is being generally reported, Politico reports:
The latest Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG poll reinforces the trend showing Ron Paul to be the local favorite:
Paul is the first choice of 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucusgoers among the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents contacted by ISU. That’s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG poll in November. He’s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from 16.3. ...
While Paul’s lead is easily within the margin of error, James McCormick, professor and chair of political science at Iowa State and coordinator of the poll, says the polling found that 51 percent of those naming the libertarian-leaning Texan as their first choice are “definitely” backing him.
The percentage for the next two candidates is much weaker, at 16.1 percent for Romney and 15.2 for Gingrich, McCormick said.
The poll was taken over a long period of time -- Dec. 8 to 18 -- so that could explain why Gingrich's numbers look better here than they do elsewhere. The biggest takeaway, though, is that Paul-mentum is showing up in a number of places now and the intensity of his support is very real.
Paul is the first choice of 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucusgoers among the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents contacted by ISU. That’s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG poll in November. He’s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from 16.3. ...
While Paul’s lead is easily within the margin of error, James McCormick, professor and chair of political science at Iowa State and coordinator of the poll, says the polling found that 51 percent of those naming the libertarian-leaning Texan as their first choice are “definitely” backing him.
The percentage for the next two candidates is much weaker, at 16.1 percent for Romney and 15.2 for Gingrich, McCormick said.
The poll was taken over a long period of time -- Dec. 8 to 18 -- so that could explain why Gingrich's numbers look better here than they do elsewhere. The biggest takeaway, though, is that Paul-mentum is showing up in a number of places now and the intensity of his support is very real.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The Tea Party Anniversary Money Bomb, which supposedly "ended" Sunday midnight with slightly over $4 million, has been left up on the Ron Paul Campaign website. Normally it's taken down after each event, after donations taper off.
However, it appears that this time, at least for the moment, something different is happening - the donations continue to steadily flow in - apparently with no let up.
As of a moment ago ..... two days after "ending" ..... the total haul now stands at:
Now I could be wrong about this, but I predict that by the time the Iowa primary rolls around (January 3rd) it will have reached critical mass .... and it will appear as though someone has opened a floodgate.
There is a very specific reason why this is happening.
However, it appears that this time, at least for the moment, something different is happening - the donations continue to steadily flow in - apparently with no let up.
As of a moment ago ..... two days after "ending" ..... the total haul now stands at:
$4.312 million dollars
Now I could be wrong about this, but I predict that by the time the Iowa primary rolls around (January 3rd) it will have reached critical mass .... and it will appear as though someone has opened a floodgate.
There is a very specific reason why this is happening.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
G,
Sorry I missed this one - got lost in the shuffle
Yeah ... I'm thinkin' it could be lookin' like it - seems like the GOP Establishment sure thinks something is afoot:
There are some among the media, having at least some degree of integrity, and not being driven solely by a partisan agenda, who might qualify as "honest brokers" and are willing to speak truth to power - here are three:
People in Iowa Rally To Real Change
Why Ron Paul Shouldn't be Dismissed
As Paul Gains Republican Establishment is Losing It
Ron Paul: GOP Establishment Heartburn
The following video from back in 2007 is incredible because of what it reveals, much of which has come true, a good deal of it fairly recently:
Four Star General Confirms Ron Paul's Views on Present Foreign Policy
Clearly, Wesley forgot he was being recorded ... can't imagine anyone would let him wander this far off the farm ....
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I have to add something else to that thought.
Seeing the tea party people have been slammed by the republicans a few times, this latest round of "we aren't going along with the dems" has put a lot of people on the defensive over the unemployment extension, etc. ... So I'm wondering how many of the tea party people are going to support Paul over the republican party (maybe leave or at least force a BIG change) because they may not be reelectable if they end up appearing to be aligned with the present republican leadership in congress?
I know I should have added this in the first place but the tea party people were told to sit down and shut up when the debt issue was being discussed and before that the 2011 budget. They wanted to allow the government to shut down which to me was the right thing to do but the house leadership and the senate minority leadership both were not going to allow this to happen. That was the time to put a stop to a lot of the crap and stop working with the dems, but not now.
Seeing the tea party people have been slammed by the republicans a few times, this latest round of "we aren't going along with the dems" has put a lot of people on the defensive over the unemployment extension, etc. ... So I'm wondering how many of the tea party people are going to support Paul over the republican party (maybe leave or at least force a BIG change) because they may not be reelectable if they end up appearing to be aligned with the present republican leadership in congress?
I know I should have added this in the first place but the tea party people were told to sit down and shut up when the debt issue was being discussed and before that the 2011 budget. They wanted to allow the government to shut down which to me was the right thing to do but the house leadership and the senate minority leadership both were not going to allow this to happen. That was the time to put a stop to a lot of the crap and stop working with the dems, but not now.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Sweet new video ad for Dr. Paul from Tom Woods and the good folks over at RevolutionPAC
Adherence to the Oath
Adherence to the Oath
That's an awfully, awfully powerful ad with a very powerful message. It's not even about Ron Paul, it's about the message and why people need to wake up and realize that business and politics as usual will destroy everything we believe in. It's already happening.
That 'people' have awakened to the need for changes is clear in the 2 watershed events in recent years: Obama's election [promising 'hope & change'] and the Occupy Movements.
Both are unprecedented evidence of the growing need for changing 'business as usual', and those who ignore and/or deny it are living in a fantasy world.
Like Washington DC, and Wall Street, executive boardrooms, campaign headquarters, and medialand.
They don't 'get it' yet, but they will.
Politicians [just like Gingrich, Romney, Perry, et al] have brought the US to the edge of disaster, and more like them is the last thing we need.
We need a statesman: Ron Paul.
I don't agree with every one of his positions, but I think he has more personal integrity than the rest combined, and that alone is worth supporting.
Both are unprecedented evidence of the growing need for changing 'business as usual', and those who ignore and/or deny it are living in a fantasy world.
Like Washington DC, and Wall Street, executive boardrooms, campaign headquarters, and medialand.
They don't 'get it' yet, but they will.
Politicians [just like Gingrich, Romney, Perry, et al] have brought the US to the edge of disaster, and more like them is the last thing we need.
We need a statesman: Ron Paul.
I don't agree with every one of his positions, but I think he has more personal integrity than the rest combined, and that alone is worth supporting.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Indeed .... I was quite impressed when I watched it.
Dunno if RevPac is using the same very talented DC outfit as the Paul campaign, but whoever put this together is way gifted (IMO
)Precisely: The Message is King.
And, as Marshall McLuhan has said: the medium is the message.
Being able to exploit it like was done in this case, and largely in the Paul campaign's other ads as well, is a feat that few are able to achieve - as is clearly evident when comparing and contrasting to what some of the other campaigns are running.
When you can achieve the paradigm of making your stuff look like the real thing ..... and consequently having some of the others looking like substitutes for it ... that is quite a feat
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Yes, both of those events show that the number of people who believe they have a right to Other People's Money has grown to the point at which they can actually destroy the country.
Part of what I snipped was your mention of "living in a fantasy land," and that's what you're doing. The politicians who brought us to this point (principally) are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, and the others on the left who don't believe in private property/private capital, or the Bill of Rights. And they had some help from some on the other side of the aisle, but the ones listed led the charge.
You're right on that. He's right on domestic issues, he's right on foreign policy, and he believes in private property and the Bill of Rights. And if he's elected, the first assassination attempt will likely be in a month or two.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I do not think that this assessment is necessarily and entirely correct - it is a stereotype perhaps based on biased media coverage which has an agenda - and by crass political exploitation on the part of both politicians and ideologues.
BTW, the Tea Party Movement should also be included in the above grouping of cheri's.
It is a mistake to get trapped into the false paradigm of diametrically opposed political ideologies. I'll have more to say on that shortly.
I would humbly suggest that rather than practicing Mutually Assured Destruction, we practice Dr. Paul's philosophy of Mutually Assured Respect with our fellow comrades in arms. Try to see the perspective of their views, rather than immediately dismissing them out of hand - afterall: we do have common cause ....
Just one man's opinion tho' .... all are free to do as they please.
This problem goes back much further than you seem to suggest - having it's genesis in the creation of the Federal Reserve and the subsequent institution of the Federal Income Tax - which can certainly be laid at the feet of those who do not fit the political profile which you listed above (IOW, they were "Republicans")
This in fact, was far more insidious and devastating - for it enabled all of that which you refer to that came after.
Pay no attention to those who give lip service to private property/private capital ..... whilst simultaneously acting as puppets of those who have em-placed a system which surreptitiously robs the citizens of a nation of their wealth and enslaves them ...
The M-I-B-C (Military-Industrial-Banking-Complex) will probably not go quietly into the night .... that's for sure.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
This would seem to be a worthwhile concept to pursue, in furtherance of the Revolution and accomplishing it's goals, after the first major skirmish is won:
No Labels: Not Left. Not Right. Forward
The solution lies not in divisiveness and political warfare over a false ideological paradigm, but mutual action towards common goals that can be agreed on, allowing liberty and freedom to resolve that which cannot.
No Labels: Not Left. Not Right. Forward
The solution lies not in divisiveness and political warfare over a false ideological paradigm, but mutual action towards common goals that can be agreed on, allowing liberty and freedom to resolve that which cannot.
Yes, both of those events show that the number of people who believe they have a right to Other People's Money has grown to the point at which they can actually destroy the country.
Is that really what they believe? Or is it just possibly what the [corporate owned] media choose to portray for your consideration? You know: the same media that pretended [as long as it could] that Dr Paul wasn't worth considering in the current race. Maybe they have an agenda that doesn't permit them to acknowledge that the protesters have some valid reasons to feel as they do, and it's not about their right to other people's money. Not even close.
RLENT is correct, I should have included the Tea Party also. It seemed less of a major surprise than the other two, but it's also groundbreaking, and it's not fading away, either.
Part of what I snipped was your mention of "living in a fantasy land," and that's what you're doing. The politicians who brought us to this point (principally) are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, and the others on the left who don't believe in private property/private capital, or the Bill of Rights. And they had some help from some on the other side of the aisle, but the ones listed led the charge.
You can pick your villains, I'll pick mine - doesn't matter which names or parties are responsible, in the end, does it? Because none will ever take responsibility for the errors of their ways, they just blame it on their predecessors [who are conveniently unavailable to answer for their sins] and we are stuck paying the tab.
And we're broke, man.
You're right on that. He's right on domestic issues, he's right on foreign policy, and he believes in private property and the Bill of Rights. And if he's elected, the first assassination attempt will likely be in a month or two.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
Haha - if you skip the two dollar words [paradigm is one you don't hear every day, lol] it's what I've been saying for years.
Waaay too much aggressive competition in our culture, and our politics, too.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Let me preface my comments by saying that I believe you are both right (in your own ways) - the trick of the matter might be in seeing how that is so.
I saw some "citizen journalist" done video on YouTube where they taped a MSM TV video crew out at OWS, and the MSM TV reporter was deliberately focusing on that aspect (people that wanted others money, the whacky, etc.), picking out the more "radical" elements in the crowd, and willfully ignoring common everyday people who were actually trying to talk to her.
She (the MSM TV reporter) was getting verbally accosted by normally every day folks because these folks recognized exactly what it was that she was doing: operating off an agenda, not to report the truth, but to portray things in a particular light, based on whatever her agenda was.
Part of the reason why is that corporate-owned media is not against (all) wealth redistribution - since they themselves are benefitting from it (as a consequence of crony capitalism) probably in not so obvious ways, that aren't really thought much about.
On the other hand, if one looks to some of the stuff on YouTube and the like, featuring people that have come out in support OWS, I see a lot of just normal, everyday people that don't necessarily want wealth distribution - just a fair opportunity to succeed on their own merits and efforts, in a system which is set up, often in some not so obvious ways, so as to effectively deny a level playing field. That (a level playing field) is how it is supposed to be - but in many ways it currently isn't.
That is not to say that there are not a significant amount of folks within the movement whose minds are muddled with wrong-headed ideology.
Education, in some cases, is needed no doubt. No, wait - that's actually wrong - education is needed in all cases.
Now ask yourself what the Rightists will be arguing (and doing) - it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see what could occur (think Central America for starters) - things that would not be dissimilar to our current foreign policy in terms of "preemptive action" to ward off "threats"
Neither side can lay claim to being pure as the driven snow and sinless.
The whole "Left"/"Right" thing is a false ideological duality. The trick to attaining freedom and liberty, is not to engage in participating in a duality of false choice - because it is rarely the case that only two choices are available.
The NoLabels folks seemingly have recognized this - and it is very interesting that the core group (pics of faces and names on their website) contains a number former federal politicians who have recognized that the current politics (which are essentially ideologically-driven political bloodsport) being practiced in Washington on a national level are the functional equivalent Mutual Assured Destruction.
We's killin' ourselves - and why commit suicide when, with a self-reflection, personal honesty to oneself, and little effort to work with others - even if one may not agree with them on all matters - one can live ?
The Right engages in the very same thing, just simply in different ways.
Neither is totally right - nor are they totally wrong. It's inherently a false premise that one - or the other - is either. Solutions are to be found down a path that requires the removal of certain ideological blinders.
As but one example of that is the drug laws - just look at the fact of how many are incarcerated in prison for non-violent, victimless (save for self) drug crimes. Look at the disportionate numbers of minorities. Look at the sentence disparities between minorities and whites (crack vs. coke)
Aside from the fact of freedom, liberty, and being personally responsible for one's own actions dictating that it should be, and is an individual's right to consume whatever the heck he wants (as long as it does not directly harm others), ask yourself what is the net effect of placing non-violent "criminals" into close proximity with those who actually are hardened violent criminals for real ..... and then placing them back into society ?
If you want to manufacture real criminals you probably couldn't come up with a better system. It's literally insane - so why do it ?
I'm passionately anti-drug for very good personal reasons - nevertheless, if I am going to say I support freedom, liberty, individual rights, and personal responsibility, then how can I possibly be intellectually honest - and say that I support the right of an individual to consume alcohol .... but at the same time, they they ought to go to prison if they smoke dope ? or snort coke ? or shoot heroin ?
I can't.
I personally wouldn't use drugs even if they were legal, and I think that is probably the case for almost everyone that doesn't currently use them. The laws don't prevent people from doing drugs - their own self-interest does.
And aside from the above, there is also the matter of what the illegality, which itself drives up prices, does in terms of fostering criminality by of creating the narco-trafficantes (drug dealers), .... and the real "drug wars" that they spawn.
Drugs being illegal only make it more lucrative for people to be involved in trafficking. Big economic incentives drives the violence.
It will take a lot intellectual honesty - and perhaps slaying a sacred cow or two.
And getting beyond the idea that "I am right" and "they are wrong"
I don't think so - in fact, I know for a fact, not.
I saw some "citizen journalist" done video on YouTube where they taped a MSM TV video crew out at OWS, and the MSM TV reporter was deliberately focusing on that aspect (people that wanted others money, the whacky, etc.), picking out the more "radical" elements in the crowd, and willfully ignoring common everyday people who were actually trying to talk to her.
She (the MSM TV reporter) was getting verbally accosted by normally every day folks because these folks recognized exactly what it was that she was doing: operating off an agenda, not to report the truth, but to portray things in a particular light, based on whatever her agenda was.
LOL ..... depends on what media you're referring to
Part of the reason why is that corporate-owned media is not against (all) wealth redistribution - since they themselves are benefitting from it (as a consequence of crony capitalism) probably in not so obvious ways, that aren't really thought much about.
In a lot of cases it's certain true, and I think it's an absolutely valid point.
On the other hand, if one looks to some of the stuff on YouTube and the like, featuring people that have come out in support OWS, I see a lot of just normal, everyday people that don't necessarily want wealth distribution - just a fair opportunity to succeed on their own merits and efforts, in a system which is set up, often in some not so obvious ways, so as to effectively deny a level playing field. That (a level playing field) is how it is supposed to be - but in many ways it currently isn't.
That is not to say that there are not a significant amount of folks within the movement whose minds are muddled with wrong-headed ideology.
Education, in some cases, is needed no doubt. No, wait - that's actually wrong - education is needed in all cases.
Well, hopefully we'll be able to avoid that little exercise, and avert disaster. There is a limited time to do so however. It will be a Herculean task, no doubt.
You're likely right in that respect. However that's only half the story.
Now ask yourself what the Rightists will be arguing (and doing) - it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see what could occur (think Central America for starters) - things that would not be dissimilar to our current foreign policy in terms of "preemptive action" to ward off "threats"
Neither side can lay claim to being pure as the driven snow and sinless.
The whole "Left"/"Right" thing is a false ideological duality. The trick to attaining freedom and liberty, is not to engage in participating in a duality of false choice - because it is rarely the case that only two choices are available.
The NoLabels folks seemingly have recognized this - and it is very interesting that the core group (pics of faces and names on their website) contains a number former federal politicians who have recognized that the current politics (which are essentially ideologically-driven political bloodsport) being practiced in Washington on a national level are the functional equivalent Mutual Assured Destruction.
We's killin' ourselves - and why commit suicide when, with a self-reflection, personal honesty to oneself, and little effort to work with others - even if one may not agree with them on all matters - one can live ?
Certainly, they are - however one must seek to understand how both sides (left/right, conservative/liberal, etc.) are both right - and wrong at the same time.
The Left has no monopoly on bad ideas and on the use force by the State on the individual (all propaganda to contrary aside)
The Right engages in the very same thing, just simply in different ways.
Neither is totally right - nor are they totally wrong. It's inherently a false premise that one - or the other - is either. Solutions are to be found down a path that requires the removal of certain ideological blinders.
As but one example of that is the drug laws - just look at the fact of how many are incarcerated in prison for non-violent, victimless (save for self) drug crimes. Look at the disportionate numbers of minorities. Look at the sentence disparities between minorities and whites (crack vs. coke)
Aside from the fact of freedom, liberty, and being personally responsible for one's own actions dictating that it should be, and is an individual's right to consume whatever the heck he wants (as long as it does not directly harm others), ask yourself what is the net effect of placing non-violent "criminals" into close proximity with those who actually are hardened violent criminals for real ..... and then placing them back into society ?
If you want to manufacture real criminals you probably couldn't come up with a better system. It's literally insane - so why do it ?
I'm passionately anti-drug for very good personal reasons - nevertheless, if I am going to say I support freedom, liberty, individual rights, and personal responsibility, then how can I possibly be intellectually honest - and say that I support the right of an individual to consume alcohol .... but at the same time, they they ought to go to prison if they smoke dope ? or snort coke ? or shoot heroin ?
I can't.
I personally wouldn't use drugs even if they were legal, and I think that is probably the case for almost everyone that doesn't currently use them. The laws don't prevent people from doing drugs - their own self-interest does.
And aside from the above, there is also the matter of what the illegality, which itself drives up prices, does in terms of fostering criminality by of creating the narco-trafficantes (drug dealers), .... and the real "drug wars" that they spawn.
Drugs being illegal only make it more lucrative for people to be involved in trafficking. Big economic incentives drives the violence.
I think that that's true as far as it goes - but I think that when doing the inventory for ideas to be uprooted, one has to consider all ideas - regardless of where they reside on the political spectrum, or how people choose to categorize or portray them in the political.
It will take a lot intellectual honesty - and perhaps slaying a sacred cow or two.
And getting beyond the idea that "I am right" and "they are wrong"
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Looks like some would prefer that the foxes guard the hen house:
Original Article:
Republican Security Advisers Tied to $40 Billion in Contracts
Original Article:
Republican Security Advisers Tied to $40 Billion in Contracts