Wow, he really is trying hard to make himself irrelevant. He’s becoming the Andy Rooney of the conservative punderati.
Well, who are you endorsing?
Or are you arguing that Paul is a joke candidate? And Gingrich isn’t? Fucking hell, Newt Gingrich is now leading in the polls. This is what the Republican party has come to. The nomination of Gingrich will be a disaster for conservatism and the Republican party. Not because they’ll lose, of course they’ll lose, that’s not the point. The point is the wreckage Gingrich will leave in his wake.
I used to almost always vote Republican, but the party has gone fucking crazy. Out of the entire presidential field, the most conservative person running is Barack Obama. And you think I’m joking.
I don’t think you are using the term socialsim correctly.
Yeah, I like some of his ideas but I’d hate to put some military guy in the position of having to shoot the old coot because Ron is trying to nuke the commie bastards in NYC.
I think you might have conflated the terms conservative and sane at some point in your life (probably sometime in the 1970s) and never gotten out of the habit.
IANAR, so I’m not endorsing anyone, but Romney is, I think, the only guy who has a realistic chance of beating Obama. Ron Paul has a sizable following, but it’s upper limit is like 20% of Republicans and 10% of the general electorate. Newt is surging now, but he’ll blow up on the campaign trail in the general election.
Romney has a chance of getting the support of the independents. I don’t think Newt will get much support from that crucial block.
And even Romney looks to be facing an uphill battle right now. Any positive economic news landing next July through October and the Republican candidate will be irrelevant.
It’s astonishing times. Romney appears to be the sane choice to any professional observer but his party is lukewarm at best. Independents aren’t rallying behind him and he’s trailing the President in head to head. His main recco is that he doesn’t trail as much as anyone else.
Honestly, it’ll be interesting to see what the Republican party looks like in 10 years. It’ll be an ugly process but they truly seem to be in the process of immolating themselves.
The only reasonable path for Republicans is to nominate Ron Paul but not necessarily for 2012 as it is obvious that they are still going through a very messy reality check. The purpose would be to go back to the roots and rebuild with the most decent and honest person right now on Fox TV debate.
I’m monitoring the tweet dodge/answer meter and Ron is always in the range past 50% of answer (green). No other candidate gets even close and most of them spend time in red - http://live.foxnews.com/
The way he answers questions is remarkably concise and clear. I get it. His assessment of people who spend money on wars and people who spend on social programs is simply brilliant - they both SPEND OTHER PPL MONEY!
Also, opinion on courts - while all other candidates show their partisan colors (e.g. they all would like to clone Scalia 8 times and make Supreme Court THEY LIKE). At the same time Ron says the issue is the split of individual liberty and economic liberty where in fact it’s all one and the same. Therefore, as he says, they can be good and bad.
Ron is simply intellectual giant at the debates but he obviously does not know game of politics that most of US electorate got hooked on and cant see clearly anymore.
Live debate: “Iran is ruled by Al-Qaida” by Santorum
There you go!
Live debate: “When you’re nice and timid you invite aggression” by Romney on the subject of Obama asking nicely for drone back from Iran
Fantastic!
Where does he suggest that Mexico is actively seeking the destruction of the US?
You might want to examine your own crazy conspiracy theories if you think he might drop a nuclear bomb because of a possible highway.
Don’t get me wrong. I love having Ron Paul in the primaries. I love having him in the debates. But it’s similar to the way I loved having Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primaries/debates. I can disagree with what both have to say, but it’s sooooo refreshing to see someone who has a principle, consistent political philosophy even if I don’t agree with it.
Are Buddy Roemer, Jon Huntsman, and Gary Johnson decent human beings or assholes?
I honestly don’t know, but it seems like our choices are being managed by the media.
I don’t know who Roemer or Johnson is (maybe the media is making a choice there), but the media loves Huntsman. He just doesn’t get any traction. My guess is that he is sorely lacking in the charisma department. Watching him in the debates, he seems so… passionless, for lack of a better word.
That is the message of all this “North American Union” scaremongering. It doesn’t make a lot of sense – certainly in any U.S./Canada/Mexico union, the U.S. would be the dominant partner, and what could be more American than a great big superhighway? – but that’s the message.
But… you made “the message” up in your head!
What’s next - when Santorum says that “Iran is ruled by Al Qaida” the message is US should lift embargo and trade freely with Iran and be nice?
Not my head. Alex Jones’, maybe.
:dubious: How could he not know the game of politics after so many years in it?
Because he’s a unicorn, the paragon of Uncorruptable Pure Pureness. Understanding the political system would mean he’s been tarnished by it. He’s kinda like Dubya in that regard: Ignorance is purity, and one must remain pure.
Oh, and he’s also the only real intellectual in the Great Old Party and don’t you for-geet eet!
Out of the candidates from last night debate who do you pick over Ron and why?
None Of The Above, which is the equivalent of a vote in favor of Ron Paul except it doesn’t support a racist crank.
You must not have heard about David Duke changing his name.