Who is this Ron Paul?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

He has some very good general notions- but on economics he is an absolute moron, and his simplistic view of foreign policy is troubling.

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10. He has some seemingly good ideas that resonate with the simple-minded average voter at an emotional level- but he does not even comprehend the intelligent and discretion required of the office to which he aspires.

I think support for him has been so strong because a lot of the Republican base does not like Giuliani's more liberal views on social matters and because an intelligent and progressive society is never going to put a Mormon nutjob (Romney) in the Oval office.

If Huckabee looks to be the winner of the nomination- or even Giuliani (who I support)- then Ron Paul will become "Ron Who?" pretty fast.

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.

[Tom Earp]

One never knows? Stranger things have happened in past elections.

The 50/50 is a good analogy!

50% agree and 50% do not follow his reasoning!

It will be an interesting grass roots effort won't it?

Have not really seen anyone I would trust to run the country anyway!

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.

Well said.

My comment about the "simple minded" voter is reflective of my feeling that he too often comes up with overly simplistic ideas and promises that have a lot of initial emotional appeal- but just won't work. It is a style of campaigning that appeals to one's impulses- and it is really kind of insulting since even the average person can readily see where his ideas cannot work as presented.

Even under a flat tax or consumption tax, the IRS will remain in place- and they will have a lot of work to do. The agency may shrink in size with attrition, but it would still be there. If a consumption tax were created, for example, you can bet it would be applied to internet sales as well- watch out eBayers. Getting all that set up and enforcing it would keep the IRS busy for the forseeable future.

And pulling out of Iraq overnight would not work either. Candidates can say what they want- but whoever wins will, I expect, find very quickly that there is no easy next step to dealing with our current foreign policy situation. Hillary herself sees this and is very responsible about not making promises she cannot keep, even if her base wants to hear those promises.

Ron Paul would have had a real shot here- but he has been too activist in his public speeches. I think he makes a great advocate for a given position in his current role, but this is not someone who can lead a diverse nation where fast and easy solutions to problems are few and far between.

As for Hillary- I think Guiliani could beat her. Maybe Huckabee too as he attracts more attention- but only if he survives the intense scrutiny that is coming now that he is seen as a more serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

Hillary's "game face" has, to my mind, taken people by surprise - I agree that she's taken to the role quite well, better than I thought she would at the least, and I don't think anyone can question her intelligence or drive on any level.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

.

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other current candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.
Just to help:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...llary-clinton/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...y.clinton.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...index.html#c=6
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalco...hillaryclinton

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean.

Here's a good example of what I'm referring to:
Voting record

Hillary has certainly showed up more than the average Congressman, but pretty much at average for a Senator. Look at the "NV" issues, though - some of the ones she rails against the most, which is certainly interesting. For instance, she has a perfect Appropriations record, but a very spotty record on the Budget, one area where she assails the current administration (and for the record, I think she's right - but the record speaks for itself).

Her ability to push things through, which would seem to be a part of being President, is not particularly special, as well:
See here.

She's average or worse at sponsoring, voting on or enacting bills, which should be a negative considering public opinion polls for Congress. For all of the shit that Obama gets for inexperience, Hillary hasn't exactly made the most of her time in Congress. This is what I mean by "Congressional record" - I realize she was there, Jon. I realize Governors and other officials get elected all the time. However, look at the record and tell me what I'm missing.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean..

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?
Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:

Originally Posted by jon1856

Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.

Originally Posted by jon1856

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

Good post, EE-BO - you're probably the best poster on this site, post more homey.

I don't disagree with your views on Mormonism - in fact, I'm probably much more anti-Mormon, and my problems are based on their history of institutional racism, sexism and child abuse, but at the end of the day we reach the same conclusion: as a collective, they're nuts.

Interestingly, I could never vote for Romney for totally different reasons than his faith - mostly his abortion stance, which is laughable if you look at his record as a whole. I agree with your comment that flip-flopping is appropriate given an articulated reason, which is why Romney's moves on this stance just blow me away.

Also, I appreciate the insight from the finance world - honestly, my level of expertise is essentially "have dollars, call i-banking buddies, get the lay of the land, trust them for better or worse" . . . still, though, the grand jury portion of the situation blows me away, especially since it seems comparable to, say, Giuliani's marital issues, in that both were likely somewhat wrong and somewhat common for better or worse. I hope that makes sense.