Who is this Ron Paul?

[SoEnchanting]

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SoEnchanting

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

All I know about him is a) he won't win... yeah I'm sure about that... and b) his people are very annoying on the internet and appear, at least to me, to be failing in "getting the word out" and succeeding at "annoy the crap out of people so they won't vote for him even if they liked his platform which they won't read now because they're annoyed"

Or something like that.

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10.

Exaaaaaaaaccctttllyyy.

[nittanyalum]

EE-BO, you're a Mod, I have a question. What does it actually take to rid the boards of a troll? Do they have to cross a particular line, or is obvious and repeated trolling reason enough for a ban? (e.g., see above)


ETA: Troll edited post to sound more sane...

[nittanyalum]

Wasn't talking to you, fool. Please see that I addressed my post TO a moderator.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

EE-BO, you're a Mod, I have a question. What does it actually take to rid the boards of a troll? Do they have to cross a particular line, or is obvious and repeated trolling reason enough for a ban? (e.g., see above)


ETA: Troll edited post to sound more sane...

Your best bet is to report posts that violate the TOS and then the appropriate mods will take action. I do not moderate this particular board or have the power to ban someone- so there is not much more I can offer.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

EE-BO, you're a Mod, I have a question. What does it actually take to rid the boards of a troll? Do they have to cross a particular line, or is obvious and repeated trolling reason enough for a ban? (e.g., see above)


ETA: Troll edited post to sound more sane...

James, PenguinTrax, and John are the only ones who can ban. PM James or PT. Generally, even if the troll hasn't QUITE crossed the line, enough PMs will get them banned anyway.

[1908Revelations]

Originally Posted by SoEnchanting

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

LOL!!! They are spraypainted on old coke banners and sheets (at least that is what it looks like). When I first saw it I was thinking he was some one local or something. I have not see anymore of his signs, I guess they were not durable enouth to hold up. KapitalPhi (I can not spell his new name so RainMan) has Ron Paul in his siggy.

[AlphaFrog]

Ron Paul is about the only candidate that would ever make me want to vote Democrat. He's a bit of a nutjob in my opinion.

[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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by SoEnchanting

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

From the Washington Post site:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...ates/ron-paul/
From MSNBC site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17153378/
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can.../ron.paul.html
Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...ndex.html#c=15

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...nton_and_obama

I too have seen people carrying signs for him as well a few road signs.

[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 . . .