xFrockx said:

Cmon Zappa, you can do better than this garbled mish mash of over generalizations and ad hominem attacks.

---

xFrockx said:

Try again.

---

Quote:

Any threat that a radical, nuclear Pakistan poses will be successfully neutralized by their next-door neighbor, India.

---

Quote:

If Ron Paul does become President, he'd clearly be carried into office by overwhelming support of the American people.

---

Quote:

The most effective role Ron Paul would play is as an obstacle to a Congress spending and spending, but what is more, is that the American people will be demanding Congress do what it needs to carry through his ideas.

---

Phred said:

Quote:

Any threat that a radical, nuclear Pakistan poses will be successfully neutralized by their next-door neighbor, India.

---

You can't be serious.

---

Why not? They've been fighting Pakistan's guerillas for quite some time. They understand the situation much more and have greater incentive than we do, as their country would have an actual threat.

Quote:

Overwhelming? Don't be delusional. Here's an educational exercise for you -- dig up for us the last president of the United States who was voted into office with more than 55% of the popular vote.

---

Sorry, but if Ron Paul receives the Republican nomination, there is no Democratic candidate that could even come close to the level he'll be at. On average, only 50% of the voting age population actually turns out. Ron Paul is already tapping into that vein. If Ron Paul receives the Republican nomination, I'd predict 75% of the popular vote.

Quote:

No matter who wins the 2008 election (and it certainly won't be Ron Paul), it won't be an overwhelming win.

---

If it is Ron Paul, it will be.

Quote:

This is just fantasy. The Executive and Congress are each jealous of the slightest whiff of the other encroaching on their turf. Congress will often thwart the Executive just to show it can. Why you believe this will change with a crank as president escapes me -- especially when that crank is calling for stripping vast chunks of power from Congress.

---

Congress is elected by and represents the people. If effective oversight of Congress by the people occurs, then that changes everything. It won't be business as usual, as such doesn't normally occur. If Ron Paul becomes president, it will be through the movement of people becoming active, and that oversight will exist. The work will be done when the boss is standing over their shoulders.

wilshire said:

everyone, including ron paul, knows he doesn't have a shot in the election. he's running because it's an opportunity for him and those who support what he's about to make a statement.

---

fireworks_god said:

wilshire said:

everyone, including ron paul, knows he doesn't have a shot in the election. he's running because it's an opportunity for him and those who support what he's about to make a statement.

---

Translation: Stupid rhetoric that isn't based in reality.

---

BrAiN said:

so when he DOESNT get the nod are you going to (a) admit you were kidding yourself or (b) start coming up with excuses as to why he didn't get the nod?

---

(C) All of the above. I definitely realize that I could be making the wrong assumptions from the information I am considering, which is beyond what the media reports and the conception that the media dictates who is chosen. Whether or not I would lean towards A or B depends on the specifics of what occurs along the trail. I have no qualms with admitting that I am wrong, and will not make up excuses to avoid doing so.

The Republican race is pretty open-ended right now, and if the major factor that is being considered in dismissing Ron Paul's chances is the polls, before a single primary has occured, in such an absolute, elections-are-over manner, then we know who is kidding themselves. It is no secret that a great amount of support of Ron Paul's simply does not register in these polls, the only question is how substansial that under-the-radar support is. One only needs to look to the grass-roots efforts to notice that it is fairly substansial. Ron Paul's campaign donations speaks volumes as well. Fact is, these polls are increasingly ineffective in determining the nature of reality regarding this.

A lot of the established media does not put too much stock in Ron Paul's chances, although that is conflicted because there is a lot being said in the mainstream media that speaks well of Ron Paul and his chances, especially agansit the backdrop of the open acknowledgement that the Republican party could go in any direction. A lot of these polls do place him tied for third in Iowa, for instance, and the under the radar support and the concentrated efforts of the grass-roots efforts in the state could definitely be enough to place him ahead of Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani. That will be proof of what is occuring, which should really give a valuable push to Ron Paul in New Hampshire, which is a state that I would think is already more receptive to voting for Ron Paul than Iowa is.

Let's not sell him short when even the mainstream media recognizes that he is well-poised to continue on into Super Tuesday in a race where more "credible" names such as McCain and Huckabee won't be capable of doing so without great success in these first two primaries. Florida is seeming quite favorable to Ron Paul, not to mention California, and the West Coast as a whole... and the South as a whole...  If he came in last in Iowa and does poorly in New Hampshire, then perhaps it will be a different story, but the atmosphere predicts better than that, and he's got the war chest to carry through without a landslide, which I wouldn't rule out either.

We're down to the moments now where it will be evidenced very soon what is happening in this country with the Ron Paul movement, so there's no sense in speculating much further. I just think its lazy for people to rely on the poll numbers in absence of doing their own research, or, worse, get actively involved in making it happen.

wilshire said:

ron paul is not going to win the election. that is what all of the polls, futures markets, and betting agents are saying.

---

The first votes in the primaries haven't even been cast yet, which is what makes your statement about the general election stupid rhetoric. Far too much can and will happen in that time. No one would have predicted Huckabee's sudden surge in the polls a month ago. I wonder what odds the betting agents placed on that.

Quote:

as of now, the likely winners are, in this order:

1. clinton
2. obama
3. giuliani

---

Nonsense. It isn't based in reality. Giuliani is set to place poorly in the early primaries and his plan to take the Super Tuesday states is ill-conceived. Of course, with no votes cast yet in any primary and the general election months away, its entirely possible that Obama and Giuliani won't even be in the race after February. It certainly is convient to make absolute statements though, based on arbitrary numbers.

Quote:

ron paul is somewhere around 8th or 10th, with current polls in the single digits, futures prices a small fraction of that of the big names, and betting odds around 1 in 20.

---

Now is the time to bet, it sounds like.

Again, one only need look to Mike Huckabee's lazy eye to realize that these polls are entirely unpredictive of what tomorrow brings. Of course, some did see it coming before it happened, and that is because they were looking at trends, potential, and the nature of reality. They weren't looking at arbitrary polls from a week ago.

Quote:

^ not stupid rhetoric.

---

Quote:

yet we're hearing a lot more about ron paul, and what he stands for, than we did 2 years ago. we're hearing a lot more about it than we would if he was not running, and we're going to continue hearing about it. that's the point of this.

---

The point of what... your selling him short, with little information or understanding to base it upon?

Quote:

don't be surprised if he runs as an independent when he doesn't get the republican nomination (i'll vote for him).

---

Why shouldn't we be surprised? I think it would be surprising if the law were changed in a lot of states in order to even allow this to happen.

There are too many obstacles for Ron Paul to run as an independent candidate now, especially to do so successfully. The only plausible scenario I see in which he would do so is for leverage to receive the Republican nomination.

Quote:

then hopefully he will continue to make noise, and politicians will see that liberty is still politically marketable, and adjust their policies accordingly in the future. just don't expect him to win the election.

---

No, it isn't enough to settle for that, Ron Paul isn't settling for that and the grass-roots campaign is not settling for that, the situation this country is in is too dire to settle for that. It is survival at this point.

wilshire said:

of course things can change. that's why there is wagering and futures speculation at all. what is most likely to happen is that clinton, obama, or giuliani will win the presidential election.

---

No, it isn't what is most likely to happen, unless you would be kind enough to demonstrate exactly how it is most likely to happen.

Quote:

i'm just going with the best available data here. you're going with... what?

---

The best available data. If you think the polls and the speculative gambling is the best way to gauge what will happen in a general election when the first votes in the primaries haven't even been cast, then you're a moron.

Quote:

i'm citing prediction methods that have proven accurate in the past. you are not.

---

Quote:

what chance do you give ron paul in winning the presidential election?

better than 1 in 10?

---

It all depends on how the primaries occur, naturally. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, then I would give him 1 in 1 odds. His chances of winning the Republican nomination? At this point, before any voting has occured, I'd say 1 in 3.

Quote:

I'd give you those odds in a second. Care to take them?

---