POLL BOMBSHELL: Ron Paul Is Close To A Win In Iowa

[SemperFiUSMC]

I believe that as more people are forced to deal with the consequences, fraud and deception of EstablishmentWashington, the more they are going to be receptive to Paul's message, which has been consistent for many years. Still a ways to go yet, but I think people are starting to wake up (hopefully) and are realizing that we are being plundered and lied to.

Why? Paul has been part of the fraud and deception of Washington for 23 years and is the master of smoke and mirror legislating. He inserts his own earmarks in bills and then votes against final passage so that he can claim to abhor earmarks. His behavior is intellectually dishonest and political shenaniganery. While I have absolutely no use for the likes of Lugar, Durban, Schumer, inter alia, at least they openly acknowledge they are pork farmers.

 

[dross]

I agree with a Rambone post above that Gingrich is sinking. Proof that the vetting process works, I've learned some things about him I didn't know, and enough people I trust have registered doubts that it's made me reconsider.

So of course that means Ron Paul will win. Most voters prefer more responsiblity, a smaller safety net, and are willing to share more of the load than they currently carry. Sure the Social Security voters will at first be upset, but then they'll realize that while their own interests are important, they aren't as important as unfairly taking the money from younger people.

Also, most voters, especially Republican primary voters simply don't see a nuclear Iran as a real threat. The ones who do will come around as soon as Dr. Paul explains it to them.

Also, the fifty percent of the country who currently pay no income tax most likely feel guilty about not doing their fair share. Also, most people think that what our tax code does to the upper income folks is really unfair.

I think it's the teachers who will really come around to Paul's viewpoint. I doubt they really truly believe that education is a federal issue, and they'd all be willing to take less compensation in exchange for less job security and more performance pressure.

Also, most people think the labor laws are stupid. And also most people will understand how the minimum wage actually hurts the people it's supposed to help. I've been trying to make that argument to other Republicans, fiscally conservative Republicans, without much success, but I'm sure that Paul will explain it in such a way that everyone will understand and come around.

Paul is a lock over Romney, a guy whose entire career has been about studying what's popular and successfully delivering it.

If Paul doesn't win, it will be entirely the fault of his not getting press, of unfair attacks that NO other Republican candidate has had to face, and of the Republican establishment rigging it against him.

It will have nothing to do with the idea that most voters, when they understand his positions, strongly disagree with him. That's just crazy.

 

[KG1]

I agree with a Rambone post above that Gingrich is sinking. Proof that the vetting process works, I've learned some things about him I didn't know, and enough people I trust have registered doubts that it's made me reconsider.

So of course that means Ron Paul will win. Most voters prefer more responsiblity, a smaller safety net, and are willing to share more of the load than they currently carry. Sure the Social Security voters will at first be upset, but then they'll realize that while their own interests are important, they aren't as important as unfairly taking the money from younger people.

Also, most voters, especially Republican primary voters simply don't see a nuclear Iran as a real threat. The ones who do will come around as soon as Dr. Paul explains it to them.

Also, the fifty percent of the country who currently pay no income tax most likely feel guilty about not doing their fair share. Also, most people think that what our tax code does to the upper income folks is really unfair.

I think it's the teachers who will really come around to Paul's viewpoint. I doubt they really truly believe that education is a federal issue, and they'd all be willing to take less compensation in exchange for less job security and more performance pressure.

Also, most people think the labor laws are stupid. And also most people will understand how the minimum wage actually hurts the people it's supposed to help. I've been trying to make that argument to other Republicans, fiscally conservative Republicans, without much success, but I'm sure that Paul will explain it in such a way that everyone will understand and come around.

Paul is a lock over Romney, a guy whose entire career has been about studying what's popular and successfully delivering it.

If Paul doesn't win, it will be entirely the fault of his not getting press, of unfair attacks that NO other Republican candidate has had to face, and of the Republican establishment rigging it against him.

It will have nothing to do with the idea that most voters, when they understand his positions, strongly disagree with him. That's just crazy.

I'm looking at this though purple colored glasses.

 

[KG1]

Thats not an endorsment of Romney. An opinionated slander of the other candidates isnt an endorsement.

Did you read the article? Looks like an endorsement to me.

 

[ATM]

shenaniganery

This word - I like it.

 

[dross]

Why? Paul has been part of the fraud and deception of Washington for 23 years and is the master of smoke and mirror legislating. He inserts his own earmarks in bills and then votes against final passage so that he can claim to abhor earmarks. His behavior is intellectually dishonest and political shenaniganery. While I have absolutely no use for the likes of Lugar, Durban, Schumer, inter alia, at least they openly acknowledge they are pork farmers.

I disagree with this. First, I think Paul has said that he supports earmarks, in that the budget should indicate where every dime goes rather than blocking out large amounts for executive branch discretion.

I agree that you can be against the way the system runs, yet still operate within the system's realities. For instance, I'm against SS on principle, yet I also think that under the existing system I'd be stupid not to try to recover some of the money that's been taken from me.

I think it's a nuanced position, but not a hypocritical one.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I disagree with this. First, I think Paul has said that he supports earmarks, in that the budget should indicate where every dime goes rather than blocking out large amounts for executive branch discretion.

I agree that you can be against the way the system runs, yet still operate within the system's realities. For instance, I'm against SS on principle, yet I also think that under the existing system I'd be stupid not to try to recover some of the money that's been taken from me.

I think it's a nuanced position, but not a hypocritical one.

So we are arguing the dictionary. That's fair enough.

Regardless of whether we call it nuanced or hypocritic, it seems neither a politically or intellectually honest position to take.

 

[dross]

So we are arguing the dictionary. That's fair enough.

Regardless of whether we call it nuanced or hypocritic, it seems neither a politically or intellectually honest position to take.

My intention wasn't a semantic distinction. Fundamentally I think you can be for a reform, but not handicap yourself to that reform before it's implemented. I don't think that's hypocrital. By nuanced, I meant that it's perhaps a complicated concept to understand or get behind.

I don't think it's dishonest. I might be for term limits, for instance, but still run past my proposed limits because I refuse to handicap my own district's constituents by adhering to a rule not yet implemented that gives other districts an advantage. Nuanced, but not dishonest, IMO.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

My intention wasn't a semantic distinction. Fundamentally I think you can be for a reform, but not handicap yourself to that reform before it's implemented. I don't think that's hypocrital. By nuanced, I meant that it's perhaps a complicated concept to understand or get behind.

I don't think it's dishonest. I might be for term limits, for instance, but still run past my proposed limits because I refuse to handicap my own district's constituents by adhering to a rule not yet implemented that gives other districts an advantage. Nuanced, but not dishonest, IMO.

I don't argue that your term limit example remains a principled position. However, if you took the position that you believe terms limits are proper, insert language into bills that would prevent them, and then vote against the bills in final passage so that you could claim you support term limits, that in my mind reeks of political dishonesty. YMMV

 

[smokingman]

Why? Paul has been part of the fraud and deception of Washington for 23 years and is the master of smoke and mirror legislating. He inserts his own earmarks in bills and then votes against final passage so that he can claim to abhor earmarks. His behavior is intellectually dishonest and political shenaniganery. While I have absolutely no use for the likes of Lugar, Durban, Schumer, inter alia, at least they openly acknowledge they are pork farmers.

Your statement about where Ron Paul stands on earmarks is from false information.For where he stands on earmarks you should read what the man has to say about them.

More Earmarks – Less Government

Also of note.Less than 1% of all federal spending is "earmarked".

 

[dross]

I don't argue that your term limit example remains a principled position. However, if you took the position that you believe terms limits are proper, insert language into bills that would prevent them, and then vote against the bills in final passage so that you could claim you support term limits, that in my mind reeks of political dishonesty. YMMV

I agree with what you're saying. If that's what happened, then that would appear to me to be hypocritical, absent other information.

For instance - and I'm not saying this is what happened, just giving an example - for instance I know of times where a legislator would jump sides and vote against something they supported in order to give themselves some procedural advantage according to the rules. Again, I'm not suggesting this is the case, just saying that I agree with you according to what you've just presented, but I don't know all the details. I'll be looking in to it.

 

[dross]

Your statement about where Ron Paul stands on earmarks is from false information.For where he stands on earmarks you should read what the man has to say about them.

More Earmarks – Less Government

Also of note.Less than 1% of all federal spending is "earmarked".

This link says nothing in relation to SemperFi's point.

 

[rambone]

So of course that means Ron Paul will win. Most voters prefer more responsiblity, a smaller safety net, and are willing to share more of the load than they currently carry. Sure the Social Security voters will at first be upset, but then they'll realize that while their own interests are important, they aren't as important as unfairly taking the money from younger people.

Also, most voters, especially Republican primary voters simply don't see a nuclear Iran as a real threat. The ones who do will come around as soon as Dr. Paul explains it to them.

Also, the fifty percent of the country who currently pay no income tax most likely feel guilty about not doing their fair share. Also, most people think that what our tax code does to the upper income folks is really unfair.

I think it's the teachers who will really come around to Paul's viewpoint. I doubt they really truly believe that education is a federal issue, and they'd all be willing to take less compensation in exchange for less job security and more performance pressure.

Also, most people think the labor laws are stupid. And also most people will understand how the minimum wage actually hurts the people it's supposed to help. I've been trying to make that argument to other Republicans, fiscally conservative Republicans, without much success, but I'm sure that Paul will explain it in such a way that everyone will understand and come around.

Paul is a lock over Romney, a guy whose entire career has been about studying what's popular and successfully delivering it.

If Paul doesn't win, it will be entirely the fault of his not getting press, of unfair attacks that NO other Republican candidate has had to face, and of the Republican establishment rigging it against him.

It will have nothing to do with the idea that most voters, when they understand his positions, strongly disagree with him. That's just crazy.

Do you view Republican primary voters as the far-"Left" socialist dependency class? If so, you have an even more dismal view of the Republican Party than I do. Personally I think these teachers, welfare recipients, trade unionists, etc., will have more effect in the General Election, than the current race.

Right now Ron Paul needs to convince the Republican Party to embrace traditional conservative principles. Is that so far-fetched? From where I'm sitting, Ron Paul has everything that a good conservative would want. Never voted for a tax hike. Never voted for gun control. Never supported the U.N. Never supported bailouts. Never supported crony-capitalism. Never supported to raise his own pay. Never voted for foreign aid. Never votes against the free market. Never votes for a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional.

Yep, Republicans can decide if any of that stuff matters... Or, they can support socialist-lite neoconservatism, in the same vein as such loser-publicans as Bob Dole or John McCain. The fate of the country lies in their hands.

 

[dross]

Okay, I think I have a picture of what the issue is after reading about this. I don't think Paul is being a hypocrite in his actions - it appears he's making sure his district gets money in spending bills that will pass regardless of his vote against, but he's voting against the bill in it's entirety. I get this, so far.

I think the dishonest part is that he's trumpeting that he's never voted for an earmark - which makes a good soundbite but doesn't tell the story. He's actually FOR earmarks, but against the spending bills themselves. Being against earmarks plays well.

He's being a typical politician, which of course he's supposedly NOT.

 

[Lead Head]

You know the caucus is not until January 3rd, right?

Yeah, what he said.

 

[smokingman]

Okay, I think I have a picture of what the issue is after reading about this. I don't think Paul is being a hypocrite in his actions - it appears he's making sure his district gets money in spending bills that will pass regardless of his vote against, but he's voting against the bill in it's entirety. I get this, so far.

I think the dishonest part is that he's trumpeting that he's never voted for an earmark - which makes a good soundbite but doesn't tell the story. He's actually FOR earmarks, but against the spending bills themselves. Being against earmarks plays well.

He's being a typical politician, which of course he's supposedly NOT.

Where are you getting this crap from? When has Ron Paul ever said he was against earmarks,or voted against them?
He thinks and votes quite the opposite.He thinks all federal spending should be earmarked,that way we know where it is spent.Did you even read the link I posted on his view of earmarks?
Earmarks are less than 1% of the federal budget.He has voted against the Federal budgets where 99% of the money is pretty much unaccounted for.In the link I gave he gives examples of missing money,if you look more into his page you will see many articles by him questioning where billions in money have gone.

 

[dross]

Do you view Republican primary voters as the far-"Left" socialist dependency class? If so, you have an even more dismal view of the Republican Party than I do. Personally I think these teachers, welfare recipients, trade unionists, etc., will have more effect in the General Election, than the current race.

Right now Ron Paul needs to convince the Republican Party to embrace traditional conservative principles. Is that so far-fetched? From where I'm sitting, Ron Paul has everything that a good conservative would want. Never voted for a tax hike. Never voted for gun control. Never supported the U.N. Never supported bailouts. Never supported crony-capitalism. Never supported to raise his own pay. Never voted for foreign aid. Never votes against the free market. Never votes for a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional.

Yep, Republicans can decide if any of that stuff matters... Or, they can support socialist-lite neoconservatism, in the same vein as such loser-publicans as Bob Dole or John McCain. The fate of the country lies in their hands.

I was referring to his entire electablity, not just the primary.

Most "conservatives" and I mean voters, don't have a lot of philosophical consistency. Most PEOPLE who vote are alike - which is why the parties are so alike and why the vast majority of the people are in the center and why one party is center left and the other is center right. Most people want smaller government in the areas where they want to be left alone and they want bigger government in the areas they want other people's behavior controlled. Lots of conservative voters, for instance, will vote your butt out of office if you screw with their SS.

Primary Republicans HATE several of Paul's stances. Democrats hate even more of his positions.

The problem you have to face is that Paul must not only articulate his positions - that's just the start and his popularity will go down from there - he must also educate and change the mind of most of the voters.

Freedom is a concept. Paychecks cash for real money. If your paycheck comes from an entity Paul doesn't even think should exist, well, then he's got some 'splainin' to do.

 

[rambone]

I don't argue that your term limit example remains a principled position. However, if you took the position that you believe terms limits are proper, insert language into bills that would prevent them, and then vote against the bills in final passage so that you could claim you support term limits, that in my mind reeks of political dishonesty. YMMV

Source? Has that ever happened or is this just a hypothetical bash session?

 

[dross]

Where are you getting this crap from? When has Ron Paul ever said he was against earmarks,or voted against them?
He thinks and votes quite the opposite.He thinks all federal spending should be earmarked,that way we know where it is spent.Did you even read the link I posted on his view of earmarks?
Earmarks are less than 1% of the federal budget.He has voted against the Federal budgets where 99% of the money is pretty much unaccounted for.In the link I gave he gives examples of missing money,if you look more into his page you will see many articles by him questioning where billions in money have gone.

"You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life." Ron Paul on Meet the Press, Dec. 23, 2007.

I got this crap from the transcript.

 

[ATM]

Freedom is a concept. Paychecks cash for real money.

Quite the opposite IMO.