I actually wish we could somehow test this. Like if the media all of a sudden started hyping Ron Paul (like they did Cain) instead of ignoring him. Then see how he stands. That way we could tell how much of a roll the media actually plays, because at the moment, i think its larger than many would care to admit.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I actually wish we could somehow test this. Like if the media all of a sudden started hyping Ron Paul (like they did Cain) instead of ignoring him. Then see how he stands. That way we could tell how much of a roll the media actually plays, because at the moment, i think its larger than many would care to admit.
I think media hype may help, but it certainly isn't conclusive. Plus, last time around, Paul got to travel the late night talk show circuit and got talked about but just didn't catch on in the primaries. He has to make a showing he's competitive.
If the media had enough power to keep Ron Paul down, there would never be a Republican President.
Roughly half the voters vote Democrat. Very, very few Democrat voters are libertarians voting for Democrats because Democrats more closely represent their libertarian views.
A good portion of Republican voters share SOME libertarian views, but they don't want to go as far as Ron Paul advocates.
Political parties are a big tent. If you're going to fit half the country in one, and half the country in another, some of the people are going to find themselves under the same roof as people they disagree with about almost everything.
Ron Paul's beliefs won't allow him to represent enough of the people to get the Republican nomination. How can he win the nomination without the social conservatives? They don't want him. His beliefs won't allow him to take positions that would win them over. This makes him a non-starter.
The more the media covers him, the less chance he has to win.
I think it's possible he could win in the general election given the planets aligning just right, but that's just counting our unicorns before they're hatched. He'll never get the nomination, so he'll never get to get lucky in the general election.
Just like Obama could only get elected by lying about being a socialist, a libertarian could only get elected by lying about his true beliefs and intentions. Of course, if he does that, the real libertarians will write him off.
For instance, I think libertarianism drives Newt more than any of his other beliefs, but he knows he can't get elected on that, so he pushes something else. Chris Christie seems pretty libertarian to me, but he had to move away from that to be elected in New Jersey, so he's forever tainted by some of what he had to do in NJ.
The irony is that the fanatic libertarians will never vote for any libertarian who can actually get elected.
You guys are funny - always sitting the bench because you're too pure to play in the game.
"I want to play football, Coach, but I just don't believe in blocking and tackling. I'm just going to sit here until the game changes to suit my beliefs. Come get me when the World changes to into something I like."
Roughly half the voters vote Democrat. Very, very few Democrat voters are libertarians voting for Democrats because Democrats more closely represent their libertarian views.
A good portion of Republican voters share SOME libertarian views, but they don't want to go as far as Ron Paul advocates.
Political parties are a big tent. If you're going to fit half the country in one, and half the country in another, some of the people are going to find themselves under the same roof as people they disagree with about almost everything.
Ron Paul's beliefs won't allow him to represent enough of the people to get the Republican nomination. How can he win the nomination without the social conservatives? They don't want him. His beliefs won't allow him to take positions that would win them over. This makes him a non-starter.
The more the media covers him, the less chance he has to win.
I think it's possible he could win in the general election given the planets aligning just right, but that's just counting our unicorns before they're hatched. He'll never get the nomination, so he'll never get to get lucky in the general election.
Just like Obama could only get elected by lying about being a socialist, a libertarian could only get elected by lying about his true beliefs and intentions. Of course, if he does that, the real libertarians will write him off.
For instance, I think libertarianism drives Newt more than any of his other beliefs, but he knows he can't get elected on that, so he pushes something else. Chris Christie seems pretty libertarian to me, but he had to move away from that to be elected in New Jersey, so he's forever tainted by some of what he had to do in NJ.
The irony is that the fanatic libertarians will never vote for any libertarian who can actually get elected.
You guys are funny - always sitting the bench because you're too pure to play in the game.
"I want to play football, Coach, but I just don't believe in blocking and tackling. I'm just going to sit here until the game changes to suit my beliefs. Come get me when the World changes to into something I like."
Prometheus
Master
Easy. ABO. Anybody but Obama. Look, the base republicans are brain dead morons. Al Gore could get the republican nomination and they would vote for him. Why? Because they are incapable of voting any other way.
The swing 'independent' voters will go for Paul long before they go for another mcAmnesty.
The 'base' of the GOP is already motivated with ABO. You need someone to motivate all the disenfranchised young republicans who actually want to be free, have a smaller government and have some actual liberty. Those people will flock to the polls in 2012 should Ron Paul get the nomination.
Ron Paul is also the only one running who go can go head to head with Barry over everything from Iraq to health care. The rest won't be able to call him out because they either agree or are hypocrites.
Everyone keeps saying ABO... why not run the only guy who can actually defeat him, in what would likely be a landslide... run someone who can win and who understands the financial mess we are in.
If this country had one-party rule, the sheep would get restless. They would realize that they have no choice in the government, and they would revolt. Offering the illusion of choice in elections has been important in the devolution of our country. Having two Establishment-run parties gives the voting public the opportunity to cheer for the Red Team or the Blue Team. The establishment media is doing their part in propagating the false Left-Right paradigm.
Ron Paul is a social conservative who doesn't believe in regulating morality. Social conservatives can either accept this, or figure out how to win a General Election with another neocon nominee and a totally alienated liberty base. It will be John McCain all over again.
And on top of that, electing another George Bush or John McCain isn't even going to make much, if any, difference in saving this country. That type of pretend fiscal conservative literally offers nothing in regard to saving our currency and our liberty. Nothing.
Chris Christie loves gun control and Newt Gingrich loves globalism. Knowing their full records, I would hesitate to call them conservatives, let alone libertarians. The best classification for these guys is neo-conservative. I am curious what about them strikes you as libertarian.
Or, maybe I just proved I am a liberty fanatic because I can't get along with these well-meaning Republican gents.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI[/ame]
Isn't actively supporting a major GOP candidate in the presidential race considered playing the game? We're this close to making a difference in this party. If it is wrong to vote outside the two major parties, then this is exactly what you should be encouraging from the liberty-minded.
Okay, you've convinced me.
Announcement: I hereby proclaim Ron Paul the Republican nominee.
Oh wait, I don't get to choose, and neither do the other libertarians. We're too small a group. It's those other people I mentioned that will decide, and they don't want him, and it has little to do with the media
A social conservative who doesn't believe in regulating morality. You've just created your own definition of social conservative, which is fine, but it's the real ones that vote, not the kind you invent.
As to convincing the social conservatives to accept it, how's that workin' out for ya'?
You're right, they won't save our country. But if my only choices are to drive toward the cliff at 70mph or at 30mph, I'll choose 30. It buys time, and who knows, maybe someday I'll get a shot at a more libertarian candidate. Never a Ron Paul though. It just ain't human nature.
I've followed Gingrich closely over the years. You could make the same argument about Obama and socialism. It's a stealth libertarianism.
Or, maybe I just proved I am a liberty fanatic because I can't get along with these well-meaning Republican gents.
I'm a liberty fanatic, too. I'm trying to keep liberty alive within the real world, with real choices, not choices I wish I had.
Major candidate? Okay. I think it's more like you voting for team captain for another guy who sits the bench who you know will never actually BE team captain.
Hey, depending on how much of a difference I think I can make when the Colorado primary rolls around, I may vote for Paul, too. I'm capable of a symbolic gesture from time to time. Just not at the expense of a real gesture.
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
Isn't this debate largely irrelevant for Indiana residents as most contenders will have withdrawn from the race by the time primaries roll through? That would be an interesting thread to start at some point. I still don't fully grasp why or how primaries and caucuses are agreed upon. I read there is a current fluff up regarding Nevada. Florida, if I recall correctly, moved theirs as well.
You are familiar with the term 'self fulfilling prophesy' aren't you?
That's his own description of himself. You define it for me then.
Ron Paul Ad Makes Strong Play For Social Conservative Vote
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc[/ame]
He won the Value Voters poll last week. Maybe that's a good sign.
I bet a fair amount of social conservatives have the brains to see that their moral issues won't mean squat when the country goes bankrupt and the currency hyperinflates.
30? Who's operating this radar gun? You better check the batteries.
Bush had us cruisin' along at no less than 65mph. Also, time is not on our side. It is now or never. The cliff is closer than we think. I really believe this.
I don't follow. These guys must be REALLY stealthy because they look just like statists to me. They've done more to steer us away from the constitution than they have to protect us.
You keep saying that. You don't have to wish.
You can hate all you want but Ron Paul has a good financial base, a solid record, a growing base, and the most devoted supporters bar none.
What would be a real gesture? Ron Paul is an easy choice for me, as a libertarian. Lets change this party from within, am I right?
No offense intended to any of you, but I think you're all looking at the wrong target. I like Ron Paul (*LIKE, not that I agree with every statement or idea of his). If I could magically snap my fingers and make it so, he'd be POTUS well before midnight tonight. But I can't. And even if I could, President Paul would be severely hamstrung by the entrenched powers, in and out of elected office, in Washington. To get REAL change in this country, IMO we need to focus less on the office of the presidency and more on local town councils, school boards and state elections.
Here's a deal I'd make right now; in 2012 Barack Obama is re-elected with good 'ol Rick Perry as his new VP. In exchange, elect REAL constitutionally-based fiscal-conservatives (of any party) to every school-board in the country. Also give me a whole new crop of constitutionally-based, fiscal-conservative citizens that want to serve their states as state senators and representives for no more than two terms, and I think we'd all be amazed at the amount of progress we'd see. Would all of our problems disappear? Of course not. Blame Obama all you want, but the problems our country is facing date back to at least Woodrow Wilson, probably a lot farther. It's impossible to fix well over one hundred years of problems in one election cycle. But a whole new mind-set, starting at the local level, would be a good start. Somewhere, the next Thomas Jefferson or John Adams is waiting to be discovered. We'll never find that person by watching pretend debates that focus solely on one national office and further entrench the Dem vs Rep, blue vs red silliness.
Tip O'Neill once said that "all politics is local". Your school board or town council has as much, if not more, influence in your daily life as the POTUS does. How many of you can name even one member of your school board or town council?
Of course, there's just as good a chance that I'm entirely full of ****. You may now return to whatever reality show is currently on.
Here's a deal I'd make right now; in 2012 Barack Obama is re-elected with good 'ol Rick Perry as his new VP. In exchange, elect REAL constitutionally-based fiscal-conservatives (of any party) to every school-board in the country. Also give me a whole new crop of constitutionally-based, fiscal-conservative citizens that want to serve their states as state senators and representives for no more than two terms, and I think we'd all be amazed at the amount of progress we'd see. Would all of our problems disappear? Of course not. Blame Obama all you want, but the problems our country is facing date back to at least Woodrow Wilson, probably a lot farther. It's impossible to fix well over one hundred years of problems in one election cycle. But a whole new mind-set, starting at the local level, would be a good start. Somewhere, the next Thomas Jefferson or John Adams is waiting to be discovered. We'll never find that person by watching pretend debates that focus solely on one national office and further entrench the Dem vs Rep, blue vs red silliness.
Tip O'Neill once said that "all politics is local". Your school board or town council has as much, if not more, influence in your daily life as the POTUS does. How many of you can name even one member of your school board or town council?
Of course, there's just as good a chance that I'm entirely full of ****. You may now return to whatever reality show is currently on.
If only I had that much power. None of this is new to me. None of these arguments are new to me. I've been watching this stuff for decades. You say self fulfiling prophecy, I say this is the way the world works.
Social conservatives in the context of politics are people who wish to see their moral agenda codified in law. Policies that limit the freedom of homosexuals, laws against abortion, laws regulating sex, prayer in schools. Lots of libertarians are socially conservative in their private life. They are not social conservatives when it comes to politics. You can be against abortion and also against laws outlawing it. That position, I promise you, won't win over the social conservatives.
Perhaps the social conservatives would hold their nose and vote for Paul in the general election. Not in the primary, though. Look at history. Maybe black folks would vote for a black Republican against a white Democrat. Maybe, but they never have in any numbers in Congressional races.
You can't run in the general election until you win in the primaries.
Yes, but I look like a statist to you. From where you sit, I'm sure you see lots and lots of statists.
Yes, exactly. I'm a hater. Dude, there's a sale on perspective. Go steal some.
I agree with changing it from within. That's happening. Between some of the tea party positions and Ron and Rand Paul being onstage, freedom voters are gaining more power within the Party. That's a good thing.
Ron Paul actually winning is a fantasy. He most likely has my vote in the primary, and certainly in the general election if he were to somehow win. In fact, should he win the nomination, I might work on his campaign and I'll certainly give him money.
I don't think that. If we can get past the debates on foreign policy, I have a lot the same beliefs as you. And you offer a valuable and well articulated position, and you have made me think quite often. You've convinced me to change my stance on a few things, the death penalty being one of them.
This I can't argue though.
But seriously you should look further into Gingrich and Christie and see if you don't agree with me. That video on Newt was an eye-opener for me. Your stance is just a little befuddling to me, that's all. There seems to be a lot of negativity (realism?) toward Ron Paul, but you seem to be saying that he is the candidate you agree with the most. You are a good promoter of your cause(s) and you could sway people if you tried.
Agreed.
Very cool. Since the primary race is actually the biggest hurdle toward the presidency, I hope you start supporting him soon.
