ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

It's a fundamental hypocrisy and internal contradiction in your messiah you choose to ignore. If Paul were actually elected, many more would follow. If I'm a bitter old man, you're a naive punk!..

Nick, I don't follow you. What's the 'fundamental hypocrisy' and 'internal contradiction' here? And what 'many more would follow'?

You haven't given me enough information to understand what you're talking about.

[Jagermeister]

Here is what I think. I think anybody is an improvement to Obama. This dick head is still convinced the road to lower gas prices is reducing dependency on oil.

[Dr. Love]

I think I'm starting to understand why the GOP is so concerned about election fraud!

[Nitro Express]

Nick, I don't follow you. What's the 'fundamental hypocrisy' and 'internal contradiction' here? And what 'many more would follow'?

You haven't given me enough information to understand what you're talking about.

The problem is Ron Paul isn't a Democrat. Simple as that. If a Republican did the exact same things Obama has done the Democrats would be all over him. So what I have learned is you have to waive the correct banner to be accepted more than your actions.

[Dr. Love]

Rick Santorum, Ron Paul On Track To Get Most Of Iowa's Delegates
Posted: 03/15/2012 1:30 pm Updated: 03/15/2012 1:50 pm

WASHINGTON -- Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are best positioned to win the most delegates in Iowa as the Republican primary process moves forward, making Mitt Romney the odd man out, state insiders told The Huffington Post.

Santorum and Romney finished first and second on Jan. 3, with Paul finishing about 3,000 votes behind the 29,000 votes Santorum and Romney both got.

Rep. Paul (R-Texas) is currently estimated by The Associated Press to have zero delegates in Iowa. The AP numbers give former Sen. Santorum (R-Pa.) 13 delegates and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney 12. But Iowa Republican operatives scoffed at the AP figure.

"Can I just be bold and tell you that they don't know what they're talking about," Steve Scheffler, one of the state's three Republican National Committee members, told The Huffington Post. "Our delegates are not tied to the percentages of who got what in the straw poll."

"That's just not valid information at all," he reiterated. "That's just not correct information at all."

Santorum, banking on the fact that delegates are not "bound" by rule or law in Iowa to vote for any presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention -- which is similar to other caucus states -- has predicted he'll win the "overwhelming majority" of Iowa's 28 delegates.

But as he is likely to find out in many caucus states, Santorum faces a roadblock: Paul's passionate and organized supporters, working to position themselves for spots as delegates at the national convention in Tampa, Fla., this August.

"They're going to be feisty and they're going to fight," said Craig Robinson, a former state GOP official who now writes a popular state politics blog, The Iowa Republican.

"I think that Santorum will get the delegates he should get but I think Ron Paul will get way more delegates than he should get," Robinson said, adding that he worries that Paul could potentially give Iowa a black eye by winning the most delegates.

The winner of Iowa's caucuses has already changed once, after the state Republican Party announced Santorum the winner three weeks after saying Romney had won the night of the caucuses.

"It would be terrible for Iowa if you had Romney the winner on caucus day, three weeks later Santorum, and then three months later Ron Paul," Robinson said.

But Paul's supporters are not worried about the state's reputation. They just want to snatch delegate spots, and are prepared to use all the flexibility allowed by the rules to get them.

"Ron Paul's respecting the voters of Iowa and the delegates of Iowa who represent them by campaigning for delegates. He didn't just stop at the straw poll on Jan. 3," said Drew Ivers, a member of Iowa's 17-member central committee who was a co-chair of Paul's campaign in Iowa.

Paul's supporters drew attention this past Saturday when they caused a ruckus at several county conventions in Iowa. In Polk County, which includes Des Moines, they urged the county chairman, Kevin McLaughlin, to allow them to nominate delegates to the state convention who had not been elected at the Jan. 3 caucuses.

"They gave us the impression that we owed them something," McLaughlin told HuffPost. "It was like, let's throw out the rules and do it our way. And let's throw temper tantrums if you won't."

Ivers, sensitive to that criticism, said that Paul's supports were "engaging in the normal healthy process."

"It seems to be a little bit concerning among some of the regular Republicans that we are respectful enough to ask for delegates, and because the other [campaigns] are not it makes us an exception," Ivers said.

It's not as if the Paul movement in Iowa is simply a bunch of outsiders crashing the gates of the state GOP. In fact, the state party chairman -- as of early February -- is another former co-chair of Paul's presidential campaign in Iowa, A.J. Spiker. Spiker was elected by the central committee after former chairman Matt Strawn resigned.

Spiker automatically gets one of the 28 delegate spots at the national convention. He did not return an e-mail seeking comment, but Spiker is a likely vote for Paul at the convention.

Yet the Paul line of attack in Iowa is both a frontal assault and an under-the-radar operation. Ryan Rhodes, a Tea Party activist in Iowa, said that as the delegate process goes forward to the congressional district conventions on April 21 and then the state convention on June 15 and 16, there will be an element of suspense about which delegates running for national convention spots are Paul supporters.

"You're not going to know how half these people vote until Tampa. You might have Ron Paul people in there who you won't know how they're going to vote until they get into the arena," Rhodes told HuffPost.

Ivers admitted as much.

"Because the other three [campaigns] are doing very little, there tends to be some caution about the Ron Paul people," Ivers said. "So it does tend to drive the Ron Paul supporters a little more quiet in the way they speak about the candidate. A little more cautious is a better word."

The common theme among Iowa Republicans who spoke with HuffPost is that Paul's supporters have been the only ones who are noticeably aggressive and active so far in angling for delegate spots at the two remaining conventions in the state, all with an eye toward landing as many of the 28 delegate spots for Tampa as possible.

But Santorum is very popular among a great number of Iowa's grassroots conservative base, and so he too is expected to get around half of the delegates.

"If I had to be a betting man I would say that the Santorum and Ron Paul campaigns are best positioned to get their fair share of delegates," Scheffler, the Iowa RNC member, said. "That's where I see most of the energy coming from."

That leaves Romney as potentially the odd man out, getting just a handful of delegates. Such a scenario would only be possible if Romney and Santorum were still locked in a close fight. Romney's state co-chair, Brian Kennedy, did not return phone calls.

But if the national primary does remain competitive through May or June, that will make conventions in many states into high-stakes battles for delegates to the national convention, essentially setting the stage for a floor fight in Tampa.

If that is the case, Santorum is looking to caucus states like Iowa, and other primary states like Arizona where delegate rules are very loose and open to interpretation, in order to chip away at the delegate lead that Romney has in current estimates. The AP count has Romney with 495 delegates to 252 for Santorum, 131 for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and 48 for Paul.

The magic number that clinches the nomination is 1,144 delegates.

The only problem for Santorum is that his attempts at prying delegates away is limited by the Paul campaign's determination to secure their own number of seats in Tampa.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rick-santorum-ron-paul-iowa-delegates_n_1347743.html?ref=mostpopular

[Dr. Love]

[Dr. Love]

looks like Ron Paul's campaign is winding down and not getting much turnout when he speaks anymore

[Dr. Love]

Regardless of the vote counts, it really makes me happy to see so many people turn out to hear the ideas.

[kwame k]

The more I read about Grandpa Paul's strategy to influence the party's platform by holding his delegates hostage until he gets what he wants......the more I think it isn't, in theory, a bad idea or as naive as I had once thought.

Now it seems like there is a real possibility the GOP will have a brokered convention....Frothy and Newt both are banking on this. Coupled with the reality that no one wants Mitt.....it's going to make for an interesting convention. I still think it's a long shot but the odds are getting better every day. The GOP doesn't want a fractured convention because it makes them all look weak going into the nationals but with no candidate willing to step down it could be a reality.

Changing the course of the debate and getting his followers involved in running for office or using their delegates to ensure party influence might make a difference in the long term. The more I think about his strategy the more I think it could effect the GOP in 2014 and in 2016....long after Paul is out of the picture or is merely a figurehead by then.

Paul's having a minor influence on the debates and not as major of an impact as his supporters have wanted but he has brought a few things into the debate that wouldn't be there without him. As far as his influence goes come Nov......a coin toss at best. Any promises that Romney may make are not enforceable and he can't publicly promise any cabinet position for support because it's illegal.....so even if a backdoor deal is made.....it's only Romney's word that can keep it and that's a lot of faith to put in that scumbag.

Looking back to Pat Robertson's run in 1988....he started this religious reich madness that people like Dubya and Frothy are converts to. Ruined the GOP, IMO but he brought religion into the forefront of the GOP.

Barry Goldwater had a similar influence on the GOP in the '60's.

The big test to the Ron Paul movement is what happens to his supporters after Nov......will his supporters die off and fade away or will another person come in and take the mantle in 2014's mid-terms. That is going to be the test if Paul's ideas will last beyond his time or not. If his supporters don't mobilize and have a cohesive direction in the mid-terms the same thing will happen to Paul that happened to Perot's supporters.

I still am cynical enough to think money and fear and not ideas will run the GOP for years to come but I am man enough to admit I was wrong about Paul's strategic plan......especially with Newt and Frothy now playing the same game.

[Nickdfresh]

Nick, I don't follow you. What's the 'fundamental hypocrisy' and 'internal contradiction' here? And what 'many more would follow'?

You haven't given me enough information to understand what you're talking about.

We were talking about the abortion issue you "don't care about." I mean, really? Stop fucking playing Caveman Lawyer, already.



Stop beating around the bush...

[Dr. Love]

Still not following

Are you saying its hypocrisy that Ron Paul doesn't agree with abortion but is a libertarian? And for the many more to follow, do you mean abortions?

Perhaps if you took the time to express your ideas coherently I could follow. I'd be glad to join the conversation you're having. I just need you to pull a few sentences together that make sense.

[Nickdfresh]

Still not following

Okay.

Are you saying its hypocrisy that Ron Paul doesn't agree with abortion but is a libertarian? And for the many more to follow, do you mean abortions?

I'm saying Ron Paul can "disagree" all he wants, but after that I lost you as well...

Perhaps if you took the time to express your ideas coherently I could follow.

You mean like posting Ron Paul meme pics?

I'd be glad to join the conversation you're having. I just need you to pull a few sentences together that make sense.

Check your nonsensical third sentence in your post, then get back to me on making sense...

You're too much of a pussy to have any real conversation. You long ago stated that you 'don't care about abortion' in order to stifle any discussion. But the fact is that Ron Paul if a bit of a frothing and disingenuous hypocrite based on his belief that government should regulate womens' bodies. But you don't care about that, do you? You simply ignore what you find inconvenient...

[Dr. Love]

Take a few deep breaths! It's okay if someone disagrees with you on the internet.

Here's what you originally said (which I still don't understand):

It's a fundamental hypocrisy and internal contradiction in your messiah you choose to ignore. If Paul were actually elected, many more would follow.

Many more what would follow?

You seem to misunderstand -- Abortion isn't important to me in comparison with a lot of other issues which I think are much more pressing. Therefore, Ron Paul's stance on it doesn't really factor into my support. I'm happy to discuss it all day long, but that isn't going to make me care about it. It's not an attempt to stifle conversation, it's an explanation for why Ron Paul's stance on abortion doesn't bother me (whereas it very, very clearly bothers you).

But I'll repeat again; Ron Paul has stated that he thinks the federal government shouldn't be involved in deciding whether or not abortions should be legal; It should be up to the states and municipalities to decide for themselves. That isn't regulating women's bodies. It would actually be more consistent with his "no regulations" philosophy. He has stated he thinks abortions are wrong and should be treated as violent crimes, but that goes back to how libertarians view liberty. You are free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm another person. I'm certain he views abortion as harmful to a person. And beyond that, I'm sure his time as a doctor and the amount of babies he has delivered has really helped to set that perception.

Good for him. I don't have to agree with every single position someone holds to support the person. The world isn't so black and white. I would have thought you would know that.

I think you're making wild leaps of judgement based on very little data with regard to what conversations I'm willing to have, or why I think the things I do, resulting in some pretty startling (and pretty funny) logical fallacies.

You respond in anger and aggression far, far more often than you do with candor and reason. So if you think I'm too much of a pussy to have a real conversation with you, consider this: I'm not convinced it's possible to have a real conversation with you, based on the content, tone and character of the vast majority of your responses, despite my repeated attempts in this thread to understand what on earth you were saying so that I actually COULD attempt to have a conversation with you.

[Nickdfresh]

Take a few deep breaths! It's okay if someone disagrees with you on the internet.

Um, there's a difference to "disagreeing on the internet" and using it as a venue for being a smarmy dick....

Here's what you originally said (which I still don't understand):

You keep saying you 'didn't understand,' yet you responded articulately to exactly the issue I stated. I mean, really? I mean I thought I was speaking incomprehensible gibberish!

You seem to misunderstand -- Abortion isn't important to me in comparison with a lot of other issues which I think are much more pressing.

Well of course not, white male approaching middle age!

Therefore, Ron Paul's stance on it doesn't really factor into my support. I'm happy to discuss it all day long, but that isn't going to make me care about it. It's not an attempt to stifle conversation, it's an explanation for why Ron Paul's stance on abortion doesn't bother me (whereas it very, very clearly bothers you).

But it's not really Ron Paul's stance on abortion, it's more his stance on legislating morality...

But I'll repeat again; Ron Paul has stated that he thinks the federal government shouldn't be involved in deciding whether or not abortions should be legal; It should be up to the states and municipalities to decide for themselves. That isn't regulating women's bodies. It would actually be more consistent with his "no regulations" philosophy. He has stated he thinks abortions are wrong and should be treated as violent crimes, but that goes back to how libertarians view liberty. You are free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm another person. I'm certain he views abortion as harmful to a person. And beyond that, I'm sure his time as a doctor and the amount of babies he has delivered has really helped to set that perception.

Wow. In all my life I have never seen such a fucking cop out! Really, so you're essentially saying that though Ron Paul personally believes that abortion is a "violent crime," he believes that the (federal) state has no right in legislating against such violent murders, nor infringing upon the sanctity of the state governments in either sanctioning or restricting such violent crimes. So, theoretically Ron Paul believes that when he is President of a government that he both instinctively and ideologically hates (despite being well paid as a senator in it), that if a given state decides to commit violent crimes against a segment of its population, that there are "no regulations" provided against them doing so and that he would be powerless as a president to act against state or municipal level tyranny (as Ike, Kennedy, and LBJ did). No?

Good for him. I don't have to agree with every single position someone holds to support the person. The world isn't so black and white. I would have thought you would know that.

I know of no one that would disagree with this. But we're talking about more than a single position here!

I think you're making wild leaps of judgement based on very little data with regard to what conversations I'm willing to have, or why I think the things I do, resulting in some pretty startling (and pretty funny) logical fallacies.

Tell me all about "logical fallacies." You seem to be drawn to them...

You respond in anger and aggression far, far more often than you do with candor and reason.

Pot meets tea kettle...

So if you think I'm too much of a pussy to have a real conversation with you, consider this: I'm not convinced it's possible to have a real conversation with you, based on the content, tone and character of the vast majority of your responses, despite my repeated attempts in this thread to understand what on earth you were saying so that I actually COULD attempt to have a conversation with you.

Then why are you conversing with me?

[Nitro Express]

Abortion, gun control, and the death penalty are those wonderful topics that will continue to be debated and argued over after we are long gone. Also nuclear waste and improving education have been constantly addressed and argued over as long as I can remember and the situations with both have not improved over the last 40 plus years. I doubt a pro choice candidate could get the nomination in the Republican party.