http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...-poll.html

"poll conducted recently among "882 highly active Republican voters in Texas."

He has to win the independents not highly active Republicans.

(08-19-2011 06:55 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  "poll conducted recently among "882 highly active Republican voters in Texas."

He has to win the independents not highly active Republicans.

I agree..and...something tells me that will not be a problem.

Still..I put the odds at 20-1 against him getting the GOP nod. I am still going to vote for him..but..the establishment is going to find a way do hack job on him. It is also a certainty.

(08-19-2011 06:55 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  "poll conducted recently among "882 highly active Republican voters in Texas."

He has to win the independents not highly active Republicans.

I feel like he's won the independents. It's the establishment Republicans and evangelicals that he needs to win.

HE NEVER WILL WITH HIS IDIOTIC FOREIGN POLICY...AND HE HASN'T WON THE INDEPENDENTS!

(08-19-2011 09:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  HE NEVER WILL WITH HIS IDIOTIC FOREIGN POLICY...AND HE HASN'T WON THE INDEPENDENTS!

You've never looked at polling cross tabs have you? He won independents in exit polling in 2008, to say nothing about now.

RP will never be in the WH...as long as people like you follow him. He will always be seen as fringe by most voters.

(08-19-2011 10:05 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  RP will never be in the WH...as long as people like you follow him. He will always be seen as fringe by most voters.

Luckily for everyone, you have no more say in this than I do. I'd say less than I do given that I put my money where my mouth is.

Valid point.

I'm almost a Ron Paul convert, except for the thought of dealing with how big GTS head will get if RP were to pull it off.

(08-19-2011 10:09 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I'm almost a Ron Paul convert, except for the thought of dealing with how big GTS head will get if RP were to pull it off.

I don't root so hard for Ron Paul for the sake of Ron Paul. I root so hard for him for the sake of our country and everyone in it.

He won't. Iran should have nukes...is what he believes. FRINGE.

(08-19-2011 10:14 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  He won't. Iran should have nukes...is what he believes. FRINGE.

If you think the Israelis won't light up Iran if it tries to seriously get a nuke, you're out of touch with reality. Let them handle it.

Besides, our CIA says Iran has no nuclear program and no effort to make one. The Iranians can't even refine enough gasoline for themselves. They have no Navy. They have no Air Force. They have no missile program. They have no air defense. You are way too scared of a third world country. But you don't seem to be too panicked about China's ability to destroy our currency by flooding the market with T-bills. Or China's path to supplant us as the only global superpower. That's a real national security threat. And only Ron Paul's economic policy would deal with it.

Nice try. Which economic policy would save our economy?

(08-19-2011 10:14 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  He won't. Iran should have nukes...is what he believes. FRINGE.

He doesn't care if Iran has nukes, or anyone else for that matter, he cares if Iran, or anyone else, uses nukes.
I've said that his isolationist policies are his biggest problem. Hense his problem for the Jewish vote. Would RP force Jews to chose between Israel and the USA? I don't know, but they did overwhelmingly voted for a Muslim usurper, so anything is possible.

Thats my problem..why shouldn't the President care who has nukes? He should! When crazy radical muslims get nukes the first thing they do is use them.

(08-19-2011 10:20 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Nice try. Which economic policy would save our economy?

Sound money. End the Fed. A government which lives within its means. Eliminate the debt. But still have a strong military, in fact significantly stronger than it is today since it won't be burning resources and lives in perpetual undeclared unconstitutional wars.

End the Fed through going back to the Gold Standard...? Its our presence throughout the world that makes us a superpower...not hiding behind our borders. Granted some bases should be closed and I agree that some aid should be cut off.

(08-19-2011 10:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  End the Fed through going back to the Gold Standard...? Its our presence throughout the world that makes us a superpower...not hiding behind our borders. Granted some bases should be closed and I agree that some aid should be cut off.

He acknowledges you can't close the Fed overnight. But he would legalize competition. Right now if you want to transact in gold or silver you will go to jail. He wants to legalize competing currencies. A concept so "radical" ... Steve Forbes endorses it. In fact, Forbes says the dollar will be relinked to gold within 5 years. But more to the point... if you don't eliminate the Fed, you're endorsing the destruction of our currency. If you don't eliminate the Fed, you're giving Congress a free "out" instead of forcing them to balance the books. If you don't eliminate the Fed, you're endorsing the most insidious and regressive tax ever known: inflation. If you don't eliminate the Fed, you don't respect the Constitution which explicitly states that only Gold and Silver can be legal tender, and that only Congress can coin money. If you don't eliminate the Fed, you are an enemy of a transparent and accountable government.

How does 30,000 troops in Korea make us a Superpower or increase our national security here at home?
Same thing for 50,000 in Germany.
Same thing for 20,000 in UK.
Same thing for 30,000 in Japan.
Same thing for bombing Libya.
Same thing for bombing Yemen.
Same thing for bombing Pakistan.
Same thing for endless War in Iraq.
Same thing for endless War in Afghanistan.
Same thing for foreign aid, and we give more to Israel's enemies than Israel if you're one of those Israel-as-the-51st-state-ers.

At what point does a chicken hawk war mongering Republican get out their g*****n calculator and do a cost-benefit analysis like the businessmen they claim to be? We are spending TRILLIONS on the above. FOR WHAT?!

(08-19-2011 10:14 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  He won't. Iran should have nukes...is what he believes. FRINGE.

Did we stop North Korea from Getting Nukes? Pakistan?

Look Iran is going to eventually secure Nukes and while I approve of trying to slow them down via sanctions and perhaps covert actions like the worm that Isreal set up... One, who is within his senses, has to realize BushBama have stretched us too thin to militarily do anything about it.

And that's even assuming we could.

If we took the money that was put into Iraq and put that towrds point of entry security and ballistic missile shields the money would have been better spent.