Reply With Quote
although he is the only one who has not stated he wouldn't run on as a independent. He is doing it smart by staying in all the way to the gop convention.any electorates he gets well ensure that he has a say on the set platform.
Agree. Hence my diversion to Colbert, who might actually be a write in.
although he is the only one who has not stated he wouldn't run on as a independent. He is doing it smart by staying in all the way to the gop convention.any electorates he gets well ensure that he has a say on the set platform.
that's more or less how it looks to me too, SnC
I think there are certain segments of Paul's agenda with appeal to the broader Republican base, but it seems the core issue that his supporters most ardently advocate (isolationist foreign policy) is not one the base or their candidate will adopt...which means the "Paul" vote in the general election will be marginalized.
Curious if RP supporters agree or disagree.
do you think Paul will run?
At this point, yes I do. His support and funding are at a point where I think he'll be persuaded to enter the race as an independent if/when he loses the nomination.
Given his wide-ranging appeal, I'm not sure it would help the candidacy of either party though.
is there anything RP has done or said that makes you think so, or is it more a less a hunch you have that he'll run?
That is a very good point.
hmm. RP's irrelevance to the race may vary inversely with the intensity of the aggrieved cries related to it.
the sheer volume of reporting on the supposed irrelevance of RP is already impressive. But RP won't stay ignored, or meekly withdraw.
Even if RP gets "plank(s)" in the Repug platform, they won't be voted into law unless the Repugs would have put them in anyway, so RP remains inconsequential, except to the media drumming up contrived campaign drama to draw viewers for their advertisers.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-18-2012 at 02:58 PM.
Doubtful. He's always pretty careful to disqualify himself from actually being on any ballot, and I seriously doubt he would want to enable a Republican victory.
has Colbert ruled out running?
Yeah, Colbert's whole thing right now is exposing the flaws in the system. I highly doubt he has any real interest in running for President.
no no, you don't get me. if he hasn't ruled it out (and I agree it's totally unlikely he won't at some point) it's still technically possible.
Colbert could change his mind for some reason.
Therefore, until he withdraws flamboyantly from a race he never really entered, or expressly says no, it is a real possibility, in addition to being a humorous yardstick in a still crowded field.
the sense of absurdity other posters have expressed wrt Colbert's possible candidacy is proleptic imho. soon, it will be undeniable; but for the moment it is technically possible, just barely, maybe.
gotta think Colbert will continue to milk this
Pretty good analysis on rp trying to expand government and go against the cons ution. Disclaimer: it is by that evil Neo con corporatist Michael medved.
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2011/12/27/ron_paul_foreign_policy_and_the_cons ution
There is so much red tape to go through, even for a joke, that I don't think Colbert would be able to do. Plus his audience proves election after election to not be reliable. Not to mention him having to find delegates, who would most likely be Obama people our ex Clintonites
Same thing happened with Perot in 92, and the media won.
the Main Stream Media has instilled you very erroneous thoughts. Let me help out:
Non-interventionism is primarily concerned with military interventions in foreign countries. It's a policy designed to avoid wars not directly related to national defense and to also avoid expansion of State power. It's best described as military non-intervention, although it can also apply to international efforts to control certain countries' economies, like the IMF has tended toward when they loan money to struggling countries -- this type of intervention usually has negative consequences when there is ignorance of a country's special cir stances, needs, culture and history.
Non-interventionism is not a call for isolationism, tarrifs and other protectionist measures against global trade. A country with a non-interventionist policy can very well be open in all other respects, such as culture exchange, immigration/emigration, peaceful free trade, technology and intelligence cooperation. Some in media know better when they conflate non-interventionism with isolationism -- they use "isolationism" as a smear tactic -- but the sad probability is that many don't know.
http://bonzai.squarespace.com/blog/2...entionism.html
Perot got out. That's why he list IMO. Then he got back in but it was too late.
I would recommend you read my post above. It describes the real term "non-interventionist" the isolationist term is completely mistaken and it's a term used to smear Paul. It's the same thing as calling Obama a communist.
I like Paul and he would be a vast improvement to Barry. I am aware pod the isolationist term put on him. It might however be getting him votes more so than losing it, although I doubt that was the plan when it was coined.
Yea, the "conventional wisdom" says that America has to either bomb the world into oblivion or hide in a cave cowering in fear. There is no in-between.
Ron Paul has captured some people who know his economic views are bat but are interested in any candidate who will end the wars and stop the out of control military spending.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
