Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Suryavarman

I hate to sound overconfident but I am starting to believe that Ron Paul can win Iowa easily and get a strong second in New Hampshire. I don't think polls are as representative of those states as they are of others. In January when there is heavy snow are Newt Romney supporters going to brave the conditions to vote for those candidates? I don't think so. Ron Paul's supporters are renowned for their dedication and I believe that they will. This [url=lhttp://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-supporters-crash-mock-newt-gingrichs-party/]link[/url] gives a hint of how dedicated they are. Attending Gingrich events to mock him is pretty dedicated.

Gingrich seems to be giving back some of the ground he has been gaining in recent weeks while Ron Paul is gaining some ground. Both Ron and Mitt Romney have released ad's attacking Newt in the last week. Romney has also started to lose ground with the rise of Gingrich.

There is also the question of what happens when candidates start dropping out? Who gets the votes of Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry and Santorum if they drop out? It's unlikely that Romney will pick them up and if Gingrich starts to fade and Paul starts to rise at the right time then Paul could get a big boost.

Silvio.Dante

Paul can never win the Republican nomination. He's never come close.

This last month was his best opportunity ever with the other candidates (Perry & Perry) flatlining after taking impressive leads and still the Non-Romney Republicans find Gingrich more attractive than Paul.

I think he's knows this as well as anyone. He's no fool.

I hate his inhumane policies but strongly admire his determination and enthusiasm.

Hopefully he'll run as a 'third candidate' and split the Republican vote next year...

floydmoon1

Paul after going from 18/1 to 9/1 on paddypower to be next president

amacachi

Just realised how close the Primaries are and I can't believe how well Gingrich is doing.

Suryavarman

Ron Paul was on Jay Leno last night and got a very warm response from the audience. I felt that his points came across better than they do in some of the debates. This could be a good boost for his campaign as I'd imagine Jay Leno is watched by a much larger audience than the debates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

Suryavarman

An interesting Tweet from Public Policy Polling suggesting that Romney and Paul are leading in Iowa with Gingrich down to third.

Although a poll from Suffolk University has Paul down to fourth in New Hampshire behind Huntsman, Gingrich and Romney. I'm somewhat skeptical of this poll as its figures are quite different to some of the recent polls in New Hampshire. Here is a complete list of previous polls taken during the campaign in all states.

Also out today is a new ad featuring Rand. This could be a very good ad to run in South Carolina and Florida as Rand is generally more popular among traditional conservatives than his Father.

Silvio.Dante

Ron Paul is way too extreme to ever gain traction among traditional Conservatives and as for going up against Obama? It would be a car crash for him...

Suryavarman

Public Policy Polling now has Ron Paul Leading in Iowa. Paul is at 23%, Romney is at 20% and Gingrich has dropped to 14%. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are all tied at 10%.

Romney is leading Paul 22%-19% among GOP voters but Paul is leading 35%-14% among Democrats and Independents.

steelcityblues

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Ron Paul is way too extreme to ever gain traction among traditional Conservatives and as for going up against Obama? It would be a car crash for him...

I think extreme is the wrong word to use for Ron Paul. Most of his opponents - who have expressed a desire to bomb, sorry liberate, the hell out of another part of the world, no matter what - come across as the real crazies of our era.

Silvio.Dante

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think extreme is the wrong word to use for Ron Paul. Most of his opponents - who have expressed a desire to bomb, sorry liberate, the hell out of another part of the world, no matter what - come across as the real crazies of our era.

True.

Ron Paul would rather unleash his wrath on his own citizens...

FreudianSlippers

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think extreme is the wrong word to use for Ron Paul. Most of his opponents - who have expressed a desire to bomb, sorry liberate, the hell out of another part of the world, no matter what - come across as the real crazies of our era.

True.

Ron Paul would rather unleash his wrath on his own citizens...

Explain...

Silvio.Dante

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Explain...

His vicious policies on healthcare where only those who can afford it are assured of getting access to treatment is not only inhumane but downright disgusting...

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

His vicious policies on healthcare where only those who can afford it are assured of getting access to treatment is not only inhumane but downright disgusting...

Simply because he wouldn't steal money from taxpayers and hand it out to anyone who wants an operation doesn't make him vicious, disgusting or unleashing wrath.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

Simply because he wouldn't steal money from taxpayers and hand it out to anyone who wants an operation doesn't make him vicious, disgusting or unleashing wrath.

Nonsense.

Taxation is everyones responsibility to contribute to and I am proud that I contribute for the greater good.

Greed is good Paulites make me very sad...:(

AhSureTisGrand

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Nonsense.

Taxation is everyones responsibility to contribute to and I am proud that I contribute for the greater good.

Makes one wonder why you have to be forced into paying them in the first place

Tiocfaidh Armani

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Makes one wonder why you have to be forced into paying them in the first place

Because of people's human nature to be greedy. I have no problem paying taxes but if they were voluntary I would be a human being and be greedy, but I like the fact I pay my fair amount of tax and I contribute to society and a NHS health service that sees everyone, rich or poor, get the same quality treatment that unlike the US does not leave some people without insurance to die when they have cancer or have people declared bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills.

simplistic2

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Because of people's human nature to be greedy. I have no problem paying taxes but if they were voluntary I would be a human being and be greedy, but I like the fact I pay my fair amount of tax and I contribute to society and a NHS health service that sees everyone, rich or poor, get the same quality treatment that unlike the US does not leave some people without insurance to die when they have cancer or have people declared bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills.

There is no virtue in the fact that the money stolen from you, might, as a side benefit, provide a temporary service to somebody not as wealthy as you.

It's like claiming that the spare change that fell from a muggers' hands into a beggars bowel while he was robbing you is an act of virtue from you to society. A gift to that poor man!

If being greedy justifies having violence used against you, then you should have no problem robbing anybody that has an ounce of desire to act in their self interest. Stop trying to justify theft.

Tiocfaidh Armani

simplistic2 wrote: »

There is no virtue in the fact that the money stolen from you, might, as a side benefit, provide a temporary service to somebody not as wealthy as you.

It's like claiming that the spare change that fell from a muggers' hands into a beggars bowel while he was robbing you is an act of virtue from you to society. A gift to that poor man!

If being greedy justifies having violence used against you, then you should have no problem robbing anybody that has an ounce of desire to act in their self interest. Stop trying to justify theft.

Theft? Who will pay for your kids education? The roads? The hospitals? It all has to be paid for, it's not theft. It's paying your way in society. It doesn't just go to those less well off to me, it goes towards services people better than me use as well!

simplistic2

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Theft? Who will pay for your kids education? The roads? The hospitals? It all has to be paid for, it's not theft. It's paying your way in society. It doesn't just go to those less well off to me, it goes towards services people better than me use as well!

Of course it is theft.

When you want to buy a loaf of bread, a software system, a educational game for your kid do you call your local politician?

The belief that you need a middle man is a con, but of course an important belief , without it the middle man might actually have to do some work and he has a vested interested in making you believe you need him.

Tiocfaidh Armani

simplistic2 wrote: »

Of course it is theft.

When you want to buy a loaf of bread, a software system, a educational game for your kid do you call your local politician?

The belief that you need a middle man is a con, but of course an important belief , without it the middle man might actually have to do some work and he has a vested interested in making you believe you need him.

Who will pay for the schools and roads then?

RichieC

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

FreudianSlippers

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Theft? Who will pay for your kids education? The roads? The hospitals? It all has to be paid for, it's not theft. It's paying your way in society. It doesn't just go to those less well off to me, it goes towards services people better than me use as well!

You do realise that Ron Paul is not running for president of Ireland, right? The only one you got even close to correct in regards to taxation there is roads and even that isn't wholly accurate. Schools and roads are really a state issue, and Ron Paul has no interest in state issues.

Tiocfaidh Armani

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You do realise that Ron Paul is not running for president of Ireland, right? The only one you got even close to correct in regards to taxation there is roads and even that isn't wholly accurate. Schools and roads are really a state issue, and Ron Paul has no interest in state issues.

Look at my previous posts re the highlighted bit. I was speaking generally with the gentleman, I thought that was obvious.

In terms of the US, republicans wants their super dooper army that costs $600 billion per annum and these foreign wars like Iraq that cost $1 trillion, yet seem allergic to taxes so who pays for these wars you want and military you love so much?

FreudianSlippers

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Look at my previous posts re the highlighted bit. I was speaking generally with the gentleman, I thought that was obvious.

In terms of the US, republicans wants their super dooper army that costs $600 billion per annum and these foreign wars like Iraq that cost $1 trillion, yet seem allergic to taxes so who pays for these wars you want and military you love so much?

I don't want wars or military, I live in Ireland... even if I lived in the US, I'd want no wars. The US seems to have this weird duality where they seem to want to do everything the founding fathers did, except their staunch ideals of US isolationism.

But I'll take it you're accepting that the argument about schools, roads and hospitals is totally inaccurate.

Tiocfaidh Armani

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't want wars or military, I live in Ireland... even if I lived in the US, I'd want no wars. The US seems to have this weird duality where they seem to want to do everything the founding fathers did, except their staunch ideals of US isolationism.

Which is why even though I'm not a conservative I have massive respect for Ron Paul.

But I'll take it you're accepting that the argument about schools, roads and hospitals is totally inaccurate

I never said they were the responsibility of the federal government in the US, I wasn't inaccurate about anything. I work for one of the biggest medical insurers in the USA, I know more than you do that the system in the US is privatised so why would I mention hospitals when I know fine well it's not a government run thing there because I work for one of the biggest insurers there.

I was talking about myself paying taxes for things and I why I have no problem with it. In the UK my NI tax goes towards the universal health care we enjoy here etc etc. You seem to want to nail me down as talking specifically about the US when I already told you I wasn't.

Tiocfaidh Armani

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

"hey folks, I just got cancer anybody spot me $500,000"?

FreudianSlippers

That's fine, it obviously wasn't clear to me that that was the case... I mean with it being a US Politics forum and and Ron Paul thread, one could see how it would be misleading to start discussing the UK and their taxation policy.

I'm not really sure how working for a medical insurance company makes you an expert of US taxation codes and whether hospitals receive federal funding... medical insurers being one of the worst rackets in the nation and being fundamentally responsible for the piss poor healthcare in the US and the plight against doctors in the USA, but I'll accept that you were on a tangent.

Tiocfaidh Armani

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not really sure how working for a medical insurance company makes you an expert of US taxation codes and whether hospitals receive federal funding

My point was I work for a US private insurer so I know they don't have a nationalised health care system because I work in the field so I obviously wasn't talking about the USA when I mentioned about my taxes going to pay for hospitals.

Point taken re easy to misinterpret what I was saying given what forum we're on.

FreudianSlippers

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

My point was I work for a US private insurer so I know they don't have a nationalised health care system because I work in the field so I obviously wasn't talking about the USA when I mentioned about my taxes going to pay for hospitals.

Point taken re easy to misinterpret what I was saying given what forum we're on.

hug? :P

Tiocfaidh Armani

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

hug? :P

xx

RichieC

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

"hey folks, I just got cancer anybody spot me $500,000"?

Did you see rhe republican debate? the crowd cheered when the moderator said to paul (parap) if someone cant afford treatment shiuld they be left to die.

I try to keep my debates with these people to a minimum.
my faith in humanity is low enough as it is :-{

FreudianSlippers

RichieC wrote: »

Did you see rhe republican debate? the crowd cheered when the moderator said to paul (parap) if someone cant afford treatment shiuld they be left to die.

This is an interesting area, namely because I actually don't agree necessarily with the whole medical care approach. I believe that there should be a medical care tax taken out of welfare to cover the people on welfare - i.e. that the government should effectively force those on welfare to pay for medical care.

Also, the idea that people are left to die is bull**** both in theory and in practice. The way it works in the US is that the uninsured are treated, then billed. When they cannot and do not pay their $500,000 bill, the hospital "absorbs" that cost, passes it on in higher charges to insurance companies for procedures on the insured, who pass it on to the insured themselves in higher premiums and deductibles.

Nobody in the US is being "left to die" and I think anyone who states that Dr Paul believes they should be so left, is attempting to undermine his position with emotive attacks.

Tiocfaidh Armani

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is an interesting area, namely because I actually don't agree necessarily with the whole medical care approach. I believe that there should be a medical care tax taken out of welfare to cover the people on welfare - i.e. that the government should effectively force those on welfare to pay for medical care.

Also, the idea that people are left to die is bull**** both in theory and in practice. The way it works in the US is that the uninsured are treated, then billed. When they cannot and do not pay their $500,000 bill, the hospital "absorbs" that cost, passes it on in higher charges to insurance companies for procedures on the insured, who pass it on to the insured themselves in higher premiums and deductibles.

Nobody in the US is being "left to die" and I think anyone who states that Dr Paul believes they should be so left, is attempting to undermine his position with emotive attacks.

I read somewhere that 10% of cancer sufferers in the US need to declare bankruptcy as do many other people who lose their homes so it's not quite as simple as you're portraying there. "You can't pay your bill? No problem, we'll aborb it"...

RichieC

my point is the creeping inhumanity on the right in the US.

why would anyone cheer that question?

Suryavarman

American Research Group brought out a new poll last Thursday indicating that Ron Paul is now second in New Hampshire. Romney is in first with 35%, Paul follows with 21% and Gingrich takes third with 16%.

In a separate poll by Public Policy Polling the positions remain the same. The percentages are slightly different with Romney remaining at 35%, Paul dropping to 19%, Gingrich rising to 17% and Huntsman getting 13% of the vote.

It will be interesting to see how Huntsman's numbers perform as he is competing for much the same voters as Romney is. New Hampshire is also a very important state for Romney. If he were to finish second in Iowa and New Hampshire it could do huge damage to his campaign. Despite the fact that delegates will assigned proportionate to votes, the lack of a win would take a lot of steam out of his run.

Ron Paul is also getting a lot of negative attention in the media since the latest poll figures came out. The importance of the Iowa caucus is now being downplayed too. The racist newsletters are being brought back up again which he has done a poor job of explaining. The following are some of the recent articles on Paul:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/ron-paul-s-ascent-won-t-last-or-help-his-cause-ramesh-ponnuru.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SimonConwayPaulIowa/2011/12/20/id/421629

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/ron-pauls-un-electability-will-be-his-undoing/2011/12/20/gIQAC70t6O_blog.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/269993/20111220/ron-paul-pirate-2012-republicans-iowa-gop.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/chris-wallace-iowa-wont-count-if-ron-paul-wins/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Back to the positive and Paul has a new ad out that will run in Iowa and New Hampshire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESux7oFMDY

FreudianSlippers

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I read somewhere that 10% of cancer sufferers in the US need to declare bankruptcy as do many other people who lose their homes so it's not quite as simple as you're portraying there. "You can't pay your bill? No problem, we'll aborb it"...

If you can afford to buy a home you can afford a basic health insurance plan. I'm assuming these people have cars and insure those cars as well, since it is the law. Equally, it should be the law to have health insurance; if you genuinely cannot afford it, you're likely on welfare and it should be taken out at the source and redistributed to some scheme which the state government has negotiated with private insurers a good rate.

Declaring bankruptcy is no big deal in the US and it doesn't mean the hospitals are not "absorbing" the cost... in essence they don't absorb anything since the added costs are passed onto the insured.

simplistic2

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

And why don't you start asking the question of why these people are in poverty in the first place?

Because they are ground into the pavement by regulations, a brain scarring public education, a "war" waged against them for taking drugs, a mass dumping of currency inflating prices far beyond what they should be, theft in the form of taxes...the list goes on...they don't have a damn hope, and you expect the same government that dumps this waste on them to gallantly come to their rescue with trinkets and plasters...

Christ even in Ireland if a poor person tried to make a living selling cookies door-to-door he could be arrested, in America he'd probably get 15 years in a orange suit and lectured to about respecting the law...

simplistic2

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Who will pay for the schools and roads then?

Let's say that the government pays for all cloths that children wear right now, every home is sent shiny new cloths every year for the kids to wear. What happens if the government stops paying for those cloths? Do the kids just idle about naked?

Same for the roads...people have gone into space(private people), I'd hope we could figure out how to pave a road or two also.

RichieC

simplistic2 wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Paul believes charities will step in and help the 50+ million americans who cant afford coverage. I take it the people who get deniedpayouts because they didnt. declare a flu they had previously in their lives will also need to go to charities.

And why don't you start asking the question of why these people are in poverty in the first place?

Because they are ground into the pavement by regulations, a brain scarring public education, a "war" waged against them for taking drugs, a mass dumping of currency inflating prices far beyond what they should be, theft in the form of taxes...the list goes on...they don't have a damn hope, and you expect the same government that dumps this waste on them to gallantly come to their rescue with trinkets and plasters...

Christ even in Ireland if a poor person tried to make a living selling cookies door-to-door he could be arrested, in America he'd probably get 15 years in a orange suit and lectured to about respecting the law...

quite a scattershot argument youre making. Im not getting into a taxes are theft argument for a start. its a childish position.

Regulating food resale is also imo right and proper.

we both agree the war on drugs, more accurately the war on the poor is a crime against humanity.

it is not the poor I'm talking about re insurance. the poor qualify for medicare.

I do not expect the US gov to gallantly do anything. I'm addressing Mr Pauls policy position.

simplistic2

RichieC wrote: »

we both agree the war on drugs, more accurately the war on the poor is a crime against humanity.

Great, so why not extrapolate this principle of not interfering, restricting or dictating with how another chooses to live?

If you think it is wrong to pat someone down for a baggy, why not also their wallet, or even for a cookie?

Just let people be, they are geniuses, herding them about like cattle is fruitless. The problems of poverty, of crime, of human suffering are just waiting to be solved. We just need to get goddamn state out of the way and let the individual thrive.

Tiocfaidh Armani

simplistic2 wrote: »

Let's say that the government pays for all cloths that children wear right now, every home is sent shiny new cloths every year for the kids to wear. What happens if the government stops paying for those cloths? Do the kids just idle about naked?

Same for the roads...people have gone into space(private people), I'd hope we could figure out how to pave a road or two also.

Great, they cost millions, who is going to pay for them? Will they be built by a private company as a charitable act to society? No you'll have roads with tolls at the end of them and people spending a fortune to pass through them.

SupaNova

Un-cut interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0

CNN cut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgGKWmw8HI

Previous interview with Blitzer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw


Watching the first you see Ron give a good interview where he keeps his cool pretty well when pressed on the newsletter issue, which he has responded to in interviews with Wolf Blitzer before. The CNN cut creates a different impression.

Silvio.Dante

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

He'll forever be a busted flush in the Presidential race but I'm happy for him to do well in the Republican race as hopefully it wll encourage him to run as a 3rd candidate, hence ensuring 4 more years of an O-Bot Oval Office...

SupaNova

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

A few sentences in decades of material. I wonder what % of words published the racist comments constitute, 0.000.... %, but don't let that stop you from creating your fantasy image of racist right wing libertarian nuts paying for a racist newsletter. Maybe you can tell me why a man out to line his own pocket gave back $100,000 in congressional allowance, all part of his evil libertarian master-plan? Or maybe you can explain how his consistent stance against the American government going deeper into debt is against the common good of all American citizens?

RichieC

read on twitter that Bachmans iowa campaign chairman defected to the paul camp. interesting.

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

read on twitter that Bachmans iowa campaign chairman defected to the paul camp. interesting.

Here he is making the announcement yesterday:

Jaafa

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The guy published racist material under his own name and made noney from it. His policies on healthcare are savage to say the least. Like most Libertarians he's more worried about his wallet than the common good of all American citizens.

He'll forever be a busted flush in the Presidential race but I'm happy for him to do well in the Republican race as hopefully it wll encourage him to run as a 3rd candidate, hence ensuring 4 more years of an O-Bot Oval Office...

In his early years Mahatma Gandhi used to be extremely racist towards black south Africans.

RichieC

haha the rats are abandoning uss bachmann. shes just lost her campaign manager

AhSureTisGrand

Ron Paul got an endorsement on Twitter from Kelly Clarkson yesterday. Judging by the reaction she got from her followers, very few Paul supporters listen to Kelly Clarkson

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXVD7uBU2s

Is this a ticket we will see in November?