11/5/2007 8:17:50 PM

^^He's not competing against Hillary.

And the only numbers that matter are cash-on-hand minus debt. That's what you have to work with from here on out. Whoever spent the most in the past is largely irrelevant at this point.

11/5/2007 8:54:03 PM

Quote :

"$91 million vs. $8 million"

and he's done this without special interest money, and without bill clinton and others to raise funds for him,
he is definately gonna be taken seriously from now on, and i think the primaries are gonna be a huge shock to everyone

11/5/2007 9:15:30 PM

Quote :

"He's not competing against Hillary."

Haha.

11/5/2007 10:01:52 PM

He will be.

11/5/2007 10:05:56 PM

Quote :

"and he's done this without special interest money, and without bill clinton and others to raise funds for him, he is definately gonna be taken seriously from now on, and i think the primaries are gonna be a huge shock to everyone"

11/5/2007 10:09:07 PM

my fav part is that all the news orgs are like "he claims to have raised" whereas if he was any of the supposed "big 3" they'd just be like "yea he DID raise"

11/5/2007 10:20:47 PM

just passed the $7,000,000 mark for the quarter

11/5/2007 11:38:53 PM

i'm watching this, it's jumping like 6 k every couple min

11/5/2007 11:45:14 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21646939/

Paul sets one-day GOP fundraising record

11/6/2007 12:40:56 AM

Quote :

"Hillary has raised 11 times as much as Ron Paul, total. He's got a long way to go. $91 million vs. $8 million"

Perhaps... but perhaps $8 million and a message of liberty and less invasive gov't might trump $91 million and a message of more big-gov't statism and war.

11/6/2007 12:45:38 AM

$4.2 million in a day, not too shabby

11/6/2007 11:36:21 AM

some interesting links from ron paul's wikipedia entry

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

http://www.dailypaul.com/freedom-under-siege/Freedom-Under-Siege-complete.pdf

http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

http://www.mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf

http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf

11/6/2007 12:52:10 PM

http://www.thisnation.com/

cool website

11/6/2007 9:27:19 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it. But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian. But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust. Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

11/6/2007 11:30:22 PM

Quote :

"(b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian."

Just why the hell is this, anyway?
Are people who frequent the internet inherently smarter, and thus shift towards the obviously more intelligent libertarian stance? Or vice versa (not really sure what "vice versa" would be in this case, but take it how you will)? Or are people just trying to be non-conformists on the internet? Or is it just one of those things that generally happens to correlate, like <insert generally truthful and accepted stereotype here>.

11/6/2007 11:42:09 PM

Quote :

""Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it. But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian. But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust. Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?""

aww looks like someone got pissy because they probably bet their friends that theres no way he could raise that amount of money online and since he got proved wrong, he then resorted to his next backup plan of attacking ron paul anyways. Classic. I wonder who needs to grow up.

11/7/2007 12:05:12 AM

i don't understand how you attack this man. i simply don't.

11/7/2007 12:17:16 AM

I do. Bearing in mind that I am a huge supporter,

Ron Paul sounds like a loony hermit. He has very little stage presence, is not polished in his speeches or rhetoric, and has pretty much zero swagger.

He is pretty much the absolute antithesis of a successful politician, and not just in his views.

I think that as much as anything is why the "establishment" loves to rip on Ron Paul, because he doesn't carry himself like a "politician". Now I don't care, because I believe in him, but those traits are HUGE for the masses who will never actually do any research and will choose their candidate based on sound bytes (which a lot of people do).

I really hope with all of these millions that RP gets himself a much much better speech writer and a prep coach to help him polish up for future debates.

11/7/2007 3:52:02 AM

^
Very good observation there.

Paul does need to find a way to market the concepts of freedom and small gov't for Joe Sixpack.

It shouldn't be that difficult since those two ideas are built into the genetics of our country's make-up. Americans historically despise gov't meddling into their affairs. All Paul has to do is find a way to tap into this feeling without looking like a loon.

11/7/2007 11:02:25 AM

thats the key ...

If people have their "gut feeling" pushed away because of how he presents himself, then he wont win anything.

You may have something there Noen... A lot of help on the presentation/delivery front could really help him convince people that hes not crazy... if in fact he isnt

11/7/2007 11:22:16 AM

I like how $$$ is a requirement to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Our nation has pretty much turned into an elected Oligarchy.

For the most part the same families have been running shit for the last 50 years.

Bush's
Clinton's
Kennedy's
rockefellar
etc

11/7/2007 11:24:36 AM

I think one significant issue with Ron Paul's electability is the wide sweeping changes he is proposing. Eliminating the income tax, allowing people to opt out of social security, eliminating (fill in the blank department), and his view on the Fed and the economy. Going out on a political limb on so many issues will draw enemies from several different camps.

Then again, that's part of what people love about him - his willingness to tell the truth and take a stand based on principle over what's politically popular.

I think he would do better to lay out his plan on the more critical issues he plans to address. You can't eliminate the IRS, withdraw from Iraq, allow people to opt out of social security, and eliminate the income tax all in 4 years. Providing a plan will go a long ways in removing the "political kook" label his opponents try to plant on him.

11/7/2007 12:11:13 PM

Just b.c this is his "platform" does not mean that when takes office radical sweeping changes will occur within our society.

The cost and bureaucracy limits the degree of freedom to create these wide changes as well as "checks and balances" so Ron Paul would have to work with the Legislative Branch to enact his policies. Although hopefully the 4th branch aka Dick Chaney will be gone by then.

Even though I disagree with U.H.C I do not think that as soon as Hillary takes office hypothetically that every hobo on the street will be qualified for open heart surgery on the taxpayers dime

11/7/2007 12:21:21 PM

It's not the sweeping changes, its his (sofar) inability to relate them to the immediate concerns and fears of the average american.

Which all goes back to his rhetoric and political suave. He needs to get some help to "dumb down" his messages into real talking points for the debates, so his responses don't always dig 20 stories deep.

When asked what he would do about foreign policy, he can't keep going on tangents talking about EVERYTHING.

11/7/2007 12:22:26 PM

You are actually right. Most americans are pretty ignorant when it comes to politics as well as handling domestic and foreign policy. Most likely 60% of the voters will end up voting for the name they see most on some billboard/commerical or the leading candidate of the party to which their parents supported when they grew up.

11/7/2007 12:42:07 PM

how are you not able to follow his responses regarding foreign policy, or any other topic for that matter?

It's a simple message in each response, non-interventionist, free trade...

I do think one issue I think he really does need to go in depth with is his talk of eliminating a lot of bureaucracy. That is such a far-reaching endeavor that a LOT of people will be affected, so I think he really needs to dumb that one down for us.

11/7/2007 12:43:59 PM

I am perfectly capable of following his line of thought.

Most people do not know his positions, nor are the educated to the truth. He has got to be able to distill his positions into sound-byte size chunks in order to make major strides in the debates.

11/7/2007 11:25:34 PM

Quote :

"Most people do not know his positions, nor are the educated to the truth."

characteristic of 90% of anyone who votes

not his fault people don't want to take the time to perform a simple civic duty such as researching presidential candidates

i do agree with you though, because, regardless of what i just said, REALITY proves your point

11/8/2007 12:03:07 AM

Quote :

"Look, I'm not trying to piss on this thread--I swear. But some of you act as if what Ron Paul says actually matters. Isn't it time to put the hook on Paul, Gravel, Tancredo, Kucinich, and others already? We've had plenty of debates and everybody running has had a better chance than in past years to get their message out. Now I would like to see a meaningful debate among the top two or three candidates from each party--you know, the ones that have a real chance of winning the two nominations and the general election? It's past time to get real."

11/8/2007 12:28:46 AM

^that statement makes me sick

you don't understand one goddamn thing about the fundamental foundation of our democracy

11/8/2007 12:44:05 AM

^ No, that's not the case. I understand that many of you are excited about Paul and his positions. I get that.

But I truly believe that you forget the incredibly important criterion of electability. Do you honestly think that Paul has any chance of getting the Republican presidential nomination, much less a chance of winning the general election? Do you? If not, these exchanges are purely academic, right?

But as I indicated, I am not trying to piss on this thread. If my posting the reality at issue bothers the Paul supporters here, I will leave this thread and not return.

11/8/2007 12:53:02 AM

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that Paul isn't having a significant impact on "main" candidates.

His platform is worth discussing.

11/8/2007 1:05:13 AM

^ I never indicated that it wasn't. This thread is titled "Ron Paul for Preisdent [sic] 08"--but Paul will never be president. If anyone here thinks he actually will be elected, please go on record now.

Quote :

"But I truly believe that you forget the incredibly important criterion of electability. Do you honestly think that Paul has any chance of getting the Republican presidential nomination, much less a chance of winning the general election? Do you? If not, these exchanges are purely academic, right?"

11/8/2007 2:08:58 AM

Quote :

"how are you not able to follow his responses regarding foreign policy, or any other topic for that matter? It's a simple message in each response, non-interventionist, free trade..."

it isn't that Noen can't figure it out...it's that 90% of the dumbass voting population can't.

Quote :

"not his fault people don't want to take the time to perform a simple civic duty such as researching presidential candidates i do agree with you though, because, regardless of what i just said, REALITY proves your point"

exactly. doesn't matter that it's not his fault. it's still his problem.




^ nobody grounded in reality has any inkling whatsoever that he'll even get a competitive number of votes--much less win anything. it's more just (a) excitement that there is at least one person left in Washington who champions limited government, and he's getting airtime and recognition...and (b) a hope that his calling the rest of the candidates and GOP out on such a public stage will push them in some slight way back towards the libertarian ideals that the party has betrayed.

11/8/2007 2:25:01 AM

^ Good points.

11/8/2007 3:24:02 AM

I honestly think he has a REAL legitimate shot now.

Simply because his campaign can now afford to HIRE a James Carville to give Paul the spice, presence, and political saavy he needs to garner big pushes in the polls.

He's got enough in the bank now to hire the BEST in Washington to start up the spin machines and start the march. Whether this will happen remains to be seen, and I unfortunately doubt it will, but if his campaign wakes up and gets going, 10 points can be made up in a month or less.

11/8/2007 4:39:58 AM

Quote :

"^ nobody grounded in reality has any inkling whatsoever that he'll even get a competitive number of votes--much less win anything."

11/8/2007 4:43:10 AM

not true. 10 million bucks CAN make him a serious contender.

I mean jesus christ, look what money has done for Romney. And Hillary.

11/8/2007 8:32:44 AM

Quote :

""^ nobody grounded in reality has any inkling whatsoever that he'll even get a competitive number of votes--much less win anything.""

if he doesnt, its only because the majority of americans wont vote, and half of those who do dont know jack about who they are voting for.

with that being said, having the most money = being a contender. having money is darn near everything in elections these days

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 8:43 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 8:42:09 AM

I would have to find out what his environmental policies are but if the choice came down to being between him and Hilary I would have to give him a pretty serious look. Although I would like to give the wingnuts on the right something to QQ about for four years.

11/8/2007 8:48:29 AM

If it's between Ron Paul and Hillary, I'd be hard pressed to make a decision.

My least-hated Republican v. my most-hated Democrat.


A write-in vote for Spider-Man seems inevitable.

11/8/2007 9:26:58 AM

Badger of President!

11/8/2007 9:32:45 AM

Quote :

"^ No, that's not the case. I understand that many of you are excited about Paul and his positions. I get that."

i was more so referring to the original poster of the quote than you, but i see where you are coming from. and i wasn't tryin to start a flame war with you haha, i'm just saying that, when you think that way, even if it's just as an observation, it starts to become more than that, it's the type of mentality that cause people to lose hope and then to not care. and when they stop caring they stop trying to make change, and it's because of that that we have had such shitty presidents this past century

11/8/2007 10:55:29 AM

paul just dropped a nuke on bernake's head today
every other congress rep asked bernake questions on how to fix the problems
paul comes in and just tells him he has no buisness even being in the room
that the US made a mistake in ever trusting the fed with the responsibilities
Paul for president!

11/8/2007 11:54:17 AM

Quote :

"Look, I'm not trying to piss on this thread--I swear. But some of you act as if what Ron Paul says actually matters. Isn't it time to put the hook on Paul, Gravel, Tancredo, Kucinich, and others already? We've had plenty of debates and everybody running has had a better chance than in past years to get their message out. Now I would like to see a meaningful debate among the top two or three candidates from each party--you know, the ones that have a real chance of winning the two nominations and the general election?"

I am sure Chavez agrees. The Venezuelans probably feel that having other candidates debate is a waste and it is therefore better to just narrow the field down and let everyone vote for Chavez.

Long Live Chavez!!!

11/8/2007 12:12:07 PM

^ That's just fucking lame, man.

Quote :

"not true. 10 million bucks CAN make him a serious contender. I mean jesus christ, look what money has done for Romney. And Hillary."

Noen

If you were correct, we would have seen President Forbes and President Perot and so on--but we didn't. Sorry.

11/8/2007 3:06:42 PM

Perot had a serious shot until he made a few big mistakes. He got almost 20% of the vote.

11/8/2007 3:16:46 PM

^ Yes, but the point was that if money made the candidate, Perot would have won--but he didn't. And he was a hell of a lot more popular than Paul is now.

11/8/2007 3:21:42 PM

CAN I FINISH?

11/8/2007 3:51:52 PM