Quote :

"You're wrong - because you just are."

It's becoming more clear that you don't understand the concept of natural rights. No one is denying that it's a social construct. Rights are defined as actions that can be taken by a free individual. If those actions restrict or threaten the rights of another individual, that's what we call a "violation of rights."

If you want to go the Kris route and say that rights don't exist, and that whoever has the most guns wins, then great, but it doesn't change my definition of rights or what constitutes a violation of those rights.

Quote :

"Yeah, what's wrong with that? All of the parties agreed to the contract, no one was coerced, why should you care? If you don't like it, don't use it, banks won't mind."

I care because people are getting ripped off, and if they would wake up, they'd realize that. The people have been lulled into a complacent daze due to a high standard of living here, but the fractional reserve banking system is a scheme, pure and simple. It's why I don't keep more in the bank than I need to.

Quote :

"Fractional reserve banking is a wonderful thing that allows us to drastically increase the amount of money in the world. It's the only real form of "magic" in the world."

LOL! I agree, it's magic, in the same way that a Ponzi scheme "magically" produces wealth for the people at the top.

The relationship between banking and loans is one of the root causes of our current crisis. The functions should be separate, and they would be separate under a 100% reserve system. Under full reserve, loaning out large sums of money would be too risky. Separate loan institutions would pop up, but depositors wouldn't be left out to dry under that model.

Here's a good introductory article for those not too familiar with the full vs. fractional reserve banking: http://mises.org/daily/4499

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 11:23:39 AM

Quote :

"It's becoming more clear that you don't understand the concept of natural rights. No one is denying that it's a social construct. Rights are defined as actions that can be taken by a free individual. If those actions restrict or threaten the rights of another individual, that's what we call a "violation of rights.""

Bullshit. You've been denying that for ages, all over this forum. To say now that "natural rights" are a social construct, you're essentially making the admission that "natural rights" are no less fallible than any other piece of legislation. Thus, a "violation of rights" is no different from a "violation of law", and "natural rights" are really just whatever society or government decides they are.

nevermind the fact that the word "natural" is, itself, the polar opposite of "social construct"

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2011 11:55:17 AM

I have never denied that rights are a social construct. In the end, the universe doesn't care what happens to any of us. We could go extinct tomorrow under the right circumstances. There's no objective meaning to life. Hopefully, I'm not blowing your mind here.

The only point here is that you are an individual, and I'm an individual. In that respect, we are on equal ground. For you to say, "hey, it's okay for me to violate your rights," you imply that we are not on equal ground, and that's it's okay to shit on other people when it's convenient. Personally, I don't think that's a very good way for society to operate.

Quote :

"nevermind the fact that the word "natural" is, itself, the polar opposite of "social construct""

Social constructs are as natural as society itself, are they not?

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 12:20:14 PM

Quote :

"Actually fdic insurance is much higher $250k"

I forgot they raised that after the recent recession.

Quote :

"Fdic insurance has some benefits but its also very damaging because it has created the largest moral hazard in world history."

I don't really like how this "moral hazard" term gets thrown around. I'm going to ask you to explain the asymmetric information. I believe the FDIC does a great deal to reduce that asymmetric information by forcing banks to meet certain reserve minimiums. So the "largest in history", I don't think so. I think the largest in moral hazard in history is probably the overuse of fossil fuels.

Quote :

"If you scrapped fdic coverage all together it wouldn't be destructive to the economy, it would just limit the amount of unfair profit banks make off the fdic insurance which is really just a gigantic government subsidy"

It's not really a "subsidy". It's a corporation, they have to pay premiums (just like any other insurance you by) for it and meet certain criteria to remain insured.

Quote :

"If you want to go the Kris route and say that rights don't exist, and that whoever has the most guns wins, then great, but it doesn't change my definition of rights or what constitutes a violation of those rights."

You can describe god to be a big dude with a unicorn tattoo, that doesn't make him any more real. You can also define "natural rights" however you want, that doesn't make them any more real.

Quote :

"I agree, it's magic, in the same way that a Ponzi scheme "magically" produces wealth for the people at the top."

No, fractional reserve banking converts trust into money, otherwise we have all of this trust that has a monetary value that we essentially goes untapped. It's like sitting on a big pile food and still being hungry.

6/23/2011 1:20:54 PM

Quote :

"You can describe god to be a big dude with a unicorn tattoo, that doesn't make him any more real. You can also define "natural rights" however you want, that doesn't make them any more real. "

Why are we even having this discussion, then? Society isn't real. Nations aren't real. Trust isn't real. Language isn't real. The only thing that's real is actual, physical material, and concepts are fake.

Quote :

"No, fractional reserve banking converts trust into money, otherwise we have all of this trust that has a monetary value that we essentially goes untapped. It's like sitting on a big pile food and still being hungry."

Loans would occur without fractional reserve banking. Banking should serve this purpose: to keep money secure and liquid. This idea that they should also be the main source of loans is something that has been perpetuated by the banking cartel for their own personal gain. It doesn't have to be this way.

Under our current system, the depositors are always at a huge risk. I mean, that was the housing bubble. Banks gave out all these loans and realized they weren't going to get their money back, so depositors were at risk. That was how the bailout was justified.

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 1:37:12 PM

Kris, the insurance premiums paid by the banks are not nearly enough to cover the banking system and when the fund went broke in 2009 bc the banks had bribed the govt to let them underfund the FDIC, the govt agreed to backstop. That is absolutely a subsidy

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM. Reason : a]

6/23/2011 1:39:42 PM

Quote :

"The only point here is that you are an individual, and I'm an individual. In that respect, we are on equal ground."

This is the assumption I'm challenging. You just said that rights are social constructs. Thus, what you just said is not a self-evident truth. Personal liberty is a thing we, as a society, chose to give ourselves. Its not something we were born with, or something we inherrently deserve. Thus, it is no different than any other laws we make. "Natural rights" can be changed/ammended with the flick of a pen.

Ron Paul chooses to vote against anything that is unconstitutional. Well that, in itself, is not a justification, if rights are just social constructs.

6/23/2011 3:16:01 PM

Quote :

"Thus, what you just said is not a self-evident truth."

Can people, by nature, act on their thoughts? Those actions are rights. We are born with those abilities. Any restriction on those are violations of what I'm calling a right.

A right is not something you deserve or should have access to. A right is anything that you can do when unrestrained. Yes, this is much different than "rights" as defined by most people these days. That's where you're getting confused.

6/23/2011 3:22:03 PM

If you were talking about "abilities", then you should have used the word "ability".

Are you for real?

6/23/2011 4:22:40 PM

I'm telling you what most libertarians mean when they talk about rights. Natural rights are a concept that is the foundation for libertarianism, which is also a concept. It's the belief that other people are not your property. My goal was not to turn this into a debate about semantics or social constructs.

6/23/2011 4:30:00 PM

Quote :

"Society isn't real. Nations aren't real. Trust isn't real. Language isn't real. "

Yes they are. All of those things exist in the real world. They may have been created by people, but they are real. Rights are not more than the rules set forth by the man with the most guns. This doesn't make them morally right, you may have an argument there about what morally correct rights are, but what rights actually exist are defined by the strongest man.

Quote :

"Loans would occur without fractional reserve banking."

But you can't make money like that. You create money off of the trust of that person to pay it back.

Quote :

"It doesn't have to be this way."

It will unless you legislate it away.

Quote :

"Under our current system, the depositors are always at a huge risk. "

Yet none of them really lost money.

Quote :

"Kris, the insurance premiums paid by the banks are not nearly enough to cover the banking system"

The FDIC disagrees with you. They've raised premiums in the past, I have no reason to believe they won't do it again if necessary.

6/23/2011 5:36:28 PM

^ well you're wrong. The FDIC just ran out of money two years ago for god's sake and that's after we bailed out the banks.

Stop being so hardheaded and obtuse. You're completely wrong on this matter and you know it.

We bailed out the largest banks in the country with a direct cash infusion and we still wiped out the FDIC fund.

We bailed out all the banks in the country with the housing credit and we still wiped out the FDIC fund.

We dropped interest rates to 0% to bail out the banks in this country and we still wiped out the FDIC fund.


There are three facts here.

1) We bailed out the banks

2) We wiped out the FDIC fund

3) FDIC insurance is backstopped by the treasury, therefore it is a form of government subsidy. The premiums themselves are not a subsidy, but they do not cover the banking system adequately.

6/23/2011 6:01:10 PM

Quote :

"The FDIC just ran out of money two years ago for god's sake"

The DIF has never been insolvent. That is simply wrong.

Quote :

"FDIC insurance is backstopped by the treasury, therefore it is a form of government subsidy."

During these tough times they raised premiums and fees with no trouble, and likely would have successfully done it even moreso had the bailout not given them the money to not require them to do so. It is no fault of the FDIC that the government wanted to give them money, the FDIC could have made it by just fine without it.

[Edited on June 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2011 6:18:11 PM

Dude we get it. You live in fairyland. Enough already this isn't a debateable topic, a govt guarantee is a form of subsidy

6/23/2011 6:49:27 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/index.htm

Ron Paul believes internet conspiracies over the US Treasury and wants to spend millions of dollars auditing something we already audit. President? Really? Are we going to start investigating the moon landing and the mind control properties of flouride?

6/24/2011 1:37:23 PM

I wonder how much of that gold is actually just tungsten. We'll probably never know.

6/24/2011 1:57:39 PM

So now he's railing against the US gold reserves. Kind of bizarre I think. It's just odd because he's a very well known gold bug.

Like, he wants to have an assurance that the gold is there and not actually hidden or something like that. Honestly it wouldn't even matter b/c it's only like $300 billion of gold and you could never sell all that at market rates without market distortion anyway... and even if you could it would barely budge the debt.

6/24/2011 1:59:36 PM

He thinks the federal reserve is stealing it Ocean's Eleven style.

6/24/2011 2:08:25 PM

No, the Federal Reserve steals money in a very different way. I think Ron Paul is more interested in seeing how much actual gold is there, and how much of it is just gold on "paper," i.e. leased out/unaccounted for.

6/24/2011 2:12:39 PM

The Mint does regular audits.

6/24/2011 2:14:52 PM

If they have nothing to hide, they won't mind an outside, independently conducted audit...right? The treasury has been fighting this, though, so I suspect they do have something to hide.

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2011 2:19:31 PM

We should pay to have an outside, independently conducted investigation into whether or not any of the senators are robots. If the senators are not robots, they should have nothing to hide, but the senators have been fighting this, though, so I suspect they do have something to hide.

6/24/2011 2:43:46 PM

I would have liked to have seen an 'is dick cheney an evil robot' investigation.

6/24/2011 3:08:20 PM

Ron Paul has announced that he will not be running for re-election in Texas, and will be focusing his efforts on the Presidential campaign.

7/12/2011 2:50:40 PM

I guess he'll have a nice retirement starting next year. Galveston isn't a bad spot to ride off into the sunset.

7/12/2011 2:58:17 PM

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

Everyone but Palin, Bachmann, Romney, and Paul have fallen below 10% in Iowa.

7/12/2011 3:11:37 PM

Ok, I'm going to stop being a dick. I still think the man is a Looney Tune, but so were the people that thought we could invade and rebuild the Middle East in our image. I am genuinely interested in what sort of end-game he sees for his campaign.

What is the strategy for overcoming the obvious lack of coverage from the media? What alternative media strategy does he have?

What is he spending all that money on? How is the campaign translating the ability to get money from a lot of small sources into getting votes?

Who are his strategists and what is there experience in building popular movements that can move beyond the core supporters who love him to the people who might not be familiar with him?

I assume New Hampshire is where they expect to make the most headway. What are they doing on the ground there?

You can complain about the media and party establishment all you want, but the great thing about today's fractured media is that you really don't need them. He has the money, where's the movement?

7/13/2011 9:23:55 AM

When's someone going to answer this?

7/18/2011 11:35:04 AM

i don't know but i would like to know the answers to those questions too

7/18/2011 12:45:13 PM

Well unless Jesse Benton himself comes on here, answers to those questions seem unlikely.

7/18/2011 1:02:54 PM

As a supporter, why do you think he hasn't translated activist fervor and fundraising into poll numbers? The MSM doesn't have to be an obstacle in today's world. You have so many tools for bypassing them and contacting people, and apparently a dedicated group of activists unrivaled in the GOP. What's the strategy?

7/18/2011 1:38:39 PM

I would argue that he HAS turned that in to poll numbers. Look at where he was from the 2008 campaign to where he is now. He isn't the front runner, but he's within striking distance by the time the Iowa caucuses and NH primaries roll around. Again, I doubt he'll take either, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a top 3 showing in both. That will get him to be taken seriously enough to carry him through to a few more states like Nevada.

I think he is also projected a little more poorly than where he will end up due to a bunch of uncertains being included in most major polling (Palin/Perry/Giuliani (lol)/etc.).

IMO, Ron Paul supporters are the biggest obstacle between him and being taken more seriously. In light of him not going back to Congress next session, I really hope that when he decides to drop out that he gives a big middle finger to the GOP and tells his supporters that Bachmann/Romney aren't worth their vote.

7/18/2011 2:09:19 PM

But I look at where he is now and where he placed in NH in 2008 and I see similar numbers. Stagnation. What's the plan to win?

7/18/2011 2:18:53 PM

The polls aren't similar, and I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I disagree completely with your "stagnation" position. A few things have tipped the scales in favor of Ron Paul:

1) The ground game is much better. Campaign for Liberty has delegates in all states from the previous election cycle, and that's how you begin to change the party establishment.

2) This time, he's not running against his own party for general election. In 2008, being anti-war was seen as being anti-GOP. Now, the wars are "Obama's war," and more Republicans are coming over RP's side on this issue. I don't think he'll get nearly as much crap for his non-interventionism this time around.

3) Name recognition. In 2007, Ron Paul was an obscure congressman from Texas. Now, he makes the rounds on cable news networks and people know who he is and what he stands for.

4) Generally, small l libertarianism is on the rise. People are recognizing that something has got to give, and that the government simply can't keep up these levels of spending. Ron Paul has the best record of probably any representative in the history of the republic, at least as far as sticking to the Constitution. I think conservatives will see a lot of value in that.

The real obstacle are the powers that be running the GOP. These guys do not want to give up their power. They've worked for decades to construct this war machine, and they're not about to let some grassroots movement come in and end it. They will fight, and they will draw upon any resources possible to get an establishment candidate like Romney in. In that sense, we're up against a very formidable party establishment.

Also:

Active military donations according to query.nictusa.com, 2nd Quarter 2011

$36,739 - Ron Paul
$28,834 - Barack Obama
$6,223 - Herman Cain
$5,000 - Mitt Romney
$2,500 - Michelle Bachman
$1,025 Newt Gingrich
$ 250 - Rich Santorum
$ 250 - Tim Pawlenty

Hmm. I wonder why the people actually serving in the military prefer Ron Paul by such a large margin? I thought Ron Paul hated the troops, right? Otherwise, he'd want to continue sending them to their deaths for no reason.

[Edited on July 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2011 3:14:37 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Take just Gallup. He was at 7% last September. The latest Gallup poll has him at...7%.

Ok, national polls are a bad measure right now. Most people aren't paying attention. Let's look at New Hampshire, which I'd likely agree with you is somewhere where he could make a big play.

Results of 2008 NH Primary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2008

And this cycle so far: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html#polls

He's been at between 6% and 10% this month. Long term average is...8.5%

As all of those things you mentioned above...the libertarian turn, the increased exposure, etc, have happened, you've seen negligible growth in primary voter support.

Where's the movement in the numbers? How could the GOP establishment be affecting this lack of movement?

I would argue that, like most candidates on the fringe of their party, there is a low ceiling of appeal even within conservatism, which is a very diverse ideology. This could be because of ideology or it could be because of electability. You have the money to win. You're ahead of where Huckabee was in 2008 and look how close he could have come if he'd had more money. I'd be asking some serious questions of the campaign manager as to how well the money's being spent. You need to move beyond the die hards.

[Edited on July 18, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : x]

7/18/2011 3:53:14 PM

FoxNews just reported that Ron Paul has a chance against Obama in the general election. wat? they said some poll has him at 37-41 (losing, but still). and FoxNews reported this?

7/22/2011 2:29:24 PM

I thought they hated ron paul.

7/22/2011 2:47:39 PM

they hate obama more.

7/22/2011 2:57:34 PM

paul gets too flustered in debate to win.

thats one of obamas weaknesses that the successful republican will have to exploit.

7/22/2011 3:03:45 PM

Obama 41%, Ron Paul 37%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

Once again, Ron Paul turns out to be the most likely to actually beat Obama in the general election. I would expect this to be the case.

7/22/2011 6:00:25 PM

^Eh, hard to cite that as the reason he is the most likely to beat Obama when you have reports like this one running around from Rasmussen too

Quote :

"A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Romney attracting 43% of the vote while Obama earns support from 42%. In April, Obama held a five-point edge over Romney. (To see survey question wording, click here.) "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_romney_43_obama_42

7/22/2011 6:21:40 PM

Quote :

"^Eh, hard to cite that as the reason he is the most likely to beat Obama when you have reports like this one running around from Rasmussen too"

Oh, I don't think a poll is the reason he's more likely to beat Obama. If you just look at the issues, he's offering something drastically different than the mainstream parties. This is attractive to libertarians, anti-war/anti-corporatist left, many conservatives, and a lot of independents.

7/22/2011 6:31:56 PM

Ron Paul's success in the election is extremely dependent on his supporter's ability to come together, work hard, and get a ride from their mothers to the polling location.

7/22/2011 7:00:22 PM

You know so little about the people you hate so much.

7/22/2011 7:16:50 PM

Quote :

"I thought they hated ron paul."

they do. that's what confused me, lol.

Quote :

"they hate obama more."

prolly the tr00f

7/22/2011 7:41:45 PM

http://goo.gl/g3leM

Quote :

"Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he runs competitively with President Obama right now. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 37% of the vote, while the president earns 41%. The Texas congressman joins Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry as candidates within hailing distance of the president at this time."

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 7:55 PM. Reason : shortener]

7/22/2011 7:55:19 PM

Ron Paul penned an op-ed on bloomberg today. Terrific stuff.

Quote :

"Default Now, Or Suffer A More Expensive Crisis Later Debate over the debt ceiling has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with each side trying to outdo the other in a game of political chicken. If you believe some of the things that are being written, the world will come to an end if the U.S. defaults on even the tiniest portion of its debt. In strict terms, the default being discussed will occur if the U.S. fails to meet its debt obligations, through failure to pay either interest or principal due a bondholder. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling claim that a default on Aug. 2 is unprecedented and will result in calamity (never mind that this is simply an arbitrary date, easily changed, marking a congressional recess). My expectations of such a scenario are more sanguine. The U.S. government defaulted at least three times on its obligations during the 20th century. -- In 1934, the government banned ownership of gold and eliminated the right to exchange gold certificates for gold coins. It then immediately revalued gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35, thus devaluing the dollar holdings of all Americans by 40 percent. -- From 1934 to 1968, the federal government continued to issue and redeem silver certificates, notes that circulated as legal tender that could be redeemed for silver coins or silver bars. In 1968, Congress unilaterally reneged on this obligation, too. -- From 1934 to 1971, foreign governments were permitted by the U.S. government to exchange their dollars for gold through the gold window. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed this final link between the dollar and gold by closing the gold window, thus in effect defaulting once again on a debt obligation of the U.S. government. Unlimited Spending No longer constrained by any sort of commodity backing, the federal government was now free to engage in almost unlimited fiscal profligacy, the only check on its spending being the market’s appetite for Treasury debt. Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending. If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes. The national debt now stands at just over $14 trillion, while net total liabilities are estimated at over $200 trillion. The government is insolvent, as there is no way that this massive sum of liabilities can ever be paid off. Successive Congresses and administrations have shown absolutely no restraint when it comes to the budget process, and the idea that either of the two parties is serious about getting our fiscal house in order is laughable. Boom and Bust The Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle describes how loose central bank monetary policy causes booms and busts: It drives down interest rates below the market rate, lowering the cost of borrowing; encourages malinvestment; and causes economic miscalculation as resources are diverted from the highest value use as reflected in true consumer preferences. Loose monetary policy caused the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, and now is causing the government debt bubble. For far too long, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and quantitative easing have kept interest rates artificially low, enabling the government to drastically increase its spending by funding its profligacy through new debt whose service costs were lower than they otherwise would have been. Neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to end this gravy train, with one party prioritizing war spending and the other prioritizing welfare spending, and with both supporting both types of spending. But now, with the end of the second round of quantitative easing, the federal funds rate at the zero bound, and the debt limit maxed out, Congress finds itself in a real quandary. Hard Decisions It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated. Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later. If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing. Raising the Ceiling The alternative to defaulting now is to keep increasing the debt ceiling, keep spending like a drunken sailor, and hope that the default comes after we die. A future default won’t take the form of a missed payment, but rather will come through hyperinflation. The already incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will grow even closer as the Fed begins to purchase debt directly from the Treasury and monetizes debt on a scale that makes QE2 look like a drop in the bucket. Imagine the societal breakdown of Weimar Germany, but in a country five times as large. That is what we face if we do not come to terms with our debt problem immediately. Default will be painful, but it is all but inevitable for a country as heavily indebted as the U.S. Just as pumping money into the system to combat a recession only ensures an unsustainable economic boom and a future recession worse than the first, so too does continuously raising the debt ceiling only forestall the day of reckoning and ensure that, when it comes, it will be cataclysmic. We have a choice: default now and take our medicine, or put it off as long as possible, when the effects will be much worse"

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM. Reason : a]

7/22/2011 10:05:02 PM

That's pretty good. Link?

7/23/2011 10:03:46 AM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Default+Now%2C+Or+Suffer+A+More+Expensive+Crisis+Later%22

7/23/2011 2:55:11 PM

This still needs to be addressed:

Quote :

"http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html Take just Gallup. He was at 7% last September. The latest Gallup poll has him at...7%. Ok, national polls are a bad measure right now. Most people aren't paying attention. Let's look at New Hampshire, which I'd likely agree with you is somewhere where he could make a big play. Results of 2008 NH Primary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2008 And this cycle so far: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html#polls He's been at between 6% and 10% this month. Long term average is...8.5% As all of those things you mentioned above...the libertarian turn, the increased exposure, etc, have happened, you've seen negligible growth in primary voter support. Where's the movement in the numbers? How could the GOP establishment be affecting this lack of movement? I would argue that, like most candidates on the fringe of their party, there is a low ceiling of appeal even within conservatism, which is a very diverse ideology. This could be because of ideology or it could be because of electability. You have the money to win. You're ahead of where Huckabee was in 2008 and look how close he could have come if he'd had more money. I'd be asking some serious questions of the campaign manager as to how well the money's being spent. You need to move beyond the die hards."

How do you propose your campaign fixes this?

7/25/2011 1:18:46 PM