Laudate_Dominum Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'm going to write in Aloysius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1328150525' post='2379379'] I'm done falling for the "but he's better than the other guy" excrement. [/quote] Even if you and every other libertarian-minded person writes in Ron Paul this November, that will only assure us four more years of the most leftist and statist president in American history. Not inspiring, not pretty, and it sure as hell won 't earn me lots of propz from the peanut gallery, but that's the hard, cold reality. But if you really, truly think this country will be better off after four more years of Obama, go for it. [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328157437' post='2379452'] That's only because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...[size=2]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance[/size]...[size=1]because people don't vote third party...because third party candidates never have a chance...........[/size] [/quote] The time to push for Ron Paul (or whomever your candidate of choice is) is [i]before [/i]the primaries. That's also the time to "send the GOP a message." The message sent thus far is that the vast majority of the GOP electorate prefers Romney, Newt [i]et al[/i] to Ron Paul, who's consistently placed a distant fourth (only 7% in the Florida primary). All voting for Paul in the Presidential election will do is assure another term for Dear Leader. While it may not be pretty, that's not pessimism; it's realism. If Ron Paul can't win more that a small percentage of any of the primary elections, there's no way in hell he's going to win the National election. Sorry, but the idea that liberal Democrats will flock [i]en masse[/i] to vote for Paul is pure fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Obama is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328216904' post='2379738'] When it comes to the Supreme Court, generally the balance will be kept under either so long as there's a division between Repubs and Dems in the whole government (so when pro-choice justices leave, we get new pro-choice justices and when pro-life justices leave, we get pro-life justices).[/quote] With another Obama term, that balance will be overturned. At least four, likely five, of the nine justices will be Obama appointees, and they will likely stay there for a long time. That's one of the biggest reasons I believe Obama needs to go. [quote]eventually the power-players in the Republican party would get the message that they can no longer string us along, that they have to offer something serious and real that we can be excited about or else we'll keep letting them lose[/quote] That message is sent by voting in the primaries. By the time a nominee is actually chosen, it's too late. The last serious third-party run was by Ross Perot, and that only gave us Bill Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 We don't need no stinkin' president. I'm voting against inordinate concentrations of power. Congress for president! Wil Wheaton for vice president! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328216904' post='2379738'] I wouldn't vote for Nero over Diocletian, I'd vote for Ronus Paulus. And I'd justify it saying that even if a vote for Ronus Paulus takes away from votes for Nero and ends up ensuring Diocletian's victory, well then the persecution of Diocletian is good for the Church anyway. lol, that's my answer to that. I don't really think it'll be much better under Romney than under Obama, to be quite frank. When it comes to the Supreme Court, generally the balance will be kept under either so long as there's a division between Repubs and Dems in the whole government (so when pro-choice justices leave, we get new pro-choice justices and when pro-life justices leave, we get pro-life justices). I refuse to allow the pro-life movement to be held hostage and marginalized by the appointment of justices anymore, which is why I think the whole pro-life movement must rally behind Ron Paul's We the People Act and use the legislature to STRIP the Federal Courts of their jurisdiction over the abortion issue.[/quote]I don't like that the pro-life movement depends on the appointment of Justices as much as it does, and my professor at UD said we should support this type of law, and I commend the effort, but there is a slight problem with it: it doesn't protect itself from the same Judicial Review that could declare it unconstitutional itself. I think that little loophole has to be closed by a Constitutional Amendment before this Act has any hope. As far as I can see, this could also come back to bite freedom of religion... [quote]and anyway, I personally think that we can have great confidence that the huge precedence of law in favor of a conscience exception will prevail against the Sebellius dictates and the Supreme Court will uphold the First Ammendment in this instance. In fact, I believe it's likely that Obama himself knows this quite well and expects it to be overturned; he expects not to have to deal with a bunch of bishops closing down hospitals and such. but he can look good to a certain constituency that likes to see him battle against the big bad Catholic Church in favor of their contraceptive rights, and then not have to dig into a very hard battle because the Supreme Court will save him from having to. in other words, it's a political move, it makes him look good to his base, and he gave us a year probably so that the Supreme Court can overturn it by then and he won't have to look like the guy who made all the Catholic hospitals close down.[/quote]I also have the same hope, but I'm also more worried about small things that don't end up in the news. My Archbishop has been very vigilant fighting at the local level against state laws (and District laws) that threaten the Church in this area. [quote]things are not as dreary as we are sometimes led to believe, methinks, because the people in charge on both sides actually prefer the status quo mostly. so I'm not sure I buy this argument, the same argument put forth every four years, that says "the other guy is so one hundred million times worse than our guy so we had better keep him from getting power! yeah sure, maybe someday we can have a real movement in favor of something instead of just limiting against the big bad boogey man (in this case, it's Obama), but for now just get in line behind our guy." because if we buy into that argument every four years, the some day will never come. maybe there needs to be a few election cycles where the big bad boogey man gets to win because we are starting to form a real movement in favor of something good for our government. for a long term plan to save the country, it could be okay if we lose a few elections to Obama and his ilk. eventually the power-players in the Republican party would get the message that they can no longer string us along, that they have to offer something serious and real that we can be excited about or else we'll keep letting them lose. that's what needs to happen, and it doesn't happen so long as people keep buying the gloom and doom stories about how we're all gonna die if a republican doesn't take the white house back from Obama this year. [/quote]I don't mean to be doom and gloom, far from it. When Bush was elected to office, we had many great things happen. I'll bring up my old thread because I don't have the energy to research it again: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/84031-what-bush-has-done-for-the-pro-life-cause-in-america/ Why do you think that Newt and Romney are so different than Bush? Or are they not that much different, and that's part of the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Socrates, only Romney and Paul come within the margin of error of beating Obama in national polls. Gingrich and Santorum are the ones that lose to Obama in the national polls. That's the reality, Paul is actually very competitive in a national election. It's a fantasy to say that he can't compete in a national election. in any event, the message you are asking us to send to the GOP is "we really want something done... but if you don't offer us a candidate that will do it, we'll support you anyway." I don't want to play that game any longer. I want to send them a message that "we do NOT support what you have become, GOP, and no matter how much you demonize your opponent, that's not going to make us support you any more unless you offer us a legitimate alternative to them." and of course the vast majority of the GOP electorate does not support Romney. that's simply not true. the vast majority of the electorate split itself over who would be the anti-Romney, giving Romney the strategic advantage to get into first place among the remaining four. Gingrich was a last-man-standing of the anti-Romneys, a sort of last gasp of trying to avoid getting Romney. I think it would be accurate to say that a vast majority of the GOP electorate at this point wants Ron Paul's economics mixed with George Bush's foreign policy, and they've been largely disappointed by their options. anyway, if we can get something good into the platform I'll consider supporting the GOP if only as a message that I support the platform. but I won't just support the GOP blindly because of the boogey man myths about how terrible Obama is. I just don't buy it, they're not that different on the things that really matter. oh, and all the stats show that Ross Perot didn't give us Bill Clinton, that Ross Perot took from both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328224222' post='2379818'] This should have read: "Neither option is pleasant, but the [b]first[/b] is still preferable." As in, it's better to save a little bit than have the whole thing burn to the ground and be destroyed. [/quote]While wrong, your first post was much more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328226625' post='2379846'] Socrates, only Romney and Paul come within the margin of error of beating Obama in national polls. Gingrich and Santorum are the ones that lose to Obama in the national polls. That's the reality, Paul is actually very competitive in a national election. It's a fantasy to say that he can't compete in a national election. [/quote]Al, as of this morning, Rasmussen said: [list] [*][url="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zmzggocab&et=1109205344743&s=39204&e=001M6DTqExvwn4RPOlOS2Swai53tI9bB3jqT9TGvEcTctScUsAk6kSrTMkq6RurLhcY6pUVos05mUR-z1tuTlSDtkLRFWkJu7VtLa41ohzWkMcwzHJ1TrfltFj_9taSZrhuctEA5tRi4DDpXuv1xHBgqcXxvfO3tCnsvFHDkK0ibrZAnz6y2h4YQ2Gg3lnnb_aj8XT8V7M9IF0UfEXNpEH-TSUh9FdEKbW45ek8Lgk36z0="]Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Obama 46% Romney 45%[/url] [/list][list] [*][url="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zmzggocab&et=1109205344743&s=39204&e=001M6DTqExvwn4RPOlOS2Swai53tI9bB3jqT9TGvEcTctScUsAk6kSrTMkq6RurLhcY6pUVos05mUR-z1tuTlSDtkLRFWkJu7VtLa41ohzWkMcwzHJ1TrfltFj_9taSZrhuctEA5tRi4DDpXuv1xHBgqcXxvfO3tCnsvFHDkK0ibrZAnz6y2h4YQ2Gg3lnnb_aj8XT8V7M9IF0UfEXNpEH-TSUh9FdEKbW45ek8Lgk36z0="]Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Obama 49% Gingrich 41%[/url] [/list][list] [*][url="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zmzggocab&et=1109205344743&s=39204&e=001M6DTqExvwn4RPOlOS2Swai53tI9bB3jqT9TGvEcTctScUsAk6kSrTMkq6RurLhcY6pUVos05mUR-z1tuTlSDtkLRFWkJu7VtLa41ohzWkMcwzHJ1TrfltFj_9taSZrhuctEA5tRi4DDpXuv1xHBgqcXxvfO3tCnsvFHDkK0ibrZAnz6y2h4YQ2Gg3lnnb_aj8XT8V7M9IF0UfEXNpEH-TSUh9FdEKbW45ek8Lgk36z0="]Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Obama 46% Santorum 44%[/url] [/list][list] [*][url="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zmzggocab&et=1109205344743&s=39204&e=001M6DTqExvwn4RPOlOS2Swai53tI9bB3jqT9TGvEcTctScUsAk6kSrTMkq6RurLhcY6pUVos05mUR-z1tuTlSDtkLRFWkJu7VtLa41ohzWkMcwzHJ1TrfltFj_9taSZrhuctEA5tRi4DDpXuv1xHBgqcXxvfO3tCnsvFHDkK0ibrZAnz6y2h4YQ2Gg3lnnb_aj8XT8V7M9IF0UfEXNpEH-TSUh9FdEKbW45ek8Lgk36z0="]Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Obama 45% Paul 42%[/url] [/list] Edit: I prettied this icky post up. And messed up all grammar in the process. Edited February 2, 2012 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328225835' post='2379837'] We don't need no stinkin' president. I'm voting against inordinate concentrations of power. Congress for president! Wil Wheaton for vice president! [/quote]You're not a monarchist?? Now my world is upside-down. I'm still a monarchist at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This was 3 days ago, but Gallup seems to disagree: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx Gingrich is much farther down in Gallup. In any event, the idea that Paul is not competitive against Obama in national polls is simply not true. There are many polls that show him much higher than Rasmussen, and many things will change by November. In terms of what Bush did for the pro-life movement; Romney's record does not indicate he'll do much for the pro-life movement. I think the partial-birth abortion ban was the greatest thing that was done by Bush, and that's actually not being threatened right now. other than that, I don't see Gingrich or Romney even doing as much as Bush did (and Bush didn't do enough I don't think, but he was at least genuinely pro-life unlike Romney IMO). as to the Supreme Court overturning the We the People Act, it simply cannot do it. The Constitution is clear (Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1) that congress has this authority to limit congressional jurisdiction, for the Supreme Court to directly state that Congress cannot do what the Constitution clearly says it can do, I just don't see that happening actually. It would be like the Supreme Court saying that it was unconstitutional for Congress to declare war or mint money, these are clearly enumerated powers of congress, fundamental, there is no way the justices can get around the wording of it. I don't think it will be overturned. And if it were overturned, I would hope congress and maybe a good executive branch if a pro lifer was in the white house would stand up and say that the law still stands. congress could limit constitutional jurisdiction to say that it did not have jurisdiction to review a law that congress makes regarding its own jurisdiction, since congress's power to limit jurisdiction comes directly from the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) also, I have seen polls that include a third party libertarian run of Gary Johnson that give Johnson 9% nationally and Obama a big victory (the above Gallup and Rasmussen polls don't give the people they're polling any specific third option so they are not accurate if the Libertarians get on the ballot). With a strong libertarian showing, as might happen seeing as the movement has been so mobilized recently, it might be that the strongest Republican candidate would be a Ron Paul bringing in the Libertarian hardliners and the anyone-but-obama-ites. ultimately, the GOP at least now knows that they cannot win unless they do something to placate the Ron Paul supporters. Edited February 3, 2012 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328227745' post='2379857'] This was 3 days ago, but Gallup seems to disagree: [url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx"]http://www.gallup.co...ich-Trails.aspx[/url] Gingrich is much farther down in Gallup. In any event, the idea that Paul is not competitive against Obama in national polls is simply not true. There are many polls that show him much higher than Rasmussen, and many things will change by November. In terms of what Bush did for the pro-life movement; Romney's record does not indicate he'll do much for the pro-life movement. I think the partial-birth abortion ban was the greatest thing that was done by Bush, and that's actually not being threatened right now. other than that, I don't see Gingrich or Romney even doing as much as Bush did (and Bush didn't do enough I don't think, but he was at least genuinely pro-life unlike Romney IMO). as to the Supreme Court overturning the We the People Act, it simply cannot do it. The Constitution is clear (Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1) that congress has this authority to limit congressional jurisdiction, for the Supreme Court to directly state that Congress cannot do what the Constitution clearly says it can do, I just don't see that happening actually. It would be like the Supreme Court saying that it was unconstitutional for Congress to declare war or mint money, these are clearly enumerated powers of congress, fundamental, there is no way the justices can get around the wording of it. I don't think it will be overturned. And if it were overturned, I would hope congress and maybe a good executive branch if a pro lifer was in the white house would stand up and say that the law still stands. congress could limit constitutional jurisdiction to say that it did not have jurisdiction to review a law that congress makes regarding its own jurisdiction, since congress's power to limit jurisdiction comes directly from the Constitution. [/quote]If such an act passed, what would prevent laws like what the HHS is doing from passing? [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328228045' post='2379861'] also, I have seen polls that include a third party libertarian run of Gary Johnson that give Johnson 9% nationally and Obama a big victory (the above Gallup and Rasmussen polls don't give the people they're polling any specific third option so they are not accurate if the Libertarians get on the ballot). With a strong libertarian showing, as might happen seeing as the movement has been so mobilized recently, it might be that the strongest Republican candidate would be a Ron Paul bringing in the Libertarian hardliners and the anyone-but-obama-ites. ultimately, the GOP at least now knows that they cannot win unless they do something to placate the Ron Paul supporters. [/quote]Now this is very true, and very important, but it also shows that Ron Paul's place is more in the primaries than after. I don't think he could get more of the electoral college than Ross Perot was able to grab. The polls vary wildly from day to day. You're right about the question about a third-party candidate. I don't think it'd make much better at this time. Also, I am not convinced that a more conservative or libertarian Republican candidate will bring in enough votes. Obama won by rallying his own party AND by winning a lot of the independents. Can Ron Paul do likewise? Edited February 3, 2012 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Ron Paul does best with independents. The issue would be rallying his own party, and you'd have to do that with a big anti-obama angle (he's been doing attack ads this time around pretty well, like his ones against Gingrich, so he'd definitely need attack ads against Obama to rally the party) and perhaps a toning down of his rhetoric on the war. I notice a lot of people coming up in the ranks in the Ron Paul movement are giving basically the same message, even the foreign policy message, in a way that is more palatable. Like my guy Evan Feinberg, who's running for Congressman in my district and was a staffer for Rand Paul. This is how he says essentially the same thing Ron Paul is saying: http://evanfeinberg.com/issues/national-security-and-foreign-policy/, but as the nominee Ron might need to do a little more of this type of talk (though keeping up the anti-war angle, even attacking Obama over the war issue). Anyway, this idea that Ron Paul is not competitive in a national election is wrong. If he were the nominee, he'd be extremely competitive. He could seriously undermine Obama's anti-war status (easily making attack ads on Obama showing where he did everything exactly as Bush planned to do it), he would get a lot of independents (shown by the primaries, that's where he's strong, pulling in independents), undermining Obama's youth excitement vote... his main thing that he would need to do is try to rally the base a bit better, by speaking their language better (His son, Rand, does this better, giving the same message but using the language that the base likes better). Ultimately, it'd be an interesting race. I think Gingrich or Romney are likely to just be like John McCain... or John Kerry. An unexciting candidate that seems like they were thrown up as a softball to help the incumbent win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think he could be competitive, but I wonder if he could be competitive enough to win. This is a question with any of the candidates really. If he runs third party, no, I don't think he'd be competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now