Now, now, Ronnie, the Donald may be a pretentious comedic fool, but, in fairness, he lives in a district a bit more diverse that one which includes only the upper level administrative personnel of Dow Chemical.

The time has come for Ron Paul. People will not take the lies anymore. They are too many and too obvious. The last ones to change will be the establishment…as usual. They’re too mixed in with the lies and lack the ability to see.

Here is some support from Sweden:

http://www.ronpaul.se

Sorry TRRK but Dr Paul’s district is very diverse. My parents live in it and run a couple shrimp boats. Please stop telling your lies.

On a side note, the media and political class hate the idea of offering a viable alternative to massive debt, decade long wars and bloated government. God forbid we should stop interfering with other countries and stop spending money we don’t have.

Paul has one the CPAC straw poll before right? They sure do love him there. It’s interesting that Mitch Daniels gave a speech heavy on real issues and light on liberal/Obama bashing, which apparently was quite good but didn’t go over well with the crowd (if the reports I read are accurate). I read interviews with quite a few CPAC attendees who believe social issues will play a major role in 2012. Is that just wishful thinking? Daniels has already taken significant heat from the right for suggesting social issues aren’t as vital as they used to be.

More Liberty3 said:
Sorry TRRK but Dr Paul’s district is very diverse. My parents live in it and run a couple shrimp boats. Please stop telling your lies.

On a side note, the media and political class hate the idea of offering a viable alternative to massive debt, decade long wars and bloated government. God forbid we should stop interfering with other countries and stop spending money we don’t have.

I know the District exceedingly well myself, and, no, it is not terribly diverse. It is predominated by petrochemical concerns and people who work for these corporations. Church demographics in this area are fascinating to read.

Yeah my parents live there, and I grew up there. It is not dominated by DOW, although there is some interests. My parents own/run two shrimp boats. The fact is the area is diverse both economically and racially.

Ron Paul’s congressional district:

59% White, 28% Hispanic, 9% Black, 3% Asian. Median income is about $54,000.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/texas/14

Thanks paulmdoro. Those numbers, are pretty much the same % as the nation as a whole. Slightly more hispanics, and slightly less African-Americans.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

paulmdoro said:
Paul has one the CPAC straw poll before right? They sure do love him there. It’s interesting that Mitch Daniels gave a speech heavy on real issues and light on liberal/Obama bashing, which apparently was quite good but didn’t go over well with the crowd (if the reports I read are accurate). I read interviews with quite a few CPAC attendees who believe social issues will play a major role in 2012. Is that just wishful thinking? Daniels has already taken significant heat from the right for suggesting social issues aren’t as vital as they used to be.

Daniels, IMO, doesn’t have the charisma to really be a party leader at this point. However, I think he’d make a very formidable VP candidate.

The 2012 election is going to be hard for the Republicans because Obama is so likeable… however, a strong VP candidate can (IMO) really sway the election. Someone like Daniels, who’s got a big ‘ol brain on him, would do wonder for the independent vote, and the “fix the economy” vote… even as a VP candidate.

As for Paul, I like that he’s in the Republican party, but he needs to realize his role. He’s one of the voices that is needed to help keep the party as a whole on track. I see him as the right version of Bernie Sanders, or Kucinich… who helps drag the Democrats a little more leftward. They’re ideological voters, who concern themselves with principles and platforms, rather than votes and polls… and each party needs someone like that to keep them from going too far off the rails.

Liberty, the troll is only regurgitating what it read at think progress. Vote down and ignore.

paulmdoro said:
Ron Paul’s congressional district:

59% White, 28% Hispanic, 9% Black, 3% Asian. Median income is about $54,000.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/texas/14

Thanks for proving your cohort a liar.

paulmdoro said:
Ron Paul’s congressional district:

59% White, 28% Hispanic, 9% Black, 3% Asian. Median income is about $54,000.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/texas/14

Thank you, Paul. By Texas standards, this is indeed heavily White and prosperous. In many Texas districts, Hispanics are well over 50% and in the neighboring Houston districts, Whites are often the smallest of the demographic groups.

Having said that, it is important to note that Paul is not viewed favorably by many corporations, if any at all, and his core support is most assuredly petrochemical employees, as I indicated above, and retirees. Paul, who has many ideas with which I agree (and many with which I disagree) and is far more acceptable than his son, is not a figure of diversity. His core constituents are a niche group living in a rather peculiar demographic district, and his popular appeal is not broad-based.

paulmdoro said:
Ron Paul’s congressional district:

59% White, 28% Hispanic, 9% Black, 3% Asian. Median income is about $54,000.

So it’s a pretty average district.

Olby Sucks said:
Thanks for proving your cohort a liar.

You are certainly a shallow, despicable person who adds nothing of substantive to any conversation, Jeff. Your one claim to fame is when you threatened the life of our President right here on Mediaite. We would do well for you to be gone for good.

Funny, some troll keeps making claims it can’t back. Why would someone do that? Would said troll be shallow and despicable?

The Real Royal King said:
His core constituents are a niche group living in a rather peculiar demographic district

Sort of like Barney Frank, Jim McDermott, Charlie Rangle, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc, etc….

Mr.Papshmer said:
So it’s a pretty average district.

Not for Texas, however.

Texas is only 48% White, 40% Hispanic, and the average income is under US $42K.

Olby Sucks said:
Funny, some troll keeps making claims it can’t back. Why would someone do that? Would said troll be shallow and despicable?

Look below, Moron!

Mr.Papshmer said:
Sort of like Barney Frank, Jim McDermott, Charlie Rangle, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc, etc….

Exactly. And, do you consider any of them presidential?

The Real Royal King said:
Thank you, Paul. By Texas standards, this is indeed heavily White and prosperous. In many Texas districts, Hispanics are well over 50% and in the neighboring Houston districts, Whites are often the smallest of the demographic groups.

You do realize that when people say a “diverse district,” they don’t mean, “not a lot of White people.” That’s not “diverse,” that’s still homogeneous.

“Diverse” means there is a significant population of multiple ethnicities.

And according to Wiki, the state of Texas breaks down as such:

White: 71.4% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 47.8%)
Black or African American: 11.5%
Native American: 0.5%
Asian: 3.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Some other race: 11.3%
Two or more races: 1.9%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 35.9%

So it looks like Paul’s pretty close to the state at large.

Olby Sucks said:
Funny, some troll keeps making claims it can’t back. Why would someone do that? Would said troll be shallow and despicable?

Unlike you, I have never threatened the life of a president, or anyone else, on a blog or elsewhere, so I think we’d have to answer that question “no” Jeff.

ImNotBlue said:
You do realize that when people say a “diverse district,” they don’t mean, “not a lot of White people.” That’s not “diverse,” that’s still homogeneous.

“Diverse” means there is a significant population of multiple ethnicities.

And according to Wiki, the state of Texas breaks down as such:

White: 71.4% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 47.8%)
Black or African American: 11.5%
Native American: 0.5%
Asian: 3.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Some other race: 11.3%
Two or more races: 1.9%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 35.9%

So it looks like Paul’s pretty close to the state at large.

Thanks for degrading our discussion by interjecting Wiki, Philistine, but even at that:

48% is like unto 54%?
28% is like unto 40%?

Please, stay out of Congress. We have enough math-challenged people in government.

Troll, thanks for proving me right, again.

Paul’s district is pretty representative of America. Median income is about $2,000 more than the nation’s. Level of education is nearly equal. Less white and less black but more Hispanic. Nearly identical percentages of people under 18 and over 65. The demographics of his district are very similar to America’s.

The Real Royal King said:
Texas is only 48% White, 40% Hispanic, and the average income is under US $42K.

I wonder if I’ll ever meet a liberal who isn’t hung up on people’s race.

The Real Royal King said:
Exactly. And, do you consider any of them presidential?

Not as long as there’s a “D” next to their name.

Actually, according to the US census, Texas is as follows:

Non-hispanic whites are 46.7%
Hispanics are 36%
African Americans are 12%
Asians are 3.6%

But regardless, this diversity BS just distracts from the reality that Paul is no warmongering neocon like Bush or warmonger like Obama, nor is he a deficit junky like Obama/Bush or anti-liberty like Obama/Bush (see presidential votes on Patriot Act.)

Give me an authentic, consistent man like Ron Paul over a poser like the Donald any day.

Paul does seem to have the courage of his convictions, whereas people like the Donald and Romney seem like they would sell their mother to the highest bidder.

paulmdoro said:
Daniels – which apparently was quite good but didn’t go over well with the crowd (if the reports I read are accurate).

the crowd loved Daniels, and the reviews have been very positive.

http://tinyurl.com/6hc8o7e

sarainitaly said:
the crowd loved Daniels, and the reviews have been very positive.

http://tinyurl.com/6hc8o7e

I’ve read otherwise. I’m sure opinion varies. His reluctance to address social issues doesn’t sit well with a lot of the CPAC crowd. He does seem to be very well-liked overall though.

paulmdoro said:
I’ve read otherwise. I’m sure opinion varies. His reluctance to address social issues doesn’t sit well with a lot of the CPAC crowd. He does seem to be very well-liked overall though.

he isn’t reluctant to address social issues – he said it is time for a truce, until we resolve the economy/debt crisis issues.

he received a standing O at the end of his speech. I suggest watching it, and viewing for yourself, instead of reading about the reaction. they were very positive.

sarainitaly said:
he isn’t reluctant to address social issues – he said it is time for a truce, until we resolve the economy/debt crisis issues.

he received a standing O at the end of his speech. I suggest watching it, and viewing for yourself, instead of reading about the reaction. they were very positive.

Yes and his call for a truce angered many conservatives. Like I said, a lot of CPAC attendees believe social issues are as important as economic ones and desire a candidate who also sees it that way.

paulmdoro said:
Yes and his call for a truce angered many conservatives. Like I said, a lot of CPAC attendees believe social issues are as important as economic ones and desire a candidate who also sees it that way.

did you watch the clip? if not, until you do, i don’t think you should decide he wasn’t well received.
he was, and i have read tons of positive reviews of his speech.

the social conservativess, the ones you are talking about that criticized him, boycotted this year, so they weren’t even there.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/social-conservatives-criticize-cpac-for-inviting-mitch-daniels/

“‘Though he’s been criticized by some on the right for comments he made last summer suggesting that social issues should take a back-seat while the country deals with its fiscal woes, he made no mention of issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or guns. What he did do, however, was envision a Republican Party that appealed to a broader electorate.’”

This echoes the theme that Daniels has been on for the better part of a year that the nation needs to put aside divisive social issues for the time being and concentrate on economic problems that he characterized last night as ‘the new red menace.’ There’s been plenty of criticism from social conservatives who see this approach as an abandonment of issues like abortion, but Daniels address last night was fairly well received by those in attendance that I talked to afterwords (since I am, of course, from outside the beltway, I was not part of this event). The general consensus seemed to be that it was the kind of speech that a guy who’s planning to run for President would give.’”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitch-daniels-at-cpac/

I’d pick Ron Paul any day any time over Donald Trump.

The Republicans are phonies, if they are not and actually believe the crap coming out of their mouth, they’d give Paul a chance. But the Party is full of Neocons, crony capitalist, phony Family values crap, crooks and liars etc.

This is not exclusive to the GOP, the Democrats have a lot of crony capitalist as well. But the GOP say a lot of crap they don’t believe in and have a lot of customers who buy it from them.

If they nominate Paul (which they will never do), all their corruption and back payment will go. The Neocons would also need to find new home.

sarainitaly said:
did you watch the clip? if not, until you do, i don’t think you should decide he wasn’t well received.
he was, and i have read tons of positive reviews of his speech.

the social conservativess, the ones you are talking about that criticized him, boycotted this year, so they weren’t even there.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/social-conservatives-criticize-cpac-for-inviting-mitch-daniels/

“‘Though he’s been criticized by some on the right for comments he made last summer suggesting that social issues should take a back-seat while the country deals with its fiscal woes, he made no mention of issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or guns. What he did do, however, was envision a Republican Party that appealed to a broader electorate.’”

This echoes the theme that Daniels has been on for the better part of a year that the nation needs to put aside divisive social issues for the time being and concentrate on economic problems that he characterized last night as ‘the new red menace.’ There’s been plenty of criticism from social conservatives who see this approach as an abandonment of issues like abortion, but Daniels address last night was fairly well received by those in attendance that I talked to afterwords (since I am, of course, from outside the beltway, I was not part of this event). The general consensus seemed to be that it was the kind of speech that a guy who’s planning to run for President would give.’”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitch-daniels-at-cpac/

I don’t think we are at odds here sara. I’m sure lots of people have varying opinions about who was well-received and which speeches went over best. Is it that big of a deal? Not all social conservatives boycotted the event, and I have read interviews with some who attended who said they are looking for a candidate who places social issues at the forefront. And like I said, Daniels seems to be very well-liked overall.

sarainitaly said:
paulmdoro said:
Daniels – which apparently was quite good but didn’t go over well with the crowd (if the reports I read are accurate).

paulmdoro said:
And like I said, Daniels seems to be very well-liked overall.

OK, it didn’t sound like that’s what you were saying. Just trying to set the record straight.
I am a socially liberal, btw.

Do you look for a candidate whose views on social issues reflect yours?

no. i quit voting on social issues. fiscal issues are much more important to me.

More Liberty4 said:
Actually, according to the US census, Texas is as follows:

Non-hispanic whites are 46.7%
Hispanics are 36%
African Americans are 12%
Asians are 3.6%

But regardless, this diversity BS just distracts from the reality that Paul is no warmongering neocon like Bush or warmonger like Obama, nor is he a deficit junky like Obama/Bush or anti-liberty like Obama/Bush (see presidential votes on Patriot Act.)

Excellent smack-down of the phony!

More Liberty4 said:
Paul is no warmongering neocon like Bush or warmonger like Obama, nor is he a deficit junky like Obama/Bush or anti-liberty like Obama/Bush (see presidential votes on Patriot Act.)

I concur with that.

paulmdoro said:
Paul does seem to have the courage of his convictions, whereas people like the Donald and Romney seem like they would sell their mother to the highest bidder.

Truer words were never spoken.

sarainitaly said:
no. i quit voting on social issues. fiscal issues are much more important to me.

It’s good not to be single issue, but it is irresponsible to wholly avoid social issues. If you do that, then you cede the right to determine social issues to people who do not value a woman’s right to chose, Constitutional, civil and gay rights and a just and equitable society.

As I’ve said, it will come down to the following folks (unless something crazy happens)

Palin
Daniels
Allen West (VP)
Paul Ryan (VP)

My gut says a Palin/West or a Palin/Daniels ticket would be awesome. Daniels doesn’t quite have the charisma yet, but perhaps over time it’ll come down greek columns vs. results. Americans are ready (the sane ones at least) are ready for sober talk.

2012 will be a tough election year. When you have a liberal media, that’s gonna happen. However, it’s possible. That said, the R’s have much more to look forward to than the D’s when it comes to future elections. Other than Cory Booker, the D’s have no charismatic leaders.

sarainitaly said:I am a socially liberal, btw.

Actually, you are not.

sarainitaly said:
sarainitaly said:
paulmdoro said:
Daniels – which apparently was quite good but didn’t go over well with the crowd (if the reports I read are accurate).

paulmdoro said:
And like I said, Daniels seems to be very well-liked overall.

I have to say, with some pain, I actually agree with Tumbleweed on the Daniels matter, and I suspect with you as well Paul. I found Daniels impressive, and I think he was received well. Of all the potential contenders, I tend to like him best. Having said that, Daniels has no demonstrable fund-raising ability, and he has a policy wonk demeanor. That works well with a crowd like CPAC, but I’m not at all sure it will translate to wider favorable approvals. He is not a firebrand on social issues, and I think people like our own Tormented Michelle-in-Utah will mark him down greatly on that, and he is a bit dull, again in the policy wonk style. I do think he is a far more capable spokesperson for the budget hawks than Paul Ryan (not a contender) and gives me far more confidence in his ideas than Mitch Romney.

I don’t know what I think would be more disastrous for the Republicans, Romney or Palin. Romney would probably win more states than Palin, but I tend to think his popular vote would be less. I’m not sure Palin would carry more than 3-5 states.

WCinWI said:
As I’ve said, it will come down to the following folks (unless something crazy happens)

Palin
Daniels
Allen West (VP)
Paul Ryan (VP)

My gut says a Palin/West or a Palin/Daniels ticket would be awesome. Daniels doesn’t quite have the charisma yet, but perhaps over time it’ll come down greek columns vs. results. Americans are ready (the sane ones at least) are ready for sober talk.

2012 will be a tough election year. When you have a liberal media, that’s gonna happen. However, it’s possible. That said, the R’s have much more to look forward to than the D’s when it comes to future elections. Other than Cory Booker, the D’s have no charismatic leaders.

I hope you’re right about Palin/West. Frankly, I don’t think it would be possible to be more wrong, but what a dream ticket that would be. Maybe, Utah, Alabama and South Carolina, but no other state.

Is Allen West really that popular already? Paul Ryan, I agree with.

How did George W. Bush manage to win 2 straight elections with such a liberal media? And there’s not a single charismatic Democrat in America other than Cory Booker?

The Real Royal King said:
I hope you’re right about Palin/West. Frankly, I don’t think it would be possible to be more wrong, but what a dream ticket that would be. Maybe, Utah, Alabama and South Carolina, but no other state.

Uhhh I come from a battleground state. And I’ve worked in politics before. Palin/West…..Palin/Ryan….Palin/Daniels….those are winning combos.

It’s amazing what happens when you deal with truthful politicians.

WCinWI said:
Uhhh I come from a battleground state. And I’ve worked in politics before. Palin/West…..Palin/Ryan….Palin/Daniels….those are winning combos.

It’s amazing what happens when you deal with truthful politicians.

Right now Palin doesn’t seem like she will be able to generate enough support from moderates and independents to win a presidential election. Her disapproval rating is pretty high.

paulmdoro said:
Is Allen West really that popular already? Paul Ryan, I agree with.

How did George W. Bush manage to win 2 straight elections with such a liberal media? And there’s not a single charismatic Democrat in America other than Cory Booker?

Allen West was popular before he even won his election.

I would drop the whole George Bush won argument – people liked him. I’m not gonna disagree with that. You had a media bent on calling him names and making fun of him daily, let alone a public that was beyond atrocious.

And correct, if you can name a charismatic Dem other than Booker, please let me know one that would win in 2016 and beyond.

Actually I forgot a couple…

Palin
Perry
Jindal
Daniels
Giuliani

I welcome a Palin/Jindal or vice versa or Palin/Perry or Palin/Daniels…..

When you get rid of the columns and you actually have to make decisions and set policy, that’s when leadership is shown. Obama doesn’t have this ability. He’s merely a glorified preacher.

paulmdoro said:
Right now Palin doesn’t seem like she will be able to generate enough support from moderates and independents to win a presidential election. Her disapproval rating is pretty high.

You don’t operate a campaign based on polling results. As I said, I didn’t think it would be easy. However, I would rather go down with a fighter that would expose Obama than with someone who is a flip flop.

You really think it’s that hard to take Obama off message when he’s teleprompter-less? HA! Also, he doesn’t have a stand on issues. His health care law will be deemed unconstitutional. And the public is not going to want to listen to his 17 min. responses to simple questions.

I can’t wait.

If Obama is nothing but a glorified preacher, then Palin is nothing more than a glorified reality TV star. Again, her disapproval rating of 53% (as of January 19) is going to make it very difficult for her to win a presidential election. West is popular in some circles, but that’s a far cry from him being a legitimate contender for a VP nomination. Our definition of charismatic may differ, but there is more than a single charismatic Democrat in America.

paulmdoro said:
Right now Palin doesn’t seem like she will be able to generate enough support from moderates and independents to win a presidential election. Her disapproval rating is pretty high.

Palin has the gay vote for the R party.
She’s also got the used to be lib but now am conservative vote.
And most Inde’s…….will sway her way.

As I said, it’s not hard to expose someone’s voting record and words.

She may not be the most eloquent speaker, however as a young female in politics…..she excites me and she has many “free volunteers” that will work for her. As I said, I don’t see much negative to Palin right now. However, I could also vote for Daniels and so on.

What will you have left after you take away the greek columns? That’s what I want to know.

paulmdoro said:
If Obama is nothing but a glorified preacher, then Palin is nothing more than a glorified reality TV star. Again, her disapproval rating of 53% (as of January 19) is going to make it very difficult for her to win a presidential election. West is popular in some circles, but that’s a far cry from him being a legitimate contender for a VP nomination. Our definition of charismatic may differ, but there is more than a single charismatic Democrat in America.

And last I checked….Obama’s ratings were plummeting. I don’t deal with polls. If a politician takes a stance based on a poll, that’s a loser politician already. You don’t get it. I would rather have a candidate be down against her opponent.

Name a charismatic Democrat then. I’ll be waiting for this charismatic leader that could win the Presidency (non-Obama).

WCinWI said:
And last I checked….Obama’s ratings were plummeting. I don’t deal with polls. If a politician takes a stance based on a poll, that’s a loser politician already. You don’t get it. I would rather have a candidate be down against her opponent.

Name a charismatic Democrat then. I’ll be waiting for this charismatic leader that could win the Presidency (non-Obama).

I get what you’re saying, and yes it’s wise to not give polls too much weight. But you have to win over moderates and independents to win a presidential election, and I am not convinced that Palin can do that. Maybe with the right VP nominee.

The Real Royal King said:
Thanks for degrading our discussion by interjecting Wiki, Philistine, but even at that: 48% is like unto 54%?28% is like unto 40%? Please, stay out of Congress. We have enough math-challenged people in government.

*Sigh*

“Pretty close.” Did you miss that part? Didn’t say it was the same, just “pretty close.” And as was shown above, it is.

Now go off an make up some new nicknames for people you disagree with.

paulmdoro said:
I get what you’re saying, and yes it’s wise to not give polls too much weight. But you have to win over moderates and independents to win a presidential election, and I am not convinced that Palin can do that. Maybe with the right VP nominee.

How is Obama gonna win over those moderates and Indys? You are assuming that he’s going to get them. Last I checked, his policies sucked.

Like I said, a Palin/Daniels or a Palin/West is a beyond fabulous ticket. You should check out the best conservative blog out there that even Stewart mentions….HotAir. That is a mixture of conservative and moderate. Last I checked, Indys want to be told the truth. You don’t get the truth from Obama. And all you need is people like me, talking at a coffee shop, spreading the word for what democratic agenda-based policies mean and you have the Indys.

Just saying.

I like to think I’m a fairly sane conservative person that knows politics enough.

In my dream world, I wanted a Palin/Hillary ticket. Haha

You don’t get the cold hard truth from most politicians. And I’m not suggesting that Obama has a lock on moderates and independents, but right now I do think he would get a much larger percentage of them than Palin would.

WCinWI said:
Palin has the gay vote for the R party.She’s also got the used to be lib but now am conservative vote.And most Inde’s…….will sway her way. As I said, it’s not hard to expose someone’s voting record and words. She may not be the most eloquent speaker, however as a young female in politics…..she excites me and she has many “free volunteers” that will work for her. As I said, I don’t see much negative to Palin right now. However, I could also vote for Daniels and so on. What will you have left after you take away the greek columns? That’s what I want to know.

THe fact she couldn’t even make it through a single term as Governor isn’t a negative? HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAWWW!!!!!!!!!

paulmdoro said:
You don’t get the cold hard truth from most politicians. And I’m not suggesting that Obama has a lock on moderates and independents, but right now I do think he would get a much larger percentage of them than Palin would.

And that’s fine. I would rather live in reality. :)

Still waiting on these charismatic Dems.

jim bronson 990cc said:
THe fact she couldn’t even make it through a single term as Governor isn’t a negative? HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAWWW!!!!!!!!!

She left to save her state millions in legal dollars. I don’t get your point.

Would you like to contrast that with Obama being both a Senator and a President that votes Present? Okkkkkkk.

As I said, if you can tell me what Obama will run on in 2012….that would be great.

Who knows….maybe Palin won’t run. I wouldn’t know. I’m merely saying that this notion that no-one could beat Obama is just silly. The guy hasn’t voted for a major single bill that is good for the country.

Health Care
START Treaty
Tax bill (should be permanent)

Ohhhh but yes, he does want to put in high speed rail. That’s the way to win the future.

As I said…..name one some charismatic Dems that could go for the Presidency.

ron paul couldn’t win a NATIONAL ELECTION even if he were the ONLY person on the ballot.

The responsible conservative movement is committed to having candidates for president that can actually WIN A NATIONAL ELECTION, yet remain true to conservative principles and ideals, not supporting a fringe ideologue, like the lunatic-left d-crat socialists do.

WCinWI said:
She left to save her state millions in legal dollars. I don’t get your point.

Did you buy that whole Kart o’ Krap or just a couple of buckets?

WCinWI said:
The guy hasn’t voted for a major single bill that is good for the country.

As President, he doesn’t vote on bills.

TeaPartyPatriot said:
ron paul couldn’t win a NATIONAL ELECTION even if he were the ONLY person on the ballot.

The responsible conservative movement is committed to having candidates for president that can actually WIN A NATIONAL ELECTION, yet remain true to conservative principles and ideals, not supporting a fringe ideologue, like the lunatic-left d-crat socialists do.

Amen!

Olympia Snowe – Scott Brown, Republicans, 2012.

WCinWI said:
And that’s fine. I would rather live in reality. :)

Still waiting on these charismatic Dems.

Charismatic Dems who could win a presidential election in 2016 other than Cory Booker? Gabrielle Giffords? Andrew Cuomo? Jack Markell? I’m sure there’s more I’m not thinking of.

WCinWI said:
And last I checked….Obama’s ratings were plummeting.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021111_2012_election_web.pdf

The Real Royal King said:
Did you buy that whole Kart o’ Krap or just a couple of buckets?

As President, he doesn’t vote on bills.

I understand your desire to not know where I’m coming from, but last I checked (and I’ve worked in the legal industry too) – it’s more prudent to save your state dollars than to cost them millions. If you’d like to disagree with this, I can point you to the many legal cases that have been dismissed. Otherwise, zip it. :)

Of course he doesn’t vote on bills, but even when he did….he voted present.

Please tell me what he’s going to run on. And list some charismatic Dems too while you’re at it.

I’ll go workout so that I can handle the convo. :)

paulmdoro said:
Charismatic Dems who could win a presidential election in 2016 other than Cory Booker? Gabrielle Giffords? Andrew Cuomo? Jack Markell? I’m sure there’s more I’m not thinking of.

No. No. And No.

Giffords is an old Repub….that wouldn’t sit well with Progs. Just saying. I dunno Jack so he’s unknown. The rest are clear no’s. :)

Now off to workout for realz.

WCinWI said:
No. No. And No.

Giffords is an old Repub….that wouldn’t sit well with Progs. Just saying. I dunno Jack so he’s unknown. The rest are clear no’s. :)

Now off to workout for realz.

See I told you charismatic is in the eye of the beholder. Of course our opinions here will differ. It’s also hard to know the serious potential 2016 candidates are.

WCinWI said:
st some charismatic Dems too while you’re at it.

Paul’s list is good, but I’d add Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Alexei Giannoulias, Ben R. Luján, Bill Ritter, Kendrid Meek, Beau Biden, Bill Ritter, Brian Schweitzer. There are many more.

WCinWI said:
it’s more prudent to save your state dollars than to cost them millions.

That was to save face, only. True, Republican legislators in Alaska were filing grievance complaints in alarming numbers, but Palin simply was lazy and undisciplined. Someone pointed her to the money trough and she waddled over at an amazing rate of speed.

Hey Ron Paul, how many elections have YOU won? Donald Trump has more fans than you’ll ever have, and unlike you, he’s not a career politician.

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

Congratulations, King! You have officially passed one million posts referencing Palin!

I’m going to stay true to my own views and vote for a conservative/libertarian such as Ron Paul. You idiots can vote for four more years of Bu$h/Obama where deficits grow, as do the size of government. More war, more deficit spending and more anti-liberty legislation like the Patriot Act.

You blindly follow the political class/ media class by repeating the “he can’t win.” Let me remind you that African-Americans were saying the same thing about Barry “57 states” Obama in 2007.

Our deficit and debt continue to climb, and there is no visible end to our middle-east adventures. We need something short of a revolution and voting for idiot number one or idiot number two isn’t going to change anything.

jim bronson 990cc said:
THe fact she couldn’t even make it through a single term as Governor isn’t a negative? HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAWWW!!!!!!!!!

The fact that she did what was best for the people of Alaska at the risk of her political career because the idiotic liberal haters made a concretive effort to shut her down to the detriment of the business of Alaska isn’t a negative. It proved she put the interest of the people first. I was quite impressed with her for quitting. I thought she was done for so her still being around is even more impressive.

The Real Royal King said:
Did you buy that whole Kart o’ Krap or just a couple of buckets?

When the liberal Palin haters overwhemed the state and the governor I told my husband that they had shut down the state and the right thing for Palin to do would be to quit but no politician would ever do that as it would mean the end of their career. Two nights later she anounced her resignation. I was shocked that a politician would think of the people first.

Ajolily said:
When the liberal Palin haters overwhemed the state and the governor I told my husband that they had shut down the state and the right thing for Palin to do would be to quit but no politician would ever do that as it would mean the end of their career. Two nights later she anounced her resignation. I was shocked that a politician would think of the people first.

Except, all of the complex ethics complaints were filed by Republican legislators. You do know this? Surely?

WCinWI said:
Palin has the gay vote for the R party.
She’s also got the used to be lib but now am conservative vote.
And most Inde’s…….will sway her way.

As I said, it’s not hard to expose someone’s voting record and words.

She may not be the most eloquent speaker, however as a young female in politics…..she excites me and she has many “free volunteers” that will work for her. As I said, I don’t see much negative to Palin right now. However, I could also vote for Daniels and so on.

What will you have left after you take away the greek columns? That’s what I want to know.

This just show how far your off your rocker. Palin ratings are very low. I don’t think she will be running either. She just wants to run around the country cheerleader for the nominee.

Everyone loves to say that Ron Paul is completely unelectable, but:
in April 2010 Rasmussen did a hypothetical 2012 matchup poll. It revealed that 42% of Americans would vote for Barack Obama, and 41% of Americans would vote for … Ron Paul.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

I think it is safe to assume that Obama has lost some appeal since then…

FWIW, I know a few folx who voted Obama, but would vote for Ron Paul, but would vote Obama again in a heartbeat if the other choice is a Palin or Huckabee.

If people took time to research what Ron Paul has been preaching they might come to the accurate conclusion that this country would likely have been in better shape if he had been in the White House instead of Bush or Obama. Our national debt certainly wouldn’t have been as high. We wouldn’t be wasting nearly as much money on wars of aggression. We likely wouldn’t have eliminated the Fed, but would definitely have more much-needed transparency regarding how they manipulate our money and whose hands in winds up in. The money-wasting war on marijuana would have come to an end. And, we would actually have someone in power who cared about the civil liberties of American citizens. What a concept- we’d have a president who actually upheld the Constitution!

Ajolily said:
When the liberal Palin haters overwhemed the state and the governor I told my husband that they had shut down the state and the right thing for Palin to do would be to quit but no politician would ever do that as it would mean the end of their career. Two nights later she anounced her resignation. I was shocked that a politician would think of the people first.

The Real Royal King said:
Except, all of the complex ethics complaints were filed by Republican legislators. You do know this? Surely?

True many complaints were filed by Republicans so if I could edit my original post I would take out liberal though most were made by liberals. So it should read ” When the Palin haters overwhemed . . .”

It doesn’t change the comments intent one bit. BTW I am independent and don’t care much for either party.

The old man (Paul) really trimmed the young whipper-snapper’s (Trump’s) ears with that witty retort. That said, Ron Paul needs to go to charm school–I like a lot of what he says but he’s so damned acerbic.