Paul moving on up
 

Just noticed that he's now up in the 2-3% range on inTrade, which ranks fifth among the GOP candidates.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/t...elConID=443007

I'm not quite sure that I believe even those relatively modest numbers; I have a pet theory that a lot of the candidates with strong netroots ties get bid up a little bit in the markets (see also Thompson, Fred; Gore, Al). Nevertheless, it's clear that he's gaining momentum, and all the other GOP candidates are so fatally flawed (the Democrats aren't much better) that perhaps there's a perfect storm that involves him doing surprisingly well in New Hampshire and slingshotting as the other GOP candidates crash into one another.

Anyway, maybe the mods should start an official Ron Paul thread.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

They ignored him completely on the NH debate tonight. Gave him very little time, asked him the dumbest questions and didn't ask him the good ones, and the pundits seemed to forget he was in the debate.


So sad.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
They ignored him completely on the NH debate tonight. Gave him very little time, asked him the dumbest questions and didn't ask him the good ones, and the pundits seemed to forget he was in the debate.


So sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, both of the recent CNN debates were set up in such a way that was really favorable to the frontrunners -- everything from their placement on the stage to the types of questions they got. I have mixed feelings about this since I'd like to see Paul get as much airtime as possible but could really do without the Tom Tancredos and Mike Gravels of the universe.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side? Wants to deport all the gays?

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side? Wants to deport all the gays?

[/ QUOTE ]
He started as a libertarian but says he had to pick one of the two major parties to get anywhere in politics and the Republicans at least sounded more like libertarians. I like him too as he has never changed his stance on anything. He might vote for/against a package while not agree with it all, but at least he says so. He also requires that new Federal laws be defendable within the Constitution, even if he likes the law. I think he may be too genuine for most Americans.

Vern

Edit: I almost forgot, he serves on the House Financial Services Committee so unless he is busy campaigning, we may hear from him during Friday's hearing.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, aren't you answering your own question here?

That's analogous to saying: "and this guy identifies as a segregationist? What's his down side?"

Re: Paul moving on up
 

As posted above, Paul realized that to be able to get an sort of message out in our two party political system, he would have to join a side. He is still very much Libertarian in his views and now able to express them on to the country

Re: Paul moving on up
 

It seems like it would make more sense for a Libertarian to identify a bit closer to the Democrats, particularly if he actually wanted to win something, after this country has been utterly raped and pillaged by the Repubs for this long. Unless the R's have managed to completely screw up the voting system.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

Ron Paul's 'downside' is that he's pro-life (well he thinks states should decide) and pro 'don't ask don't tell' (well he's against disruptive behaviour in the military).

Not much of a downside compared with :

Ending America's interventionist foreign policy
Ending Income Tax
Bitchslapping big government back to Russia, where it came from.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul's 'downside' is that he's pro-life (well he thinks states should decide) and pro 'don't ask don't tell' (well he's against disruptive behaviour in the military).

Not much of a downside compared with :

Ending America's interventionist foreign policy
Ending Income Tax
Bitchslapping big government back to Russia, where it came from.

[/ QUOTE ]
Take it to the Politikkks forum please.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

For accuracy. the UIGEA was a rider attached to a Senate bill, thus Paul did not vote on. (Had he had the opportunity, he would have voted against it.) He has voted against every single piece of legislation in the House directed at regulating the internet. It's safe to say that he opposes ALL governmental regulation of business and private behavior.

He was the Libertarian Party Candidate for President in 1988.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

For accuracy. the UIGEA was a rider attached to a Senate bill, thus Paul did not vote on. (Had he had the opportunity, he would have voted against it.) He has voted against every single piece of legislation in the House directed at regulating the internet. It's safe to say that he opposes ALL governmental regulation of business and private behavior.

He was the Libertarian Party Candidate for President in 1988.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a common misconception. For accuracy, UIGEA started as HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. It was tougher than UIGEA and it passed 317-93. Rep. Paul voted against it. In the Senate, this bill was weakened a bit and added to the SAFE Port Act., a piece of unrelated, must-pass legislation.

Ron Paul is on our side, 100%.

Re: Paul moving on up
 

Also, the UIGEA was a companion bill in the House to 109th H.R. 4777, a bill that would have criminalized play for American Citizens and was endorsed by eBay / Paypal as well.

eBay / PayPal actually wanted to lock us up while eBay's PayPal funds 'Skill' gaming in the U.S. and Poker in Europe.

Read the story at:

www.wvgeneralstore.com

obg