Paul moving on up

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

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.

[Jeffiner99]

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.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ 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.

[Bilgefisher]

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

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ 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.

[ekdikeo]

and this guy's identifying as a republican?

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

[Vern]

[ 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.

[questions]

[ 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?"

[mattnxtc]

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

[ekdikeo]

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.