|
|
#31
11-06-2007, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. [/ QUOTE ] You guys gotta admit - being pro-freedom really is kinda "out there." Sometimes I think I've got a screw loose! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] 
|
|
#32
11-06-2007, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. [/ QUOTE ] You guys gotta admit - being pro-freedom really is kinda "out there." Sometimes I think I've got a screw loose! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the "Founding Fathers" were complete nut jobs... Good thing we've made a clean break from their principles. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#33
11-06-2007, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the "Founding Fathers" were complete nut jobs... [/ QUOTE ] Should have been obvious from the crazy wigs they wore. And no income tax? No Department of Education? Are you kidding me? They should have all been in an asylum.
|
|
#34
11-06-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Outside of Hillary losing the nomination (I think she will lose, but fingers crossed), Ron Paul would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the Democrats. Ever. Right now the public thinks the Republicans are corrupt and mean. Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. I can only wish for this scenario. [/ QUOTE ] So...do you happen to think the men who founded America were crazy, too? You know, guys like Madison, Jefferson, Adams? Crazy ideas, huh?
|
|
#35
11-06-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
I think the only one who can beat Hilary is Ron Paul. I do not think someone can win the White House who supports the Iraq war, just not going to fly. As far as running a Third party if Paul wins nomination, I doubt that. It would almost surely make Hilary president. As much as the Republicans hate Paul it is nothing compared to their distain for Hilary.
|
|
#37
11-06-2007, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Second, if Ron starts to win because of a base split with no single, clear, rival; do the big government Republicans pick a pony, rally around him and punish those off-message?
|
|
#38
11-06-2007, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What would happen is this: Ron Paul would get slaughtered because his platform explicitly includes not giving away the store to corporations and other special interests. Hillary will do the usual thing and raise taxes in order to give the money to the rich. She'll get all the support of the rich and of the dupes who think raising taxes makes things "fair". natedogg [/ QUOTE ] This logic kind of fails if he's already won the primary since by the same logic it should have been impossible for him to win the primary. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. But it's an exercise in absurdism to imagine Ron Paul as the republican candidate, because of that fact. The same reasons apply to why he won't get the nomination. All the major candidates are mostly a collection of special interest give-aways. Whichever special interests you'd like to see take money from the poor, just pick the candidate who is in bed with them and you've got your man. Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. natedogg
|
|
#39
11-06-2007, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. Thus his appeal to the masses.
|
|
#40
11-06-2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. [/ QUOTE ] "Taxpayers" is a pretty mighty special interest.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
