Ron Paul wins California straw poll

[The Thriller]

So if you consider textbook love to be the most presidential of all ambitions and the greatness which all future presidents should be measured by, I'm curious who the textbooks taught you were great presidents. Who from the 20th century was a great president Thriller in your estimation?

Ohhh please. Don't even go there. With the "liberal" bias nonsense. That's the wildcard that the GOP seems to be using today. That, and "gotcha questions."

Whenever anyone asks a GOP member anything they don't want to answer or don't know the answer to, they tuck tail, complain about gotcha questions, and run. Just like Palin did a few years ago. A few questions about foreign policy and economy aren't gotcha questions. They're legit issues that need to be addressed if you're seeking the vice president position.

Some people want the spotlight, but don't want the pressure that comes with it.

To answer your question? I think FDR, Eisenhower, and Clinton were very good Presidents.

Bush I, average or just blow average...
Bush II was an abortion. By far the worst President we've had in perhaps our entire history.
and Obama has been weak.
Reagan drove up deficits like none other (despite his rants on deficits and government). But he's considered a saint by the GOP today, because all the rest of their candidates are horrible. I consider him nothing more than a puppet for big business and the upper 10 % of our society.
Nixon was a slimball (but he did help create the EPA, that's a good organization despite what corporations tell you. Ever been to a 3rd world country without regulation folks? It aint pretty...)
Carter was very ineffective...
Kennedy, incomplete.... Difficult to say with him...
LBJ? A mixed bag. The Vietnam War was probably inevitable (and is what he's mostly known for). Even Eisenhower had written about it.... So he gets a lot of blame for that. However, his great society, war on poverty, funding for education, and working to pass civil rights were incredible feats.

What about the current GOP candidates? What do you like/dislike about them?

 

[PearlWatson]

I also love the part of his comment I hear often, "I like what he says on some issues, but on others hes just friggin' crazy" (paraphrased). What we have here, folks, is a person with an entire vision based on principles. Not popularity, not expedience, not utility. Ron Paul thinks there is a right way to do things, not issue by issue, but by a governing philosophy based on individual freedom. Obviously that conflicts with a lot of things we assume have to be a certain way. In those cases he's "crazy."

Well, he's the only person I believe is actually telling the truth. Period.

That said. The very worst thing that could ever happen to the Libertarian movement would be for Ron Paul, or someone actually running as a Libertarian, to get elected to the white house. I'm of the opinion that with full-fledged libertarian ideals you simply can't get there from here. Piece-meal implementation of libertarian policies would certainly be disastrous. Our economy, our culture is based on the way things work today. To simply start cutting our current system to shreds in the name of Libertarianism would be stupid.

Ron Paul is "your guy" but if he got elected as president that would be the worst thing that could ever happen for Libertarians?

 

[Archie Moses]

I like the Ron Paul Revolution signature that one guy had featuring Millsap and Brewer.

 

[Gameface]

Ron Paul is "your guy" but if he got elected as president that would be the worst thing that could ever happen for Libertarians?

Yes.

I like him. I agree with him on most things.

The presidency is not the right place to introduce the U.S. to libertarianism. Like I said, I honestly don't think you can get there from here. In other words, I think there would have to be a revolution.

Do I think it would be worthwhile to have a revolution right now (without even considereing the problem of motivating people to join said revolution)? No! The U.S. is a pretty great place to be a human being. I have no desire to throw that away to strive for an ideal that may or may not be attainable.

 

[PearlWatson]

Hmmm...

I'm just continually amazed at our political digression in just my lifetime. I read textbooks of when we actually had smart, educated, and inspiring leaders. And today, I look at both parties, and almost feel like I'm living in a dream world... A joke...

lets take the current batch of GOP candidates right now. You have a sexy reality tv star who slept with Glen Rice with a Bach degree in journalism from Univ of Idaho. She claimed one time that she could see Russia from her house... And who embarrassed the McCain campaign with her ridiculous answers on the economy... A governor from Texas whose calling card is that he created thousands of telemarketer jobs and for calling SS a ponzi scheme.... A billionaire governor from Mass who says anything to get elected, fails to identify with the middle class, and rants against "Washington" despite living in castle after castle and asking Utahns to join in his $500 per plate fund raisers??? Some crazy *** old fart (paul) who makes sense on some issues but is friggin crazy on others... An inactive Mormon from Utah born into luxury who is being badmouthed for working in the Obama administration (he's moderate, but I question his qualifications)... A rich farmer chick who wants to get rid of the EPA, SS, and basically everything else that matters to people (but is pretty sexy too)... Seriously, does Bachmann inspire anyone? I mean, seriously?! It would make more sense in my brain to see Mark Cuban, Jerry Sloan, hell, even Kobe Bryant run for President instead of her.

How will the textbooks remember 2012?

A campaign of dumber and dumber?

Obama isn't incredible by any stretch of the imagination. But the GOP's candidates either seem way too fake to me, stupid, or just not inspiring to me. Although, two of them could make one hell of a beer commercial mud wrestling...

Sarah isn't running.
Yes, Bachman is inspiring to me. I think it is great that she is running. She's an amazingly accomplished woman. The kind of woman young girls could look up to.
None of the candidates are stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Gameface]

I'll be so utterly disappointed if Perry or Bachman get elected (not nominated, I could care less about what Republicans do to embarrass themselves). But if a religious nut-job gets elected who threatens my individual religious freedom, meanwhile thumping the constitution, I'll flat out lose it.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes.

I like him. I agree with him on most things.

The presidency is not the right place to introduce the U.S. to libertarianism. Like I said, I honestly don't think you can get there from here. In other words, I think there would have to be a revolution.

Do I think it would be worthwhile to have a revolution right now (without even considereing the problem of motivating people to join said revolution)? No! The U.S. is a pretty great place to be a human being. I have no desire to throw that away to strive for an ideal that may or may not be attainable.

I think now is the time if there ever was one. Libertarianism can't be "introduced" in congress where it gets drowned out. The presidency is the only place it could be introduced to have any effect.
It does sound rather nutty if you think your "ideal" would be destructive to yourself and this country.

 

[PearlWatson]

I'll be so utterly disappointed if Perry or Bachman get elected (not nominated, I could care less about what Republicans do to embarrass themselves). But if a religious nut-job gets elected who threatens my individual religious freedom, meanwhile thumping the constitution, I'll flat out lose it.

Nonsense.

 

[babe]

I think now is the time if there ever was one. Libertarianism can't be "introduced" in congress where it gets drowned out. The presidency is the only place it could be introduced to have any effect.
It does sound rather nutty if you think your "ideal" would be destructive to yourself and this country.

For some of us, dreams are better than reality. It's sad when you've got to wake up.

Me? I posted a pic once on the inside of my outhouse door, and it just got harder to get back to the house, but the house and what's in it just didn't go away.

The sitch in politics is more like the outhouse deal. But conservatives can't afford to let the Wasington insiders go on pooping in the kitchen. I know it's a stinkin' job, but it's time to get some people in there who'll clean it up.

 

[PearlWatson]

For some of us, dreams are better than reality. It's sad when you've got to wake up.

Me? I posted a pic once on the inside of my outhouse door, and it just got harder to get back to the house, but the house and what's in it just didn't go away.

The sitch in politics is more like the outhouse deal. But conservatives can't afford to let the Wasington insiders go on pooping in the kitchen. I know it's a stinkin' job, but it's time to get some people in there who'll clean it up.

My picture?

I guess some people just like ideas more than action. I'm ready for some action.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Would Congress allow Ron Paul to do anything Ron Paul wanted to do? Probably not. Paul's chances of being elected are probably at all time high though. He has the college crowd in the palm of his hand. If he can capture the young crowd and convince them to actually vote, he has an outside chance. Bachman has no chance, she will get the vote of other crazy religious people and ignorant tea party followers.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It doesn't really matter who is president though. The job is more of a PR position than a position of power. American government is ******* and no one man/woman is going to change that.

 

[PearlWatson]

Would Congress allow Ron Paul to do anything Ron Paul wanted to do? Probably not. Paul's chances of being elected are probably at all time high though. He has the college crowd in the palm of his hand. If he can capture the young crowd and convince them to actually vote, he has an outside chance. Bachman has no chance, she will get the vote of other crazy religious people and ignorant tea party followers.

It doesn't really matter who is president though. The job is more of a PR position than a position of power. American government is ******* and no one man/woman is going to change that.

Do you ever tire of the obnoxious labeling?

Your statement about the PR position has some merit. They have to sell their vision to the American people (PR) but they also have to lead their party to implement it. The better they are at that the more power they have. We just haven't seen that kind of leadership in a long time. A good leader could change this depressing mood that has settled over America like a dark cloud.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Ohhh please. Don't even go there. With the "liberal" bias nonsense. That's the wildcard that the GOP seems to be using today. That, and "gotcha questions."

Ministry of truth bias nonsense. I don't like being told freedom is slavery. War is peace. Up is down. The sky is yellow. Ice is hot....or that 3 trillion dollars in cuts are really 3 trillion dollars in cuts when they're not even close. Or that Warren Buffet's secretary is taxed more because she's not as rich as Warren, when everybody knows it's stupid Warren hiding his money in shadow hedge funds and getting special investment deals because he is an insider that is the real issue. I don't do the GOP v. Democrat thing like you. They are the same people, that's why the "fringe" candidates are the only ones that ever make any sense. I would vote for Ralph Nader over any of the other non-Ron Paul Republicans because he doesn't seem to have problems identifying the real problems, even if his solutions would probably miss the mark 90% of the time.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

How many cases of voter fraud have there been since 1950? Maybe 3?

What does Obama/Paul have to do with history? They've never had so much reason to be afraid. Though of course, we'll probably never get to see.

 

[One Brow]

Or that Warren Buffet's secretary is taxed more because she's not as rich as Warren, when everybody knows it's stupid Warren hiding his money in shadow hedge funds and getting special investment deals because he is an insider that is the real issue.

Actually, it's more that Buffet income is from capital gains while his secretary's income is from wages, and wages are taxed at a higher rate.

 

[Gameface]

Actually, it's more that Buffet income is from capital gains while his secretary's income is from wages, and wages are taxed at a higher rate.

And for a reason, right?

When I get my paycheck it sits in my account until I'm ready to pay my mortgage, or go buy milk, etc. Warren Buffet puts large sums of money into investments that might succeed or might fail. He is particularly good at picking the good ones. So, his money is at work, both for him and the people trying to build new businesses and industries. Of course, if his investment fails he doesn't just lose a portion of it to taxes, it's gone and he has nothing valuable to show for it. Some investors don't make money, believe it or not, and it takes a little incentive (as in a lower tax rate) to encourage people to put their money at risk.

 

[sirkickyass]

I am not a republican. But I can sure recognize an attempt at a highly selective (and biased) recount when I see it. Love those partisan blinders.

Red Flag! Challenge! Sorry dude, you're an independant in name only.

Some people insist on calling themselves independant even though they tend to vote the same way over and over again. A casual reading of your political posts in which you omitted every claim you're an independant would almost assuredly lead a reasonable reader to believe you lean right.

He definitely does look and sound like he could collapse at any moment, but with Peter Schiff as his VP we should have nothing to worry about.

I can see the campaign slogan now: "Your money is worthless and hyperinflation has been around every corner since 2009."

The kind of woman young girls could look up to.

I'd prefer my daughters look down on her.

None of the candidates are stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

While we're here why isn't Herman Cain's campaign slogan "A Pizza in Every Pot"?

Ministry of truth bias nonsense. I don't like being told freedom is slavery. War is peace. Up is down. The sky is yellow. Ice is hot....or that 3 trillion dollars in cuts are really 3 trillion dollars in cuts when they're not even close. Or that Warren Buffet's secretary is taxed more because she's not as rich as Warren, when everybody knows it's stupid Warren hiding his money in shadow hedge funds and getting special investment deals because he is an insider that is the real issue. I don't do the GOP v. Democrat thing like you. They are the same people, that's why the "fringe" candidates are the only ones that ever make any sense. I would vote for Ralph Nader over any of the other non-Ron Paul Republicans because he doesn't seem to have problems identifying the real problems, even if his solutions would probably miss the mark 90% of the time.

I have shocking news, Duck Rodgers thinks there's a vast conspiracy at play here.

But seriously, the idea that the GOP and Dems are the same substantively drives me crazy. Does anyone really believe that our national issues would be exactly the same if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000? Would climate change policy be different? Would we be in Iraq? Would tax rates be the same? How many of the biggest issues have to change before people stop repeating those tired old lines?

Actually, it's more that Buffet income is from capital gains while his secretary's income is from wages, and wages are taxed at a higher rate.

Shhhhhhhh, this isn't a place for facts.

I do think that some people are upset that Buffet's situation is being portrayed as the norm when it isn't. It might, however, be the norm for people in his industry.

And for a reason, right?

When I get my paycheck it sits in my account until I'm ready to pay my mortgage, or go buy milk, etc. Warren Buffet puts large sums of money into investments that might succeed or might fail. He is particularly good at picking the good ones. So, his money is at work, both for him and the people trying to build new businesses and industries. Of course, if his investment fails he doesn't just lose a portion of it to taxes, it's gone and he has nothing valuable to show for it. Some investors don't make money, believe it or not, and it takes a little incentive (as in a lower tax rate) to encourage people to put their money at risk.

Because obviously no one invested in the market when rates were higher. And higher transaction volumes are unambiguously positive.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I can see the campaign slogan now: "Your money is worthless and hyperinflation has been around every corner since 2009."

Finally. If my Peter Schiff mentions don't get acknowledged by you and Pearl via at least cringes and sighs - I've failed.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I hate Rick Perry, but his PR team is good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0