Obama/Biden vs. Paul/Johnson

[SvenssonRS]

Just for lulz...discuss with maps.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Ron Paul (R-TX)/Gary Johnson (R-NM): 535 M***********g EVs WOOOOOOOOOOOO
Barack Obama (D-IL)/Joe Biden (D-DE): 3 EV

LOL j/k. I wish,

[justW353]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Extreme Paul Landslide.


1984 - 479

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

LOL, hackery.


Paul is a lowly Texas Congressman right now and he's already tied with a supposedly-popular incumbent president who will only go downhill from here.

Winning the Republican nomination will be a lot harder than winning the general election against Obama would be if he actually did get the nod.

[CultureKing]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

LOL, hackery.


Paul is a lowly Texas Congressman right now and he's already tied with a supposedly-popular incumbent president who will only go downhill from here.

Winning the Republican nomination will be a lot harder than winning the general election against Obama would be if he actually did get the nod.

Yeah, sure. Anyways for those of us who can understand the general public I think that obviously this would end with an Obama landslide, though for slightly different reasons. Many republicans would be outraged should Paul ever win the nomination and likely would create a significant 3rd party run with more establishment candidates that likely would do even better than Paul with the official support of the Republicans. However this split would allow Obama to win in a 400+ EV landslide, despite managing only perhaps 40-50% of the vote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

LOL, hackery.


Paul is a lowly Texas Congressman right now and he's already tied with a supposedly-popular incumbent president who will only go downhill from here.

Winning the Republican nomination will be a lot harder than winning the general election against Obama would be if he actually did get the nod.

Yeah, sure. Anyways for those of us who can understand the general public I think that obviously this would end with an Obama landslide, though for slightly different reasons. Many republicans would be outraged should Paul ever win the nomination and likely would create a significant 3rd party run with more establishment candidates that likely would do even better than Paul with the official support of the Republicans. However this split would allow Obama to win in a 400+ EV landslide, despite managing only perhaps 40-50% of the vote.

Oh yeah, you "understand the general public" but I don't?

Sorry, not everyone thinks like you. More and more people want change, and they know Ron Paul is the man who will bring it when he is elected to the presidency in 2012.

[justW353]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

LOL, hackery.


Paul is a lowly Texas Congressman right now and he's already tied with a supposedly-popular incumbent president who will only go downhill from here.

Winning the Republican nomination will be a lot harder than winning the general election against Obama would be if he actually did get the nod.

I'm not so sure soccer and "hockey" moms in the midwest will support Paul when they actually realize his positions.

As a matter of fact, I know they won't.  Paul's true following covers maybe .05 percent of the population (that's a very giving estimate).  Those "42%" don't know that Paul wants to legalize all drugs (and don't even claim they do); all they think is "oh, he's a libertarian, I think the word libertarian sounds cool!  If these college kids like him, he must be awesome!  He opposes Iraq!"

My problem with Paul is that the problems with the bloated government we have now built up over 200 years.  He wants to fix it all a week after taking office, and he honestly thinks he can.  He has some good ideas, but the radical ideas would do him in, and they would do him in badly.  I really don't think he would break 40% in a lot of states.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh wait...Reverse that. rofl

In all honesty, nominating Paul spells the end to the GOP.

LOL, hackery.


Paul is a lowly Texas Congressman right now and he's already tied with a supposedly-popular incumbent president who will only go downhill from here.

Winning the Republican nomination will be a lot harder than winning the general election against Obama would be if he actually did get the nod.

I'm not so sure soccer and "hockey" moms in the midwest will support Paul when they actually realize his positions.

As a matter of fact, I know they won't.  Paul's true following covers maybe .05 percent of the population (that's a very giving estimate).  Those "42%" don't know that Paul wants to legalize all drugs (and don't even claim they do); all they think is "oh, he's a libertarian, I think the word libertarian sounds cool!  If these college kids like him, he must be awesome!  He opposes Iraq!"

My problem with Paul is that the problems with the bloated government we have now built up over 200 years.  He wants to fix it all a week after taking office, and he honestly thinks he can.  He has some good ideas, but the radical ideas would do him in, and they would do him in badly.  I really don't think he would break 40% in a lot of states.

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

[justW353]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

I am very familiar with Paul's views, have read his books and online writings, and campaigned for him in 08.

I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to distort the facts. Paul is a traditional Republican in the vein of Sen. Robert A. Taft.

[justW353]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

I am very familiar with Paul's views, have read his books and online writings, and campaigned for him in 08.

I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to distort the facts. Paul is a traditional Republican in the vein of Sen. Robert A. Taft.

I'm not distorting the facts...I was actually pretty clear in the facts.  Ron Paul supports the state's right to decide whether to legalize drugs and prostitution.  He favors an end to the war on terror.

He supports eliminating the FBI, the DHS, and the DoE.  He wants to eliminate Social Security, he voted against the AMBER alert system, he wants to end federal welfare.

You can't really distort much there.  Those are pretty strong words. 

For the record, I don't think Paul is crazy.  He's an idealist, but many of his fringe ideas would not hold up in any election, as proved in 2008.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

I am very familiar with Paul's views, have read his books and online writings, and campaigned for him in 08.

I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to distort the facts. Paul is a traditional Republican in the vein of Sen. Robert A. Taft.

I'm not distorting the facts...I was actually pretty clear in the facts.  Ron Paul supports the state's right to decide whether to legalize drugs and prostitution.  He favors an end to the war on terror.

He supports eliminating the FBI, the DHS, and the DoE.  He wants to eliminate Social Security, he voted against the AMBER alert system, he wants to end federal welfare.

You can't really distort much there.  Those are pretty strong words. 

For the record, I don't think Paul is crazy.  He's an idealist, but many of his fringe ideas would not hold up in any election, as proved in 2008.

In 2008, people did not know who Paul was and they did not know his positions. Your argument from before applied to 2008. Also many people were distracted from the real change candidate, Dr. Paul, by the corporate phony "change" candidate Barack Obama.

2012 will be different. Ron Paul has a sound plan for restoring integrity to our economy,  lowering the tax burden dramatically, implementing a sane and responsible foreign policy, bringing all of our troops home, and getting government out of our lives.

[justW353]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

I am very familiar with Paul's views, have read his books and online writings, and campaigned for him in 08.

I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to distort the facts. Paul is a traditional Republican in the vein of Sen. Robert A. Taft.

I'm not distorting the facts...I was actually pretty clear in the facts.  Ron Paul supports the state's right to decide whether to legalize drugs and prostitution.  He favors an end to the war on terror.

He supports eliminating the FBI, the DHS, and the DoE.  He wants to eliminate Social Security, he voted against the AMBER alert system, he wants to end federal welfare.

You can't really distort much there.  Those are pretty strong words. 

For the record, I don't think Paul is crazy.  He's an idealist, but many of his fringe ideas would not hold up in any election, as proved in 2008.

In 2008, people did not know who Paul was and they did not know his positions. Your argument from before applied to 2008. Also many people were distracted from the real change candidate, Dr. Paul, by the corporate phony "change" candidate Barack Obama.

2012 will be different. Ron Paul has a sound plan for restoring integrity to our economy,  lowering the tax burden dramatically, implementing a sane and responsible foreign policy, bringing all of our troops home, and getting government out of our lives.

I can't deny your opinions.  I simply stating the facts of his policies. 

It is my opinion that Ron Paul is pretty damn unelectable due to his positions on state rights and ending a lot of programs a lot of moderates think are important.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Uh, Paul's positions are well known at this point, so that argument doesn't work. Americans are familiar with Paul and his positions and that's why they are supporting him.

And why are you making up things about Paul and what he would do as president?



It seems like red avatars are horrified at the thought that the GOP might nominate someone worthwhile who would take down their corporate puppet-in-chief....

Libertas, you seem to know very little about the candidate you choose to fanboy for.  Ron Paul believes the state has the right to decide whether to legalize cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and prostitution.

Ron Paul is a borderline anarchist.  As I said, the hockey moms won't support someone who opposes the Department of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Medicaid, the AMBER alert system, the FBI, Social Security, and federal welfare.

All it will take is a few ads with a few snippets or interviews, and Paul would be done.

I am very familiar with Paul's views, have read his books and online writings, and campaigned for him in 08.

I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to distort the facts. Paul is a traditional Republican in the vein of Sen. Robert A. Taft.

I'm not distorting the facts...I was actually pretty clear in the facts.  Ron Paul supports the state's right to decide whether to legalize drugs and prostitution.  He favors an end to the war on terror.

He supports eliminating the FBI, the DHS, and the DoE.  He wants to eliminate Social Security, he voted against the AMBER alert system, he wants to end federal welfare.

You can't really distort much there.  Those are pretty strong words. 

For the record, I don't think Paul is crazy.  He's an idealist, but many of his fringe ideas would not hold up in any election, as proved in 2008.

In 2008, people did not know who Paul was and they did not know his positions. Your argument from before applied to 2008. Also many people were distracted from the real change candidate, Dr. Paul, by the corporate phony "change" candidate Barack Obama.

2012 will be different. Ron Paul has a sound plan for restoring integrity to our economy,  lowering the tax burden dramatically, implementing a sane and responsible foreign policy, bringing all of our troops home, and getting government out of our lives.

I can't deny your opinions.  I simply stating the facts of his policies. 

It is my opinion that Ron Paul is pretty damn unelectable due to his positions on state rights and ending a lot of programs a lot of moderates think are important.

Your facts are wrong, so perhaps that is the problem.

Paul's positions are fundamentally American and Constitutional. Moderates won't be deciding the election. Independents will.

[justW353]

Paul's policies are certainly constitutional, perhaps too much so...I never claimed they weren't.  However, one of two things is happening here...You are either lying about Paul's positions, or you simply do not know them.  Either way, it's despicable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...Libertas...I doubt I will be able to get through to you on this, but don't accuse me of lying or not researching what I say.

[Phony Moderate]

Paul is a constitutionalist....which is why he isn't a libertarian.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Paul's policies are certainly constitutional, perhaps too much so...I never claimed they weren't.  However, one of two things is happening here...You are either lying about Paul's positions, or you simply do not know them.  Either way, it's despicable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...Libertas...I doubt I will be able to get through to you on this, but don't accuse me of lying or not researching what I say.

You've been trying to misrepresent Paul's positions by reducing them to talking points. That's not how someone like Ron Paul would govern.

[Free Palestine]

Do you know what "lesser of two evils" means?  Even if Ron Paul dissatisfies neocons, he's going to be the lesser of two evils for a lot of people.  There is no way in hell Texas would vote for Obama.  That's like running away from Hitler and going to Stalin.

[justW353]

Paul's policies are certainly constitutional, perhaps too much so...I never claimed they weren't.  However, one of two things is happening here...You are either lying about Paul's positions, or you simply do not know them.  Either way, it's despicable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...Libertas...I doubt I will be able to get through to you on this, but don't accuse me of lying or not researching what I say.

You've been trying to misrepresent Paul's positions by reducing them to talking points. That's not how someone like Ron Paul would govern.

I get it, I really do.  He would govern from the Constitution, give the power back to the states, etc.

I don't know how you expect me to find facts about Paul that aren't...reduced to talking points?

He wants to eliminate the CIA, the DoE, the DHS, the Fed, and Medicare.  He wants to phase out SocialSec. 

He believes the states have the duty to decide how to enforce drug laws, and if they it fit, eliminate drugs law entirely. 

I'm not injecting my opinions here.  You are.  You are making this into a Ron Paul "lovefest" with your...talking points.

Look, those quotes are the facts.  They are from his website, they are his words.  It may your opinion that for some reason I am portraying him in a negative light for some reason, but I'm not. 

I mean come on, does Ron Paul misrepresent his positions?  Those are his words.  My entire post was quotes, nothing more.  My God, I don't how to get through to you.

I'm not trying to convince you not to support Ron Paul either.  I'm simply taking quotes directly from Paul himself that explain why, in my opinion, Ron Paul could never win a national election.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Paul's policies are certainly constitutional, perhaps too much so...I never claimed they weren't.  However, one of two things is happening here...You are either lying about Paul's positions, or you simply do not know them.  Either way, it's despicable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...Libertas...I doubt I will be able to get through to you on this, but don't accuse me of lying or not researching what I say.

You've been trying to misrepresent Paul's positions by reducing them to talking points. That's not how someone like Ron Paul would govern.

I get it, I really do.  He would govern from the Constitution, give the power back to the states, etc.

I don't know how you expect me to find facts about Paul that aren't...reduced to talking points?

He wants to eliminate the CIA, the DoE, the DHS, the Fed, and Medicare.  He wants to phase out SocialSec. 

He believes the states have the duty to decide how to enforce drug laws, and if they it fit, eliminate drugs law entirely. 

I'm not injecting my opinions here.  You are.  You are making this into a Ron Paul "lovefest" with your...talking points.

Look, those quotes are the facts.  They are from his website, they are his words.  It may your opinion that for some reason I am portraying him in a negative light for some reason, but I'm not. 

I mean come on, does Ron Paul misrepresent his positions?  Those are his words.  My entire post was quotes, nothing more.  My God, I don't how to get through to you.

I'm not trying to convince you not to support Ron Paul either.  I'm simply taking quotes directly from Paul himself that explain why, in my opinion, Ron Paul could never win a national election.

You're trying to spin things to make Paul sound more radical than he really is.

For example social security. You say he wants to phase it as if he's going to cancel grandma's social security checks. In reality, he has put forth a plan for phasing it slowly but steadily by allowing new generations to opt out of the program so they can begin saving on their own. Similar with Medicare. He's not going to just cancel your Medicare coverage. He's a physician with experience; he knows what needs to be done to fix American healthcare will take a long time to do, especially when we have to start undoing the damage of ObamaCare.

As for eliminating the wasteful government bureaucracy you mentioned, and especially the Fed, more power to him!

[justW353]

You're trying to spin things to make Paul sound more radical than he really is.

For example social security. You say he wants to phase it as if he's going to cancel grandma's social security checks. In reality, he has put forth a plan for phasing it slowly but steadily by allowing new generations to opt out of the program so they can begin saving on their own. Similar with Medicare. He's not going to just cancel your Medicare coverage. He's a physician with experience; he knows what needs to be done to fix American healthcare will take a long time to do, especially when we have to start undoing the damage of ObamaCare.

As for eliminating the wasteful government bureaucracy you mentioned, and especially the Fed, more power to him!

I'm not trying to discredit him...I'm really not.

I know he wants to phase out SocialSec.  I know he wants to replace Medicare with a volunteer clinic system. 

I'm just saying that when moms hear Obama's ads saying Paul wants to legalize coke, things won't be going well in his campaign (and I'm not I think that, I'm saying Obama will say it, and they'll believe it).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You're trying to spin things to make Paul sound more radical than he really is.

For example social security. You say he wants to phase it as if he's going to cancel grandma's social security checks. In reality, he has put forth a plan for phasing it slowly but steadily by allowing new generations to opt out of the program so they can begin saving on their own. Similar with Medicare. He's not going to just cancel your Medicare coverage. He's a physician with experience; he knows what needs to be done to fix American healthcare will take a long time to do, especially when we have to start undoing the damage of ObamaCare.

As for eliminating the wasteful government bureaucracy you mentioned, and especially the Fed, more power to him!

I'm not trying to discredit him...I'm really not.

I know he wants to phase out SocialSec.  I know he wants to replace Medicare with a volunteer clinic system. 

I'm just saying that when moms hear Obama's ads saying Paul wants to legalize coke, things won't be going well in his campaign (and I'm not I think that, I'm saying Obama will say it, and they'll believe it).

"Legalizing coke" is not part of Ron Paul's program. Ending the war on drugs will be a long-term battle.

Legalization of marijuana, on the other hand, would be a top priority of the Paul Administration.

[justW353]

You're trying to spin things to make Paul sound more radical than he really is.

For example social security. You say he wants to phase it as if he's going to cancel grandma's social security checks. In reality, he has put forth a plan for phasing it slowly but steadily by allowing new generations to opt out of the program so they can begin saving on their own. Similar with Medicare. He's not going to just cancel your Medicare coverage. He's a physician with experience; he knows what needs to be done to fix American healthcare will take a long time to do, especially when we have to start undoing the damage of ObamaCare.

As for eliminating the wasteful government bureaucracy you mentioned, and especially the Fed, more power to him!

I'm not trying to discredit him...I'm really not.

I know he wants to phase out SocialSec.  I know he wants to replace Medicare with a volunteer clinic system. 

I'm just saying that when moms hear Obama's ads saying Paul wants to legalize coke, things won't be going well in his campaign (and I'm not I think that, I'm saying Obama will say it, and they'll believe it).

"Legalizing coke" is not part of Ron Paul's program. Ending the war on drugs will be a long-term battle.

Legalization of marijuana, on the other hand, would be a top priority of the Paul Administration.

I understand that, I do.

Obama would not portray it like that.  He would say, "Ron Paul wants to legalize (insert drug name here).  He would say, "Ron Paul wants to eliminate the DHS and put national security at risk".

We'll find out in a few years.  I'll bring this discussion back up then .