I think that the us political system is doing a really poor job of reflection American political opinion at the moment. Arguably a majority of Americans now oppose deficit funded corporate/vested interest public spending however they are going to go into presidential elections with both the main candidates supporting it.
Well that's probably good news for Ron Paul - as Huntsman's support is younger and libertarian. They aren't exactly fans of the corporate w****e Romney!
Assuming he wins the nomination, Romney's Veep selection will be an interesting one. Palin arguably scared away more voters than she brought in and the tea party has already agreed not to run a third party candidate. So Romney might conclude it will be better to nominate a respected moderate like Huntsman to boast the ticket's independent appeal and position himself slightly more to the Right to encourage the social conservative crowd to come out.
I wonder who on earth Ron Paul would pick if he somehow one the nomination??
Not in this century. And also you have to remember that my Government has a whole separate class of white people called "Hispanic" (which includes European's (Spain, and Portugal) South America, and Central America) in which you all Europeans would just say White. Even with the growing Hispanic population "White" as what it really is, will still be the majority well in to the 22nd Century.
Sorry but this is not true.
A lot of hispanics are of native American descent. In Mexico only 10% identify as white, the rest identify either as Mestizo or Amerindian.
Now don't get me wrong they're are a lot of hispanics who are white, people from Cuba or Puerto Rico (which would have people of recent european extraction).
In relation to this thread for example, Marco Rubio would be white since his ancestry would be directly from Spain (son of Cuban immigrants) and I doubt has any native american blood in him.
This is of course is the assumption that white = europe.
Also, on a somewhat pointless note the white american height is near 5ft 10 on average, mexican americans are only 5ft 7 on average. Big difference.
That's a bit of a shame. I really hadn't found out that much about him but he did seem one of the less crazy candidates and it would have been good to hear more about him and kept the race open for while longer.
The race is now over. It's just seems a matter of how long Ron Paul can hang on before his money runs out.
That's a bit of a shame. I really hadn't found out that much about him but he did seem one of the less crazy candidates and it would have been good to hear more about him and kept the race open for while longer.
The race is now over. It's just seems a matter of how long Ron Paul can hang on before his money runs out.
I don't see Ron Paul dropping out. I think his intention is to pile up enough support and enough delegates to have some leverage at the convention and beyond.
Gingrich seems to have a personal grudge against Romney and just wants to make life difficult for him.
I can't see Santorum or Perry staying in much longer, Perry especially.
Unless Gingrich can pull off a victory in South Carolina next week it's difficult to see anything other than a Romney victory.
Gingrich and Santorum are splitting the right wing Evangelical anti Romney vote. One of them needs to pull out ASAP and back the other, otherwise Romney will cream them both.
The nominee will be ROMNEY and he will either select Huntsman as VP or a big man from New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie. He will not go with Sarah Palin, she is more or less a Newt Gingrich girl. Romney will make a smart VP choice, unlike Pillsbury dough boy McCain 4 years ago.
The nominee will be ROMNEY and he will either select Huntsman as VP or a big man from New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie. He will not go with Sarah Palin, she is more or less a Newt Gingrich girl. Romney will make a smart VP choice, unlike Pillsbury dough boy McCain 4 years ago.
I think Chris Christie would be the sensible choice, he is very popular amongst the GOP ruling elite.
I don't know if any of you lot watch the debates - I do. Anyone see last night's?
I was surprised at just how fascinating a watch it was. It was really riveting stuff. Newt Gingrich did really well, and brought the house down when he responded to Juan Williams (of Fox News) who quizzed him on the race card issues - Newt calls Obama the food stamps president - and had called on blacks to show more of a work ethic. Big points for Newt there.
But Romney was very good again. He really does look presidential material.
Even with the sound down. (which is important in this shallow image obsessed age we live in).
I don't know if any of you lot watch the debates - I do. Anyone see last night's?
I was surprised at just how fascinating a watch it was. It was really riveting stuff. Newt Gingrich did really well, and brought the house down when he responded to Juan Williams (of Fox News) who quizzed him on the race card issues - Newt calls Obama the food stamps president - and had called on blacks to show more of a work ethic. Big points for Newt there.
But Romney was very good again. He really does look presidential material.
Even with the sound down. (which is important in this shallow image obsessed age we live in).
I didn't see it but reading the reports it sounded very fiery, with Gingrich the clear winner. I think Gingrich is a pretty appalling person, but from a dramatic point of view, it would be great theatre if he was to surge after his debate performance and win South Carolina.
Apparently Ron Paul was hardly asked a question all night, so Fox News are doing their best to scupper his momentum.
I didn't see it but reading the reports it sounded very fiery, with Gingrich the clear winner. I think Gingrich is a pretty appalling person, but from a dramatic point of view, it would be great theatre if he was to surge after his debate performance and win South Carolina.
Apparently Ron Paul was hardly asked a question all night, so Fox News are doing their best to scupper his momentum.[/QUOTE]
Paul did come under "attack" from the Wall Street Journal fella. Paul told him in no uncertain terms he didn't know what he was talking about and gave a good defence of his position.
People (the masses) who think all the candidates are thick as pig plop are way, way off the mark.
Ron Paul got a lot less time on the CBS debate than he did last night. Newt may be outrageous but he can state his case very well with actual facts and figures. Romney just looks presidential to people how stupid as that sounds. Rick Perry is just not going to get anything here, no cabinet position, nothing.
Ron Paul is an absolute nutter and can still tie with Obama.
I would argue than Ron Paul is probably the sanest - and most honest - of the lot of them. Assuming you work on the principle that people are more likely not to want to come over to your country and try to bomb/kill you if you don't go over to their country and bomb/kill them. And similarly that you cannot carry on spending your grandkids money before they are even born by carrying on borrowing recklessly to fund foreign wars.
Paul's support is very young and idealistic - and is attracting many of the young people who four years ago flocked to Obama. Perhaps they want someone who will change things - and whose biggest donor isn't Goldman Sachs.
Romney or Obama - who cares. The 1%/military industrial complex will still be running the show!
Not that Ron Paul would ever be allowed to win. He is level in the Republican national polls now with Gingrich and Santorum (and well ahead of Perry) and is very competitive in South Carolina but still gets ignored!
The Fox debate coverage last night - which was very negative to Paul and almost ignored him - summed it up. Bret Baier must be well paid by Murdoch!:D
Why does this occur - cos Paul and his policies would be very dangerous - to the vested interests and the status quo!
PS As for Romney being 'Presidential' - well if you want your CIC to be slimy, evasive and have no principles at all then he is definitely your man!
I can't keep track of who all the candidates are. I really don't care for any of them. I'm a Christian, but I don't always vote based on a leader's religious beliefs. A person can say whatever they want about what they believe, but only time and their actions will tell.
I think Obama will be reelected. Even if people don't particularly like Obama, there aren't any better Republican candidates.
Ron Paul has never waivered on any issue for 30 years, but having said that, I believe he is practically insane. Where do I start and why do so many in the UK love Ron Paul?
Congressman Ron Paul grabbed the lion's share of headlines among GOP presidential candidates last week, and not just because he is the latest improbable figure to challenge the inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney.
Paul implausibly claims the newsletters (written in the first person and bearing his name) were produced by others, but it really doesn't matter. HIS NAME IS ON THEM, GO BACK AND READ HIS NEWSLETTERS AND YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE HE IS A LOON!!!
He is not -- as some disillusioned moderates and media pundits like to believe -- a refreshing, small-government Republican with a healthy distaste for Wall Street and foreign adventurism. He is a clinically paranoid conspiracy theorist. And you don't even have to cite his newsletters to prove it. Many claim he is a bigot (go to the newsletters for that one).
Then there are Paul's oft-cited, but never less than stupefying, pronouncements on secret government plans to create a "NAFTA Superhighway" that will lead to the eventual dissolution of American sovereignty. Paul envisions -- no, really -- an unholy union of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in a single totalitarian state. As he wrote in 2006. I don't understand why some of you love Ron Paul but seem to know practically nothing about him.
Comments
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-huntsman-quit-presidential-race-report-023416088.html
Well that's probably good news for Ron Paul - as Huntsman's support is younger and libertarian. They aren't exactly fans of the corporate w****e Romney!
Probably hoping for a look in for Veep, but he won't get it, Romney will go for someone to the right of him, to keep the hardcore happy.
Probably 'Pick RICK Santorum' - he hates gays and muslims so he fits the job description (not my description but one of his fellow candidates)!
I wonder who on earth Ron Paul would pick if he somehow one the nomination??
Sorry but this is not true.
A lot of hispanics are of native American descent. In Mexico only 10% identify as white, the rest identify either as Mestizo or Amerindian.
Now don't get me wrong they're are a lot of hispanics who are white, people from Cuba or Puerto Rico (which would have people of recent european extraction).
In relation to this thread for example, Marco Rubio would be white since his ancestry would be directly from Spain (son of Cuban immigrants) and I doubt has any native american blood in him.
This is of course is the assumption that white = europe.
Also, on a somewhat pointless note the white american height is near 5ft 10 on average, mexican americans are only 5ft 7 on average. Big difference.
That's a bit of a shame. I really hadn't found out that much about him but he did seem one of the less crazy candidates and it would have been good to hear more about him and kept the race open for while longer.
The race is now over. It's just seems a matter of how long Ron Paul can hang on before his money runs out.
I don't see Ron Paul dropping out. I think his intention is to pile up enough support and enough delegates to have some leverage at the convention and beyond.
Gingrich seems to have a personal grudge against Romney and just wants to make life difficult for him.
I can't see Santorum or Perry staying in much longer, Perry especially.
Unless Gingrich can pull off a victory in South Carolina next week it's difficult to see anything other than a Romney victory.
I think Chris Christie would be the sensible choice, he is very popular amongst the GOP ruling elite.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/
Ron Paul is an absolute nutter and can still tie with Obama.
I was surprised at just how fascinating a watch it was. It was really riveting stuff. Newt Gingrich did really well, and brought the house down when he responded to Juan Williams (of Fox News) who quizzed him on the race card issues - Newt calls Obama the food stamps president - and had called on blacks to show more of a work ethic. Big points for Newt there.
But Romney was very good again. He really does look presidential material.
Even with the sound down. (which is important in this shallow image obsessed age we live in).
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y66pS8gLdfg#!
I didn't see it but reading the reports it sounded very fiery, with Gingrich the clear winner. I think Gingrich is a pretty appalling person, but from a dramatic point of view, it would be great theatre if he was to surge after his debate performance and win South Carolina.
Apparently Ron Paul was hardly asked a question all night, so Fox News are doing their best to scupper his momentum.
I would argue than Ron Paul is probably the sanest - and most honest - of the lot of them. Assuming you work on the principle that people are more likely not to want to come over to your country and try to bomb/kill you if you don't go over to their country and bomb/kill them. And similarly that you cannot carry on spending your grandkids money before they are even born by carrying on borrowing recklessly to fund foreign wars.
Paul's support is very young and idealistic - and is attracting many of the young people who four years ago flocked to Obama. Perhaps they want someone who will change things - and whose biggest donor isn't Goldman Sachs.
Romney or Obama - who cares. The 1%/military industrial complex will still be running the show!
Not that Ron Paul would ever be allowed to win. He is level in the Republican national polls now with Gingrich and Santorum (and well ahead of Perry) and is very competitive in South Carolina but still gets ignored!
The Fox debate coverage last night - which was very negative to Paul and almost ignored him - summed it up. Bret Baier must be well paid by Murdoch!:D
Why does this occur - cos Paul and his policies would be very dangerous - to the vested interests and the status quo!
PS As for Romney being 'Presidential' - well if you want your CIC to be slimy, evasive and have no principles at all then he is definitely your man!
I don't see the democrats being as strong in 2016, after Obama, who have they got?
Everyone knows politics is all about charisma and not policies.
And Perry is now describing the Turkish government as [url=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-perry-suggests-turkey-should-be-kicked-out-of-nato-calls-leaders-islamic-terrorists/"Islamic terrorists"[/url]
There's also a wonderful Robo Call in which Santorum (in 2008) says pick Romney as candidate
Stephen Colbert has no hope of producing anything as funny as real life (or what passes for reality in the Republican Party)
I think Obama will be reelected. Even if people don't particularly like Obama, there aren't any better Republican candidates.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/16/best-moments-from-monday-s-debate.html
Ron Paul has never waivered on any issue for 30 years, but having said that, I believe he is practically insane. Where do I start and why do so many in the UK love Ron Paul?
Congressman Ron Paul grabbed the lion's share of headlines among GOP presidential candidates last week, and not just because he is the latest improbable figure to challenge the inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney.
Paul implausibly claims the newsletters (written in the first person and bearing his name) were produced by others, but it really doesn't matter. HIS NAME IS ON THEM, GO BACK AND READ HIS NEWSLETTERS AND YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE HE IS A LOON!!!
He is not -- as some disillusioned moderates and media pundits like to believe -- a refreshing, small-government Republican with a healthy distaste for Wall Street and foreign adventurism. He is a clinically paranoid conspiracy theorist. And you don't even have to cite his newsletters to prove it. Many claim he is a bigot (go to the newsletters for that one).
Then there are Paul's oft-cited, but never less than stupefying, pronouncements on secret government plans to create a "NAFTA Superhighway" that will lead to the eventual dissolution of American sovereignty. Paul envisions -- no, really -- an unholy union of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in a single totalitarian state. As he wrote in 2006. I don't understand why some of you love Ron Paul but seem to know practically nothing about him.