Metal Sludge Gossip Board

I would think the opposite. Ron Paul just comes across like a fruit cake.

Ron Paul has no chance, but his party might. I do believe that the GOP may lose a gigantic portion of their traditional base to the Libs.

It won't be Ron Paul. The libertarian minded Presidential candidate to raise millions yet be ridiculed or downright ignored by the mainstream (left or right) media will be former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico. I was hoping he would run for President back in the late 1990's.

Unfortunately most Republicans love their big government and authoritarianism too.

ijwthstd wrote:It won't be Ron Paul. The libertarian minded Presidential candidate to raise millions yet be ridiculed or downright ignored by the mainstream (left or right) media will be former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico. I was hoping he would run for President back in the late 1990's.

Unfortunately most Republicans love their big government and authoritarianism too.

Is this the same New Mexican pol that Obama almost ran with?

vanitybinge wrote:

ijwthstd wrote:It won't be Ron Paul. The libertarian minded Presidential candidate to raise millions yet be ridiculed or downright ignored by the mainstream (left or right) media will be former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico. I was hoping he would run for President back in the late 1990's.

Unfortunately most Republicans love their big government and authoritarianism too.

Is this the same New Mexican pol that Obama almost ran with?

No, that was Bill Richardson, his successor. And I don't think he was ever a serious contender for VP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson

Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Even though I really like the idea of "libertarianism" there are far too many neo-confederates that identify with and are embraced by that ideaology.

bane wrote:Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Stick him between Obama and Palin and his "lack of charisma" suddenly becomes a blinding contrast that makes him look more reasonable and realistic then the other two, even with some of his more far-fetched ideas.

In other words, He'll be sticking to the point while the other two are dancing cabaret for penny votes.

vanitybinge wrote:

bane wrote:Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Stick him between Obama and Palin and his "lack of charisma" suddenly becomes a blinding contrast that makes him look more reasonable and realistic then the other two, even with some of his more far-fetched ideas.

In other words, He'll be sticking to the point while the other two are dancing cabaret for penny votes.

And in a culture where tens of millions of people tune in every night to watch people in karaoke contests, dancing contests, back stabbing in frat houses, backstabbing and running obstacle courses while being hungry on an island, crash dieting and, trying to be mcgyver with office supplies to impress a guy with a horrible combover, and a retard and a man-haired cunt with a brood of offspring, all the while running up their phone bills because they just have to pick sides, well, we know that the "3rd party" candidate might get 1/8 of the attention.

What Juggs said. Paul's lack of charisma is only one thing against him though. His uber kookiness is another. The best he can hope for is a Perot like situation where he pulls enough of the vote to make a little noise (and knock the GOP candidate out in the process).

bane wrote:What Juggs said. Paul's lack of charisma is only one thing against him though. His uber kookiness is another. The best he can hope for is a Perot like situation where he pulls enough of the vote to make a little noise (and knock the GOP candidate out in the process).

For once I agree with Juggerbrain. This country loves to pick stupid people to represent it's stupid herd. plus RP is the least cute of the 3 candidates in question, which, sadly, is a factor today or Palin would've been laughed out of the US by now.

Funny thing is the Libertarian platform contains many ideas typical so called conservative GOPers would call socialist.

They have been calling for government subsidized interstate and local mass transit rail service for years.

With the current two party system and the money behind it, Liberatians will continue to be on the fringe of the political spectrum.

TexDaddy wrote:Funny thing is the Libertarian platform contains many ideas typical so called conservative GOPers would call socialist.

They have been calling for government subsidized interstate and local mass transit rail service for years.

With the current two party system and the money behind it, Liberatians will continue to be on the fringe of the political spectrum.

The question here is, do you think the Libertarians will have more of a chance now that the two main parties keep fucking themselves over?

I know that each party does fade over time, we've had a couple Independents and some Whigs, but I think the Lib party could make some real noise next time if they promote themselves properly and force the major networks to give them some attention.

vanitybinge wrote:

TexDaddy wrote:Funny thing is the Libertarian platform contains many ideas typical so called conservative GOPers would call socialist.

They have been calling for government subsidized interstate and local mass transit rail service for years.

With the current two party system and the money behind it, Liberatians will continue to be on the fringe of the political spectrum.

The question here is, do you think the Libertarians will have more of a chance now that the two main parties keep fucking themselves over?

I know that each party does fade over time, we've had a couple Independents and some Whigs, but I think the Lib party could make some real noise next time if they promote themselves properly and force the major networks to give them some attention.

They won't have enough money or support to force the media to give them anywhere near enough coverage to make a dent in the two party system.
In my opinion we need a fresh political voice but with media pundits from the far left and far right, it is just not currently possible.

Extremist rule the current political arena and common sense has been thrown out the window. The system would fix itself if politicians would remember they represent a district or state first and foremost instead of a national party. Represent your constituents not a party. Until that happens the system is doomed beyond repair.

HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Politics has gotten really heated in the last 4 years.

bane wrote:Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

He definitely reminds me of Ross Perot ... so un-presidential and absolutely NO charisma. If there is anyone out there currently, who if you looked up "Presidential" in the dictionary, their picture would be there, it's Mitt Romney. He's smart as a whip and has solid business and political experience. I think the Mormon thing is his Achilles Heel however...

vanitybinge wrote:

bane wrote:Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Stick him between Obama and Palin and his "lack of charisma" suddenly becomes a blinding contrast that makes him look more reasonable and realistic then the other two, even with some of his more far-fetched ideas.

In other words, He'll be sticking to the point while the other two are dancing cabaret for penny votes.

You could stick him in a room with the Joker and Ross Perot and he'd still look like the bigger wingnut.

Landshark2000 wrote:

bane wrote:Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

He definitely reminds me of Ross Perot ... so un-presidential and absolutely NO charisma. If there is anyone out there currently, who if you looked up "Presidential" in the dictionary, their picture would be there, it's Mitt Romney. He's smart as a whip and has solid business and political experience. I think the Mormon thing is his Achilles Heel however...

I don't think the magic underwear will hurt him as much as the GOP playing bicurious with the Libertarians.

bane wrote:Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Ron Paul = Ross Perot. Same monogram, even....

lerxstcat wrote:

bane wrote:Paul has ignited a bit of a conservative grass roots movement that will probably eventually force the GOP to sit up and take notice. I think there will either be a party split with the libs on one side and the jesus party on the other or the GOP will have to change their platform, but Paul himself is far too much of a kook and far too uncharismatic to ever get a sniff of the presidency. He's got some good ideas, but he's got an awful lot of really bad ones too.

Ron Paul = Ross Perot. Same monogram, even....

Ron Paul could split the Republican vote and give the election to Obama by default. You're right. Ron Paul=Ross Perot.

Ron Paul has a great shot. He won the CPAC conference. The mainstream media doesnt like him though. He's not republican enough for fox news, because he is truly an independent with a republican label, and msnbc wont like paul just because he is a republican. I cant stand democrats or republicans anymore, cause no matter how much they try to say they are different its just more of the same. I was democrat and voted for obama, and regret it after i figured out he was just more of the same. none of the change that was promised. I believe the only real good change that will come, is from having a 3rd party elected, and that is where i am casting my votes, and ron paul will 100% get my vote if he runs for president. I know some view voting 3rd party as throwing away a vote, but i am not going to help anyone out on either of the 2 major parties, unless it is ron paul. I dont care about his charisma, i care about his policies, and that is what is going to help us get back to small government, stronger state government, and lower taxes.

slzrocker wrote:Ron Paul has a great shot. He won the CPAC conference. The mainstream media doesnt like him though. He's not republican enough for fox news, because he is truly an independent with a republican label, and msnbc wont like paul just because he is a republican. I cant stand democrats or republicans anymore, cause no matter how much they try to say they are different its just more of the same. I was democrat and voted for obama, and regret it after i figured out he was just more of the same. none of the change that was promised. I believe the only real good change that will come, is from having a 3rd party elected, and that is where i am casting my votes, and ron paul will 100% get my vote if he runs for president. I know some view voting 3rd party as throwing away a vote, but i am not going to help anyone out on either of the 2 major parties, unless it is ron paul. I dont care about his charisma, i care about his policies, and that is what is going to help us get back to small government, stronger state government, and lower taxes.

If we all thought like you we'd have great presidents, that is, if we all cared more about the policies than the charisma. Charisma is an important part of being a leader, but even more important is being able to make the right decisions. Ron seems to really hold to what republicans of a hundred years ago wanted, and it makes him an alien among modern politicians who's priorities are about as far removed from the Constitution as you can get. He wants to do things this country really needs done that Obama doesn't have the balls to even mention, like ending the Federal Reserve and legalizing pot, two things I am convinced would turn the economy around in a flash, not because "huhuhuh pot is cool and the Fed sux" but because it would really work.

TexDaddy wrote:Extremist rule the current political arena and common sense has been thrown out the window. The system would fix itself if politicians would remember they represent a district or state first and foremost instead of a national party. Represent your constituents not a party. Until that happens the system is doomed beyond repair.

The thing about that is, they've got to balance their local agendas with their national agendas. It's not an easy thing to do, and some just lose that focus entirely.

vanitybinge wrote:

slzrocker wrote:Ron Paul has a great shot. He won the CPAC conference. The mainstream media doesnt like him though. He's not republican enough for fox news, because he is truly an independent with a republican label, and msnbc wont like paul just because he is a republican. I cant stand democrats or republicans anymore, cause no matter how much they try to say they are different its just more of the same. I was democrat and voted for obama, and regret it after i figured out he was just more of the same. none of the change that was promised. I believe the only real good change that will come, is from having a 3rd party elected, and that is where i am casting my votes, and ron paul will 100% get my vote if he runs for president. I know some view voting 3rd party as throwing away a vote, but i am not going to help anyone out on either of the 2 major parties, unless it is ron paul. I dont care about his charisma, i care about his policies, and that is what is going to help us get back to small government, stronger state government, and lower taxes.

If we all thought like you we'd have great presidents, that is, if we all cared more about the policies than the charisma. Charisma is an important part of being a leader, but even more important is being able to make the right decisions. Ron seems to really hold to what republicans of a hundred years ago wanted, and it makes him an alien among modern politicians who's priorities are about as far removed from the Constitution as you can get. He wants to do things this country really needs done that Obama doesn't have the balls to even mention, like ending the Federal Reserve and legalizing pot, two things I am convinced would turn the economy around in a flash, not because "huhuhuh pot is cool and the Fed sux" but because it would really work.

TexDaddy wrote:Extremist rule the current political arena and common sense has been thrown out the window. The system would fix itself if politicians would remember they represent a district or state first and foremost instead of a national party. Represent your constituents not a party. Until that happens the system is doomed beyond repair.

The thing about that is, they've got to balance their local agendas with their national agendas. It's not an easy thing to do, and some just lose that focus entirely.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but could you please enumerate what things Paul has in common with Republicans from a hundred years ago?

Hames Jetfield wrote: I'm not trying to be a dick here, but could you please enumerate what things Paul has in common with Republicans from a hundred years ago?

I'll try. I use the term hundred loosely, since a hundred years ago there was no federal Reserve and the Republicans of the day were Taft & Bryan.

Basically you had the Progressive Democrats who wanted an 8 hour work day, control of the trusts that were monopolizing various industries, and mass public transit, as well as more labor laws and the legalization of unions, while the Tammany Democrats were for any legislation that allowed them to continue profiting as politicians.

The Republicans opposed these, saying it was too much expansion of government control. Let the states decide. If New York wants to pay for public subways and trains, let them do it on their own. If Tennessee wants an eight hour work day, leave it to the states. These issues are too small for federal government to get involved, while the trusts were an ongoing issue about who was in cahoots with whom, etc.

Where Ron Paul comes in, he's a bit of an isolationist. He would rather let the states decide most of their own laws while keeping the federal government small and opposing extensive foreign interference, and although he no doubt supports labor laws and is against monopolies, its the small government ideals that link him with old school republicans. You might know that he was one of only four Republicans to endorse Reagan for president in 1976. I'm not sure how I feel about Reagan but it serves the point that RP is far removed from today's GOP, who claim to love Reagan while Ron Paul supported him from the start; he has many of the favorable qualities the GOP left behind, and doesn't get caught up in today's Christian pandering right-wing nonsense.

I'd have to do some more research if you wanted more specifics on the links between old-school Republicans and Libertarian values, but I hope this made some sense.

vanitybinge wrote:

Hames Jetfield wrote: I'm not trying to be a dick here, but could you please enumerate what things Paul has in common with Republicans from a hundred years ago?

I'll try. I use the term hundred loosely, since a hundred years ago there was no federal Reserve and the Republicans of the day were Taft & Bryan.

Basically you had the Progressive Democrats who wanted an 8 hour work day, control of the trusts that were monopolizing various industries, and mass public transit, as well as more labor laws and the legalization of unions, while the Tammany Democrats were for any legislation that allowed them to continue profiting as politicians.

The Republicans opposed these, saying it was too much expansion of government control. Let the states decide. If New York wants to pay for public subways and trains, let them do it on their own. If Tennessee wants an eight hour work day, leave it to the states. These issues are too small for federal government to get involved, while the trusts were an ongoing issue about who was in cahoots with whom, etc.

Where Ron Paul comes in, he's a bit of an isolationist. He would rather let the states decide most of their own laws while keeping the federal government small and opposing extensive foreign interference, and although he no doubt supports labor laws and is against monopolies, its the small government ideals that link him with old school republicans. You might know that he was one of only four Republicans to endorse Reagan for president in 1976. I'm not sure how I feel about Reagan but it serves the point that RP is far removed from today's GOP, who claim to love Reagan while Ron Paul supported him from the start; he has many of the favorable qualities the GOP left behind, and doesn't get caught up in today's Christian pandering right-wing nonsense.

I'd have to do some more research if you wanted more specifics on the links between old-school Republicans and Libertarian values, but I hope this made some sense.

I just don't see the Ron Paul comparison to the Republicans of a hundred years ago--you know the ones that passed the 16th amendment. He's much more of a Goldwater conservative who has stayed true to that ideal. Many of the Republicans of a century ago were for regulations by the Federal government, though not on all things. And by Bryan do you mean William Jennings Bryan, wasn't he a Democrat who ran against Taft? Once again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I just don't see it myself.

I thought Bryan was a Republican, or an independant against Tammany until he fell out With WR Hearst. It's easy to get him mixed up in the bag since he never really mattered anyway!

I get what you mean, but I think if you put him on the soapbox during the Roosevelt/Taft era he woulda been with the Republicans, but not as much, iike you say he is a different kind of conservative. What I meant by all that I guess is he's a "What Would the Constitution Do?" kinda guy, and that's one of the things newer Republicans have lost.