Regardless of weather one might agree with her politics or not, the woman has a very fascinating life story. Shes incredibly bright, no doubt about it! I also read about the "lesbian rumors" and it wouldnt bother me or affect my vote in the least.
I think she is a very bright woman and have great respect for her, but nothing I have ever seen would suggest that she would want the spotlight that would come with running for President. She seems like a very private person, which is one of the reasons she is always rumored to be a lesbian (I have no earthly idea if that is the case or not, nor would it have any effect on my vote if she were).
I'm horrible at making predictions about electoral results. E.g., I've already posted that Newt was 'toast' and expected him to drop out.
But here he is months later leading, at least for the moment.
I think it far too early to confidently predict a win/loss for some of these candidates. Others, like Santorum and Huntsmen can be disregarded. But no voting has even taken place yet and much more campaigning etc is yet to occur.
More importantly, we're still over a year away from the general election. Who knows what will happen in the meantime that could significantly change the situation? What if the economy improved? What if a 3rd party candidate entered the race? Too many unknowns IMO.
Fern
That's the same MSM that gives him only a few seconds per debate - but they'd LOVE to see him run as a third party.This is asked of Ron Paul every time he is interviewed practically. All part of the MSM agenda to get him to admit he's expecting to lose the primary.
It's true that a certain amount of socialism is required for civilization, but it's a matter of degree. It's also a matter of respect for private property - Obama has made it very clear that he considers private property his to confiscate via the armed might of government as long as he thinks the owners "don't need it" or "it's a good idea". Thus I know without doubt that he is far more socialist than am I, even though I don't really have a good feel of just how socialist he is at heart or would be in a second term.Every single country on earth without exception uses government power and regulations to force the private sector to act according to their will.
This is asked of Ron Paul every time he is interviewed practically. All part of the MSM agenda to get him to admit he's expecting to lose the primary.
how exactly is Obama a Communist? I have heard that and read that from lots of folks, but I haven't quite put it together. Let me say first that I'm not a political science major or anything, so I'm just look for the broad strokes. Obama = Communist How?
Do you seriously believe he ISN'T expecting to lose the primary? I don't mean him any disrespect, but I regard it as sheer fantasy to think he could possibly seriously compete for the nomination unless Romney AND Gingrich each withdraw from the race or suffer a huge, public catastrophe of some kind.
Regardless of how he feels, he needs to maintain that he has a chance at winning.
We all know Newt is unelectable...
Funny, I remember in 1978/1979 when people were saying Ronald Reagan was unelectable. We know the rest of that story.
It's true that a certain amount of socialism is required for civilization, but it's a matter of degree. It's also a matter of respect for private property - Obama has made it very clear that he considers private property his to confiscate via the armed might of government as long as he thinks the owners "don't need it" or "it's a good idea". Thus I know without doubt that he is far more socialist than am I, even though I don't really have a good feel of just how socialist he is at heart or would be in a second term.
Um, Nazi is a contraction of National Socialist, which is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The Nazis were NOT on the right - they expounded the same anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-bourgeois views as did the Communists, but were strongly nationalist rather than internationalist. The Nazis were unarguably less leftist than were the Communists since they settled for government control rather than outright ownership of business; as long as you were of acceptable racial purity (the Nazi government seized lots of businesses of Jews and other persons deemed undesirable) and did as you were told you could retain your company and even turn a profit. But only in comparison with the competing Communist theory could the Nazis be called right of center. Otherwise all the Nazi political positions are very identifiable left wing. After the collapse of the Weimar Republic, there was no energetic right wing movement in Germany. (Of course, at the time the left wing was ascendant everywhere, including in America.)Well, he's not actually. Not even close. The problem lies with the GOP. In the last 15 years or so the GOP has been running full speed to the right. Some of the policies that Obama has had that the current GOP calls communist were actually built on policies the Republicans had 15 years ago. Basically it's become that the GOP has gone so far to the right that only a few places in history have been further right (Axis powers in WW2 and much of the current Middle East are about it). And the problem is that instead of realizing the deep end that the GOP is going off, it's increasing the speed.
The problem is that socialist and communist are good buzz words for the stupid. It sounds scary. And when you look at the reverse, the main group that was known for being too far right was the Nazis. And it's become cliche to call someone a Nazi, so the effect isn't there and the buzz word isn't used. The truth is that Obama's language falls just left of center and his policies since being president have fallen mostly around center right. However the current GOP is ... whatever is to the right of batshit insane far right.
It's a good rule of thumb that anyone in P&N who calls Obama a communist or a socialist simply doesn't know what those words mean and use it because they have no real policy issues with him, they just dislike that he's a Democrat (and I'm sure a couple are just racist, but they're a minority).
I do not agree that Ron Paul is capable of ever getting the nomination, much less winning a general election. His views on foreign policy are simply far outside the mainstream for him to make people feel safe. I have never fully understood the sentiment that the media are the ones keeping him down - he gets more coverage than any other candidate who has consistently polled outside the top three candidates.
I must admit that as a fairly active participant in the political process, I do not understand, one iota, the perception that Ron Paul would be competitive in the nomination process if the media weren't keeping him down.
I have no doubt that Dr. Paul, more than any of the other candidates, has the courage of his convictions and sincerely believes what he's saying. I also happen to agree with him about a fair amount of it. That being said, his views on foreign policy and the use of military power, which is perhaps a President's most important duty, are wildly extreme and only a small percentage of the population is prepared to tolerate them, much less embrace them. In addition, he lacks any warmth or charisma as a candidate relative to any major-party candidate since Nixon. He makes John Kerry look loveable.
I have no problem with people liking Ron Paul, but I do take issue with their delusions of grandeur regarding his suitability as a candidate and/or President.
Bringing the troops home and stop extending ourselves militarily across the globe IS mainstream. A vast majority of Americans, especially military service personnel supports this.
To the OP, the media has already treat Ron Paul like a ghost. If he wins the primaries with this happening, it shows he can win despite the media treating him like a ghost.
Um, Nazi is a contraction of National Socialist, which is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The Nazis were NOT on the right - they expounded the same anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-bourgeois views as did the Communists, but were strongly nationalist rather than internationalist. The Nazis were unarguably less leftist than were the Communists since they settled for government control rather than outright ownership of business; as long as you were of acceptable racial purity (the Nazi government seized lots of businesses of Jews and other persons deemed undesirable) and did as you were told you could retain your company and even turn a profit. But only in comparison with the competing Communist theory could the Nazis be called right of center. Otherwise all the Nazi political positions are very identifiable left wing. After the collapse of the Weimar Republic, there was no energetic right wing movement in Germany. (Of course, at the time the left wing was ascendant everywhere, including in America.)
That said, the Nazi's evil precludes any real, intelligent comparison with any other political movement.
Also, as another poster pointed out, his views on the military must be popular, since the military gives more money to him than all other candidates and Obama combined.
I believe this is something of an exaggeration, but I know he gets a ton of donations from military members, and the dynamic is indeed interesting. Do we know in detail when precisely he beat the President and the other GOP candidates in donations? (That is, I can't imagine that over the entire 2008 campaign season, including the general election, that could possibly be a true fact, but it might have been during the GOP primaries, and it might be for the current round).
I am a veteran myself, serving under Clinton and (mostly) under the latter Bush, and this strong pattern of military donations to Paul strikes me as very surprising. On the one hand, he says he would be more judicious about sending troops into harm's way, but on the other hand, his laissez-faire foreign policy would certainly, over time, lead to the contraction of the military, as occurred after WWI.