Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Wow for someone that focused all of his efforts in Florida Guiliani got clobbered pretty bad. Good news he dropped out, not so good news that he's endorsing John McCain.
Who should Giuliani endorse? (I'm not being critical of your opinion, you understand. I'm just curious)
Originally posted by Deano
pick your poison everyone. its all bad. apart from maybe one. who will never get in anyway, even if he did have top votes
exactly.were screwed if ANY of these candidates get in other than one,same goes for the democrats as well.Like Deano said,he'll never get in anyways even if he has all the votes.they will make sure of that.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Who should Giuliani endorse? (I'm not being critical of your opinion, you understand. I'm just curious)
Well, I honestly don't like any of the other republican candidates, but I think McCain is the worst of them all so I suppose anyone but McCain. The lesser of evils basically.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Well, I honestly don't like any of the other republican candidates, but I think McCain is the worst of them all so I suppose anyone but McCain. The lesser of evils basically.
Lol, I agree about the "other republican candidates", but I thought McCain would be the lesser of the evils, except I've started to like RP more and more as the rest of them eat their own arguments...
McCain is the only big guy in the conservative race that doesn't judge a man's character according to how many times he's agreed with Bush.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Well, I honestly don't like any of the other republican candidates, but I think McCain is the worst of them all so I suppose anyone but McCain. The lesser of evils basically.
What makes McCain the worst of them all? (And by all, I assume you mean the Republicans. But if not, feel free to tell us why he's the worst out of the bunch?) Because I keep hearing all the talking heads and the Limbaughs and the O'Rielly's don't like him, which sounds like shit to me. It sounds like they're just trying to convince people he's a democrat in republican clothing, which he is not. It's certainly a nice political tactic, but I have a feeling the independants aren't going to fall for it.
I am so bothered by this man's face and arms though. If any body here doesn't look at that face and that shit eating smile he flashes, CONSTANTLY, and not realize he's been pissed of sumthin' terrible since the gooks shoved bamboo up his ass, you're fooling yourselves. He is a mean, scary little bastard.
Originally posted by Devil King
What makes McCain the worst of them all? (And by all, I assume you mean the Republicans. But if not, feel free to tell us why he's the worst out of the bunch?) Because I keep hearing all the talking heads and the Limbaughs and the O'Rielly's don't like him, which sounds like shit to me. It sounds like they're just trying to convince people he's a democrat in republican clothing, which he is not. It's certainly a nice political tactic, but I have a feeling the independants aren't going to fall for it.I am so bothered by this man's face and arms though. If any body here doesn't look at that face and that shit eating smile he flashes, CONSTANTLY, and not realize he's been pissed of sumthin' terrible since the gooks shoved bamboo up his ass, you're fooling yourselves. He is a mean, scary little bastard.
And why in God's name do indepdents like that idiot?
Originally posted by BigRed
What makes McCain bad? First off, he is a liberal in disguise. Finally and most important, he is big pro-war. We'll probably go to war with Iran, get in a conflict with Pakistan and piss off the Russians with McCain in office. McCain is like Bush's third term.
I think he'd be even worse. If it's a continuation, do you think Bush was a liberal? The only reason so many people think he's a liberal-in-disguise is because he opposed those tax cuts. Well, nope, he opposed thos tax cuts because he's a war monger, and he knows that's how you pay for war. This guy is no liberal, he's very much a republican that has been trimming his image since the last election.
Originally posted by Devil King
I think he'd be even worse. If it's a continuation, do you think Bush was a liberal? The only reason so many people think he's a liberal-in-disguise is because he opposed those tax cuts. Well, nope, he opposed thos tax cuts because he's a war monger, and he knows that's how you pay for war. This guy is no liberal, he's very much a republican that has been trimming his image since the last election.
You think he has changed? Bullshit. He's just molding his image to get the votes and the second he becomes President (if) he'll go back to Mr. Liberal. The guy is a joke.
But the liberal part doesn't bother me as much as his idiotic statements on the Iraq War and such.
Some other business here:
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't think you know much about any of them.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He talks about the war more than any of the other Republican candidates. It's his issue #1.
Plus, it's about more than just the Iraq War. It is about changing a century old failed foreign policy.
Originally posted by Robtard
Despite being out of the race Thompson still pulled 1/3 of the votes that Ron Paul did. RP should really just cut his losses and pull the plug, maybe in 2012, America will be ready for him.
Nonetheless...
News shocker:
Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarterWell, it's official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn't barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007.
By a Texas mile.
By the thousands, Paul's fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the "Ron Paul Revolution." He spent $17.75 million, and at year's end, had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul's Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month to...
fuel the strict constitutionalist's travels and advertising campaign.
Compare that impressive financial success with, say, ex-candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million.
Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million.
Or even the newly-minted Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain's string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner.
Mitt Romney actually raised only $9.2 million from other people last quarter, less than half of Paul's haul. However, the former Massachusetts governor -- and if he keeps spending at this rate, the quite possibly former multimillionaire -- gave himself $18 million more of his own money last fall for a total of $27.2 million and $2.4 million cash on hand.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who's had trouble raising money, issued an unusual statement Thursday night. "My presidential campaign," he said, "has defied the odds and will continue to do so, as we head into the Super Tuesday primaries, proving the power of message over money and mechanics."
The statement did not include any Huckabee figures for the fourth quarter. Which suggests that the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa didn't have a very good fourth quarter.
So a certain suspicious blogger, led by the experienced hand of The Times' campaign finance expert Dan Morain, went to the website of the Federal Election Commission and looked up Huckabee's fourth-quarter report. It seems he raised about $6.7 million, a third of Paul's sum, while spending $7.08 million, leaving him on New Year's Eve with cash on hand of only $651,300.68. No wonder he didn't mention numbers in the news release.
Now, this month Huckabee will have received some donations after his Jan. 3 Iowa win. But it does raise serious questions about how long the Arkansan can continue to compete after Feb. 5 or even how much he can do before other than get on as many free radio and TV shows as possible.
Paul, who's done well in some symbolic straw polls and little-noticed state caucuses until his best showing so far as a second-place finisher to Romney in the Nevada caucuses, has repeatedly disavowed a third-party effort if his bid to be the Republican nominee in St. Paul next summer falls short.
His determined followers maintain that a news media conspiracy is holding down Paul's success at the polls, although obviously word has gotten out to somebody for him to raise such sums. Paul's outspoken stands, including withdrawal from Iraq and drastic downsizing of the federal government, run counter to each of his GOP competitors.
As for Paul's campaign, his loyal troops plan another "money bomb," a big fundraising day, today in honor of Ron and Carol Paul's 51st wedding anniversary. One of the obvious gifts: the undisputed GOP fundraising championship for the last three months of 2007.
--Andrew Malcolm
I figured as much. Go Ron Paul!
Oh and America won't be ready for his ideas any time soon sadly. They are probably ready for a black man or a woman, but give it another twenty or so years and they'll either be begging for someone running on Paul's platform or we'll have become a complete totalitarian state or a socialist state (either one is just as bad IMO).
Originally posted by Devil King
Given the nature of his fan base, which is what most of his supporters really are (not a jab at you Bardock) he'll draw voters from the younger demographic, which would likely harm Obama. If he get's the nomination, of course. But Ron Paul has already stated that he has no intention of runnig as an independant. Which truly confuses me, because he's the one that constantly says he didn't leave the Republican party, it left him. So, if it's left him, what's the big deal?
Also, I think it be incorrect to call it a "fan base".
Originally posted by BigRed
Well, it's also his stance on immigration and the many bills he has introduced.You think he has changed? Bullshit. He's just molding his image to get the votes and the second he becomes President (if) he'll go back to Mr. Liberal. The guy is a joke.
But the liberal part doesn't bother me as much as his idiotic statements on the Iraq War and such.
Nope, you're looking at this from the perspective of the last 4 years, which is exactly what I said. He's been nothing even close to being a liberal in his career. He's been more "liberal" since the last election. When he wasn't nominated in 2001, he pitched a fit and almost left the republican party. He's been acting more "liberal" since the 04 election, "trimming his image". He's no liberal, and his actions over the last 8 years have been an effort to secure independant voters and fool democrats into thinking he's a "maverick". And every anti-Bush tactic, like torture, has resulted in him climbing back into Bush's lap eventually, to keep his name on the tounge of every Republican. He rolled over on torture and he opposed those tax cuts because that's how you pay for war.
Originally posted by BigRed
It doesn't take much knowledge to realize that all the candidates are pro-war and that's reason enough not to vote for them IMO.
Try not to prove Quiero right.
Originally posted by BigRed
Yea because when you are the only candidate that is anti-war on the Republican ticket, it is smart to get that out there. You don't want people lumping you together with the rest of the Republicans saying, "Their all pro-war."
Hit that peddal and get the treat! Mmmmm...that's good.
Originally posted by BigRed
Plus, it's about more than just the Iraq War. It is about changing a century old failed foreign policy.
Originally posted by BigRed
Why? Ron Paul has raised more money than any other Republican candidate. Sure at the moment, it isn't translating into high voter turn-out for him, but I am of the opinion that has a lot to do with the Media.Nonetheless...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/news-shocker-ro.html
That's the last 3 quaters. Do you know the totals for all the quaters for all of them?
Originally posted by BigRed
He'll run as an Indepedent if his supporters want it to happen, support it and can help finance it.Also, I think it be incorrect to call it a "fan base".
I think your responses alone illustrate my point. It's a fan base.
If he runs as an independant, that would mean he's been lying every time he said he wouldn't ever do such a thing.
Originally posted by Devil King
I think he'd be even worse. If it's a continuation, do you think Bush was a liberal? The only reason so many people think he's a liberal-in-disguise is because he opposed those tax cuts. Well, nope, he opposed thos tax cuts because he's a war monger, and he knows that's how you pay for war. This guy is no liberal, he's very much a republican that has been trimming his image since the last election.
I think BigRed mentioned a few things that make McCain the worst of the bunch, and by bunch I mean the Republican side. But to add on top of all that McCain is just plain stupid and clueless. He claims to be well versed in the economy when it's clear he's not. He has poor arguments and counter-arguments, he thinks Vladimir Putin is the president of Germany, and that plastic smile of his can make anyone uneasy. Of course the list is bigger, but I think you get the point.
It's the fourth quarter -- which encompasses the last three months. I do not know all the quarters. But I'm sure they all out raised Ron. I know he has raised like almost thirty million in all four quarters. But it is significant to note that Ron raised more money than any other Republican in the fourth quarter (a critical time period), so don't be down-playing that now.
And like I said, there are bills (I will name them when I get more time) that McCain has introduced. I would assume you introduce a bill because you want it passed. I don't care if he has a liberal or a non-liberal or a Republican or an indepedent record beforehand; he is trying to get liberal-oriented material passed NOW. And also, as I've said, my issues lie primarily with him and the war.
Haha. He wouldn't be lying. He said he is 99.9999999999 infinite percent sure he will not run. He is not going to absolutely say no. How is that proving you're point that it is a fan base? You do not go Indepedent if you don't have the support nor the money. That's nothing to do with a fan base. I don't like the tone of that statement. This isn't some ****ing baseball club, this is real shit that is effecting the country and the future.
Originally posted by Devil King
I think he'd be even worse. If it's a continuation, do you think Bush was a liberal? The only reason so many people think he's a liberal-in-disguise is because he opposed those tax cuts. Well, nope, he opposed thos tax cuts because he's a war monger, and he knows that's how you pay for war. This guy is no liberal, he's very much a republican that has been trimming his image since the last election.
Amen to that, just did my taxes, this is the first time we owe (we used to get back a nice little chunk); that's with having a kid deduction too, yet we owe. GO BUSH ECONOMICS!
Originally posted by BigRed
Why? Ron Paul has raised more money than any other Republican candidate. Sure at the moment, it isn't translating into high voter turn-out for him, but I am of the opinion that has a lot to do with the Media.
Sorry, despite his uber ability to raise money, or to be more exact, for other people to raise money for him, his numbers are lousy. So yeah, he raised the most money, he still isn't doing well in the elections.
So you're the fastest runner, yet still manage to come in 4th & 5th at the track, race after race. Whoop-de-da.
Edit: I forgot, he got 3rd once.