lol that's appropriate.

Ill give it that Reich Perry is clever. Not the most appropriate post ever tho.

Wheres the like button?

Wait, does this mean I can post my Rand Paul pic again?

You must be just another "average voter." Are you kidding man?! Don't you know? Paul doesn't take money from special interests & you can't get into the White House without special interest money.

Today on Cavuto, he had a professional fundraiser who told him that she represents 20 "Bundlers" who are all on the fence trying to decide who to back & all the major players are vying for their $$$$$$.

I mean, come on man! The news media is telling the general populace, to their face, on the air, that special interests bundle their money & back a candidate together. Take for instance unions....they have a lot of common ground and want the same things, so they bundle up & offer their money to the candidate who promises the most for them & has, what they believe, the best chance to win.....

Why do you think Obama is fighting Boeing in South Carolina? Please! Pay attention!!

What we will have, is another guy, like Obama, who gets caught lying, like Obama did when he claimed NAFTA was a bad idea & he'd opt out & then his aides called Canada and told them not to worry, it's just campaign rhetoric, & then when Obama was asked on his plane by the press about it, he told him that it wasn't true, that the call wasn't made, and then senior people in the Canadian govt. confirmed again that the phone call was received...........and the American public will gloss over these lies and vote for the guy anyways, cause he's the one with most charisma........and we'll just continue to get the shaft.

Why?: Because he has the most money from special interests and money can drown the bad news like it was a cat in the ocean.

Poor, poor, America.........no Ron Paul for you! No patriot! Just another bought & paid for politician.........Chat up the 2012 election all you want though.......that's what the politics forum is for.........chatter, chatter, chatter........hope it makes you feel better.........while that big, fat, red, white & blue shaft is being rammed up.........

"The best argument against a democracy, is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

^^I think you have confused "not raking money from special interests" with "not having anybody interested in giving you money"

Are you not paying attention at all?


Paul collects an absolute ****load of money through small donations from people who clearly aren't seeking special favors while getting almost no maxed out donations from those who are. He may be a marginal candidate, but he's definitely not one with fundraising problems.

Pauls biggest problem is that his probable supporters are essentially split in the two party system. And those supporters are too small to create a critical mass necessary to make a run at anything really. He'd have a chance at a nomination if the parties were aligned differently.

Paul has a small group of fervent supporters that support him well through the early stages but he is defeated before the real money pours into the elections. He has no corporate or union support and maybe that is a positive to some. But I stand by my statement that he could never get any of the special interest money because no special interest would benefit from his election.

However,I see your point. Would you agree if my above statement that you commented on read: ^^I think you have confused "not taking money from special interests" with "not having any special interests willing to give you money"

Sweet, we're gonna get more than a year of Ikes gleefully reporting/commenting on any Obama misstep, challenging the methodology of any poll that favors Obama, dismissing, discounting or discrediting any argument against Rick Parry or whoever, all the while maintaining that he is not a Conservative because, "LOL, what? I want Obama to win cuz of the gridlockz ldo!"

Fun!

lol I really do want obama to win. Republicans will have the senate, that's enough for gridlock.

I am a conservative too btw (specifically: libertarian), and haven't claimed otherwise in 3+ years. The butthurt you keep up and your inability to change are pretty impressive though.

Ike: gridlock ensures at least as much spending and war as now. Why is this good?

Today's Daily Show had a generic zomg Perry/Bush are the same segment to open the show followed by a Paul media blackout segment where I think he killed it.

I think Dems can crossover for the caucus and primary in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not sure though.

Well, on the war bit, I don't think there's any combination that significantly changes it. Congress hasn't shown any sort of balls to do anything but continue continuing on. The executive has the power to do pretty much anything they want military wise atm.

I honestly feel like the best chance at spending cuts is through a divided government. It'll force the parties to deal and end up with budgets that basically no one is happy with. Most importantly, it will stop a big REPUBLICAN JERBS BILL, DEMOCRATIC JERBS BILL, or any other major initiative that is not 100% necessary from happening.

The best example of this is the debt bill. That **** was 100% necessary and was always going to get done. But because there was split government, it was time to negotiate concessions, and the government is now projected to be a bit smaller than it was before.

Most importantly, do you really think a republican congress coupled with romney or perry will actually slash the budget meaningfully? No right? It'd be nice to see that the republican party truly has been taken over by people with libertarian leanings, but I find that quite unlikely.

The only way that seems probable to get to something sane on the budget is to hold spending steady while letting revenues catch up. Split government seems like the best way to do that.

They can crossover, but you and I both know that party affiliation runs pretty deep. Not many people actually end up doing this.

the best thing that can happen is

1. Perry wins nom while going hard right/tea party
2. Reps embrace teh tea party/hard right crazies behind Perry
3. Economy improves just slightly and Obama squeaks by winning Penn/FL/Virginia etc.
4. Dems barely take back house, Reps take over Senate
5. Reps realize going all in on crazy tea party and hardcore social conservatives = dumb and embrace the olive branch Obama will undoubtedly extend.
6. **** gets done
7. Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity still think Obama is radical Muslem terrorist sent to eat white babies

6. **** gets done

Is obviously wrong. Do not want.

This is definitely true in any caucus state (like Iowa), where you pick your candidate in public surrounded by other members of the same party. Not going to see a lot of crossovers there. The few I'd expect would be single issue voters who would crossover to vote for a pro-gun/pro-life/whathaveyou candidate on the other team.

This could end up helping Paul in Iowa, as the only single issue voters willing to publicly crossover this year are anti-war Dems lining up to caucus for Ron Paul.


In primary states (like NH and my native Tenn) crossing over happens a lot. If there are no competitive primaries on one side, it's pretty common for a lot of people will cross over.

Wow Liberals are freaking out over what Perry said about Ben Bernanke. Great stuff, getting attention on the Fed and trying to take voters away from Paul.

I don't think the comment is a gaffe, Republicans will be put on defensive and attack the Fed and there is a lot of dirt there to be found. Undisclosed loans to foreign banks, corporations, and who knows what else.

He absolutely killed it. Nice work, Jon!

The 60s, 70s and 80s/ 1990 all had examples of bipartisan big picture legislation that wasnt driven by fear or greed. Civil Rights Act of 1964/Clean Air Act of 1970/Ratification of Montreal Protocol/ Americans with Disability Act.

The reason why this type of legislation is less likely now is less party overlap in congress, growing structural incentives not to cooperate across the aisle. More money need for campaign leads to more time spent with big donors/ Big donors give less credit on bi-partisan issues/Putting forward a proposal is asking for criticism.

u dont want spending cuts etc? War endings? Maryjane decriminalize (i can dream)? Online poker legalized?

I am a libertarian who thinks our country is essentially a one-party system, so the ground in solid.

Republicans would ****ing love to make 2012 a referendum on influential bankers (with Dems somehow tied to the bankers in public perception). Doesn't matter that Reps are more banker friendly and that the vast majority of voters couldn't tell you what the **** the Fed Chairman does and how it differs from the CEO of BoA. If Dems make a huge deal of defending the Fed in the press, they'll be on the losing side.