<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y-wZ0w7yr9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If Romney thought taking any of those positions would be net helpful for him, he'd already have adopted them or he could adopt them in the general election. He doesn't need to make a deal with Ron Paul for that. But we both know he won't adopt any of those positions because it wouldn't benefit him. Outside of Afghanistan, none of those issues drive votes, and Ron Paul's views on Afghanistan and foreign policy in general are complete anathema to the GOP as a whole. Umm, he doesn't do as well as Romney against Obama, unless you cherry pick polls to fit your story: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Nice try, though. But maybe I'll be wrong and Romney will, despite dominating the convention, make a deal with the guy who can't top about 15% in his own party and who's positions are in complete disagreement with just about everything the GOP believes in. Do you really believe that? If that happens, I'll leave the D&D forever. If not, you leave forever. Deal? In the end, Ron Paul is going to be about as relevant in the convention as he did in 2008. Like 2008, there may not even be a formal delegate count and we'll never know how many delegates he collected. In part, this is because of his own stupid strategy to never touch Romney and let him win the race. He had he tried to tear Romney down instead of Santorum, he might actually be able to do something with his group of delegates.
Well, sure. If you ignore everything else he's proposed and pretend that one policy is the only thing he has to reduce the deficit, then I guess it sounds pretty stupid. But the only people who do that are stupid people or people who intentionally want to create a distorted picture.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/20/report-just-31b-from-buffett-rule-tax-on-rich/#ixzz1sPla6UWc "A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press."
Was it a grudging endorsement? Not that I can recall. As for Paul, his supporters can keep spinning out fantasies. I really don't care. Maybe they'll get so worked up about it that they can convince Paul to run as an independent/3rd party candidate. That would make me a very happy Democrat.
Did you somehow think the Buffett Rule was the only thing the President has proposed? I don't see the relevance here. The President - and Romney and Ron Paul - have proposed a number of things. If you cherry pick any one of them, you could similarly say "well that one doesn't fix the whole deficit, so it's stupid!" But really, that's neither here nor there in a thread about Ron Paul. Please show us the math that gets Ron Paul to the convention. It should be quite entertaining.
Are you confusing me with someone else? Romney has the nomination all locked up and has no reason to make a deal with anyone, including Paul. The mains polls that I trust are PPP and Rasmussen. If Gallup actually polled Obama vs Paul, I'd look at that too. In those polls, Paul and Romney are basically the same against Obama. And if you to look at the crosstabs in any of those polls, Paul does better amongst Independents... Read what I said above. The primary was over when Santorum dropped out - there will be no brokered convention and hence no need for a deal with Paul... If they disrespect Paul like that, I hope he runs 3rd Party or tells all of his voters to vote for Gary Johnson... I agree, this was a huge mistake on his part. He should have been attacked Romney A LOT more...
Not to belabor the offtopic tangent about the Buffett rule but it is laughable that the party that proposed independent bills ending NPR funding and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts for deficit reduction purposes (which only amounts to around 200 million dollars in total) now criticizes something for not having an impact on the deficit. What a joke.
Who's going to see Ron Paul speak at University of Houston - Hofheinz Pavilion today? I'm going and I'm so excited!! <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h6ENddrMUtc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Tickets (free) http://ronpaulatuh.eventbrite.com/
Sorry - yes I was. PPP has a great track record, but be very careful with Rasmussen. Their polls often are way out of line with everyone else's and tend to have a very significant GOP bias, for whatever reasons. I think prior to 2008, they got some credibility because they hit on some big races, but ever since, they've been way out of whack with everyone one. My favorite is this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html For about 6 months (ending in early March), every single Rasmussen poll showed a GOP lead in this area, while every single non-Rasmussen poll showed a Dem lead. I'm not sure what it is, but there's something unique about their methodology compared to every other polling organization. I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it's really about disrespect. No losing candidate is really all that relevant unless they were a serious contender - Newt and Santorum won't be relevant either. Conventions are really just a choreographed victory lap for the winner - anything that brings attention to his shortcomings will be ignored and put aside. The exception is when you have a really large piece of the base that needs to be placated - Hillary supporters in 2008, for example.
$100-150B / yr in high end Bush tax cut expiration $300B /yr in defense, discretionary, and major entitlement cuts (Grand Bargain and Erskin-Bowles numbers) $100-150B / yr in the eventual end of stimulative spending/cuts (extended unemployment benefits, payroll tax cut, etc) That's about $550B / yr in direct cuts. Add in $50-$100B/yr from winding down the war in Afghanistan in 2013 as well as probably $200B or so in increased revenues as unemployment goes down and the economy grows, and that's about $800B of the deficit. All of these are part of the Administration's response to the deficit problem. Yet, you seem to be obsessed with the Buffett Rule. And, of course, you continue to try to ignore the question at hand: you showing the math that gets Ron Paul to be relevant at the convention. If you can't do it, just admit you made a stupid post instead of constantly trying to deflect and pretend you never made the claiim.
The Republican party---where the race is on to dismantle as many federal agencies as possible. Ron Paul wins! Well, if by wins, I mean he would have gotten rid of federal agencies that could have stopped 2008 rather than stripping them of all meaningful powers.
Let the bush tax expire, good move when they end the war in afghanistan, like iraq. Not Obsessed, but msm is pushing class warfare, buffet rule tax the rich to solve the problems. The main issue should be cutting govt spending, all across the board, the DoD, Social security, Medicare, Food stamps, Unemployement by 20%. And letting the Bush tax cuts expire for all including the middle class who benifits from EIC. And start paying down the existing deficit over time.
Last time I checked there is still a race between two republican candidates, until Dr. Paul step aside and concedes I will still push foward and become a delegate. I dont have the math that you seek. Who does? Last time I check they are 3+ rounds the in voting from delegates. 3 are binding the fourth is unbinding to wichever candidate they choose.
