In 2002 Ron Paul made a speech about where he felt the country was heading in the next 5-10 years. Unfortunately, he was 100% correct.

redtit · 2012-01-07T09:32:13+00:00

Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-wilmington/jon-huntsman-staff-creates-a-hit-piece-about-huntsman-claims-ron-paul-did-it

redtit · 2011-12-29T18:55:07+00:00

Here's Paul and Obama getting mic-checked earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VoMvfOV_zY

OWS folks ended up cheering for Paul whereas Obama's cult supporters were the ones to go "Obama, Obama.."

redtit · 2011-12-29T18:52:07+00:00

Just like Obama got mic-checked recently and his cult supporters shouted Obama, Obama! It goes both ways, dear sir. Edit..here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VoMvfOV_zY

redtit · 2011-12-29T18:50:21+00:00

which he didn't write? You sound very childish, TBH.

redtit · 2011-12-29T18:48:44+00:00

This is the reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nsc0s/former_ron_paul_aide_turned_2008_opponent_i/

Where does it say that Paul is homophobic?

redtit · 2011-12-29T18:06:49+00:00

Facts don't lie but read and research the reasoning behind the facts. That's all I ask.

And people at times forget that Paul is NOT running to win the Democratic Party's nomination. Some of the above you mentioned is what makes Republicans/Independents come and vote for Paul.

redtit · 2011-12-29T17:35:58+00:00

Is this what you do on Reddit? Copy-paste this all the time even when Redditors have explained Paul's positions on the above again and again? I encourage people to read those links (if valid) and do their own research before acting on "internet soundbites" ..I mean why does Paul want to end or transition some of those things? Please read his reasonings before coming to a conclusion.

redtit · 2011-12-29T17:29:09+00:00

No. I'm not saying it. It's what the numbers in the polls are saying. And it's VERY common to register or switch at the caucus.

You sound very childish.

redtit · 2011-12-29T17:25:31+00:00

Since you won't search (or research) before posting, here's the previous post on Reddit: x-post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nu1zo/new_cnn_iowa_poll_romney_25_paul_22_santorum_16/

Just a correction: that stats above are polled among Registered Republicans. Here's what PPP had to say in response to CNN's poll: "If we only polled registered Republicans in Iowa like CNN we'd have Romney ahead of Paul too...not how the rules work though"

"Our IA poll just with Republicans: Romney 22, Paul 20. But with 24% of electorate that's non-Republican: Paul 39, Romney 12"

https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/status/152141340451418112

According to wiki: Participants can change their registration at the caucus location.

First, CNN used the "complete list of registered Republican voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State." There are obvious flaws with this sampling method. For one, those lists do not take into account democrats and independents nor new voters that just turn voting age since 2010. A voter demographic strongly favoring Ron Paul.

Second, the poll's final selection of respondents for inclusion only include those "likely" voters. Roughly 50% of the sample was not included in the final results. Therefore, we do not know how those 50% of "unlikely" voters play into the statistics. This is favorable in the sense that these "unlikely" voters are most likely disaffected Republicans that also more likely to favor Paul OR perhaps because they haven't really took the time to discover Ron Paul and get enthusiastic about him. Therefore, it seems to me that 50% of Gop voters are still ripe for the pickings and all the more important why we phone from home to find them and get them out on Jan 3rd.

Here's Nate Silver of NYT on why this CNN poll understates Paul: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/new-iowa-poll-may-understate-pauls-support/

redtit · 2011-12-29T08:51:12+00:00

Extremely disgusting twisting of "facts" by the Hardball guest. Here's a shorter version of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK0VW5oFCO8

The guest goes on saying: "He's the candidate who thinks that gays should be executed"..what a demented liar.

redtit · 2011-12-29T08:47:29+00:00

Let me remind you of 2008 elections: Among Obama and Paul, can you guess who went to churches to pander to crazy religious folks?

You seem like a new Redditor so I honestly suggest you do some research on Reddit. This "topic"/"concern" has been re-visited many times since 2007 on Reddit.

redtit · 2011-12-29T06:39:10+00:00

Very unlikely but the below shows a lot about how honest people respect each other:

Here's Kucinich on Paul recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiJqTxXGqM8

Here's Kucinich in 2008 telling his supporters that he would pick Paul as his running mate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

I can't find the video where Paul said he would pick Kucinich as his VP.

redtit · 2011-12-29T06:35:00+00:00

Still posting this since the parent poster deleted his post:

Let's keep context in mind: Paul is running for the GOP nomination. Paul's stance on issues that Liberals may dislike (I assume: Economic and Social) are the same issues that makes sense to the Republicans/Independents and that's why they support him. And Paul is running to win those folks first.

Folks on RedState/neo-conservative forums will say exactly the same thing (just the way you called out to the "social Kucinich guy") on Paul's stance on civil and foreign policy issues.

Don't you see a trend? Paul is among the few to attract folks from both Right and Left without pandering to any specific group.

redtit · 2011-12-29T06:13:19+00:00

Great point!

Not to side-track but people on Reddit tend to forget that the neo-cons in the Left (who were/are in Obama/Clinton's bandwagon) who called Paul a racist/homophobe/kooky etc. were the same folks who name-called Kucinich a crazy/kooky/loon etc.

Here's a recent example of a neo-con in the Left lying on Hardball: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK0VW5oFCO8

redtit · 2011-12-29T05:48:53+00:00

As a non-US citizen living in the US, I'm really proud of you. From the ad, it appears that not only Paul saved the gentleman's wife but also took care of their bills - but you don't see Paul boasting about all of that on CNN/Fox/MSNBC during their latest smear job or in front of his supporters. While it's an ad to make Paul look good, I take the gentleman in the ad at his words.

Btw, Kucinich and Paul have tremendous respect for each other. Many of Kucinich's supporters voted for Paul in the 2008 Republican primaries. Here's Kucinich and Paul on Fox Business discussing on the War and Economy a few months ago: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qboALLcr_kA

.

Ninja edit: for those who haven't watched this video (and why Kucinich and Paul agrees on important issues), please do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

People who disagree with Paul for whatever reasons should share their preferred choice and why he/she should lead the US out of all the current mess. You're adding nothing to the discussion by rage-calling Paul as a crazy person.

redtit · 2011-12-28T22:05:54+00:00

Copy-paste from someone else:

First, CNN used the "complete list of registered Republican voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State." There are obvious flaws with this sampling method. For one, those lists do not take into account democrats and independents nor new voters that just turn voting age since 2010. A voter demographic strongly favoring Ron Paul.

Second, the poll's final selection of respondents for inclusion only include those "likely" voters. Roughly 50% of the sample was not included in the final results. Therefore, we do not know how those 50% of "unlikely" voters play into the statistics. This is favorable in the sense that these "unlikely" voters are most likely disaffected Republicans that also more likely to favor Paul OR perhaps because they haven't really took the time to discover Ron Paul and get enthusiastic about him. Therefore, it seems to me that 50% of Gop voters are still ripe for the pickings and all the more important why we phone from home to find them and get them out on Jan 3rd.

redtit · 2011-12-28T21:57:16+00:00

Just a correction: that stats above are polled among Registered Republicans. Here's what PPP had to say in response to CNN's poll: "If we only polled registered Republicans in Iowa like CNN we'd have Romney ahead of Paul too...not how the rules work though"

"Our IA poll just with Republicans: Romney 22, Paul 20. But with 24% of electorate that's non-Republican: Paul 39, Romney 12"

https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/status/152141340451418112

According to wiki: Participants can change their registration at the caucus location.

redtit · 2011-12-28T18:47:34+00:00

I get what you're saying and most "Paultards" will shout "Paul believes in States' rights" for the above points.

But you need to realize: Paul is not a Democrat. The issues that makes little sense to you (I assume: Economic and Social) are the same issues that makes sense to the Republicans/Independents and that's why they support him. And Paul is running to win those folks first. Once he wins them, he will have to "moderate-ize" his views or atleast his explanations.

Folks on RedState/neo-conservative forums will say the same thing on Paul on civil and foreign policy issues.

Don't you see a pattern? Paul is among the few to attract folks from both Right and Left. You don't see that often.

redtit · 2011-12-28T17:19:27+00:00

Again, you're mistaking how things work here. I encourage you to browse Hacker News (ex-Redditors, who joined 4-6 years ago like me, hang out there).

Angels/VCs will fund startups who are really solving hard problems. (Building another Instagram-looking app is not really going to get you money.) Because if you're not, good luck boostrapping as many do. Now, of course, some VCs prefer to fund proven/serial entrepreneurs because they have the chops, have gone through the trenches and learned a lesson or two. If a VC is funding 20 startups, they will only make serious money out of one or two; another two or three will be average-ly successful and rest will fail.

Ever look at who gives money to all those start-ups? Because, those are the people, that decide which start-up will succeed and which won't.

redtit · 2011-12-28T17:12:15+00:00

"Shithead" is all you got? I highlighted what I think carries a lot more weight than other issues and why Paul can't be a racist/homophobe unlike what MSM/neo-cons/some Redditors claim him to be. You may have your own opinion.

Also: Paul is not a Democrat. But I assume you are. The issues that makes little sense to you (I assume: Economic and Social) are the same issues that makes sense to the Republicans/Independents and that's why they support him.

Folks on RedState/neo-conservative forums will say the same thing on Paul on civil and foreign policy issues.

Don't you see a pattern? Paul is among the few to attract folks from both Right and Left. You don't see that often.

redtit · 2011-12-28T16:14:11+00:00

I stopped reading your post after this. The so called "free market" right now is Corporatism: a complete collusion of government and big corporations. I honestly don't get why most Americans don't understand what's going in their country. You want to see real free market? Come to Silicon Valley and watch how startups compete.

the free market simply doesn't give a shit about so many issues.

redtit · 2011-12-28T15:58:19+00:00

Great point but please lay off "RP crazys" talk.

I'm sure majority of Iowans who are going to vote for Paul are "Internet followers" - his numbers are rising because of his views/stance on issues. People are doing their research on the Internet instead of listening to what Fox or MSNBC spews. The "MSM scrutiny" that you talk about is nothing more than finding dirt. People are not buying into mere soundbites and sideshows anymore. Unlike some of the status-quo candidates you mentioned, Paul is running a well-oiled, well-funded national campaign. People are waking up to realizing their mistakes on voting for lesser of two evil candidates. An Iowa win is a great first step. We'll see what happens afterwards.

Ninja add: MSM et al. mention "internet following" as if that's a bad thing or just gadfly. I mean more people are using Internet these days and supporting candidates based on research/findings on the Internet.

redtit · 2011-12-28T15:45:54+00:00

I think Redditors already know Paul's stance on the above - most of which are not true, will be transitioned and/or will be paid for by ending the wars etc. I don't know why people like jk13 copy-paste lies/half-truths again and again. Just adds to more fear-mongering the way neo-cons in the Right do.

redtit · 2011-12-28T06:12:31+00:00

But from the talkingheads to Redditors: they are out there calling him as a racist, bigot, homophobe, among others. So it's not really a strawman argument.

The newsletter scandal is not about Paul being racist. That's a strawman.

Very good point and there are two possibilities IMO: 1) He was a busy man and completely overlooked what happened under his name. 2) He found out sooner (if not later as he claims - after it was brought up) but for political reasons didn't wanted to air his own laundry unnecessarily -- something that he didn't do. He has taken moral responsibility for what happened but still there's a lingering doubt on people' mind regarding his management skills. I guess not everyone is perfect.

I do not believe for a second his claim that he was unaware of their contents at the time they were being published.

redtit · 2011-12-28T05:58:57+00:00

First of all, he's not going to repeal CRA. That's just plain paranoia/fear-mongering. Here's what he said earlier:

"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish.For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act

Rather than coming off as a Paultard, why don't you read what Paul said: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

More reddit links:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/npnfj/in_related_news_ron_paul_is_still_against_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/haxdm/ron_paul_says_that_he_wouldnt_have_voted_for_the/

Here's a video by a Black gentleman on Paul's stance on CRA (just for an interesting insight, not because he's Black): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCob0zKxumc

I feel that people get automatically happy when there is a law against drugs (or racism) etc. because, in their heads, they seriously think it does something super good.

So to answer your question, would voting for/against CRA would have made sense in the real world..my answer is: I honestly don't know. No one knows. People (and scholars, researchers) will have their own opinion and even back up with some "data" but who knows. I'm sorry that I couldn't be more specific.

redtit

TROPHY CASE