Dixville Notch

[Lord Jim]

This is devastating news for Ron Paul....

A Colbert candidacy will create a serious split in the Joke Candidate vote, which has been the bedrock core of Paul's support....

[Rick]

This is devastating news for Ron Paul....

A Colbert candidacy will create a serious split in the Joke Candidate vote, which has been the bedrock core of Paul's support....

Well it won't hurt him in SC, Colbert's home state.

SC does not allow write ins...

[Guinevere]

This is devastating news for Ron Paul....

A Colbert candidacy will create a serious split in the Joke Candidate vote, which has been the bedrock core of Paul's support....

I'm pretty sure you've just insulted thousands of New Hampshire-ites. The Granite state takes itself pretty seriously, and doesn't support "joke" candidates.

You should think this through LJ, some of my MA liberal friends have voiced an interest in Paul (to my great dismay). You never know, he could be the guy. I'm not convinced Romney is, and so far 2/3 of your compatriots agree with me.

[Lord Jim]

You never know, he could be the guy.

I'm sorry Guin, but in this case I do in fact know...

Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP nominee for President; I state that with absolute metaphysical certitude....

In fact if you're interested in a wager on that, I'm willing to go "Mitt Stakes" with you on it....

I'll bet you $10,000 that Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee.

[Liberty1]

I agree Paul will not be the guy.

Now if you could take Paul's domestic policies and Mitts foriegn policy and combine them into one candidate somehow, I might could get behind that guy.

But Paul's statements on foriegn policy are what really make him a joke candidate, IMO.

[Sue U]

You never know, he could be the guy.

I'm sorry Guin, but in this case I do in fact know...

Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP nominee for President; I state that with absolute metaphysical certitude....

I don't think Guin is saying that Paul will be the GOP nominee, but that if he were, he could be the guy that would attract votes from libertarian-minded Dems and Independents dissatisfied with the current regime and status quo politics.

Or maybe I've got that wrong, and she's saying that anything could still happen in the nominating process.

Or maybe both?

[Guinevere]

Yes, Sue has it exactly correct (merci mon confrere). I should have said: You never know, he could be the guy to knock off Obama.

It isn't going to be Willard Mittens (but I agree, he is more likely than not going to be the R nominee).

[Lord Jim]

You never know, he could be the guy to knock off Obama.

You're joking, right?

If Paul went up one on one against Obama, it would make the '72 and '84 elections look like cliff hangers...

Obama would carry the electoral vote 538-zip, and win 65% of the popular vote. (Including, mine)

And the only reason Paul would even get up to 35% is because he'd get a lot of votes from people who voted for him as a protest, knowing he wouldn't win, because they loathe the incumbent; but who would still vote for the incumbent they loathe if they actually thought Paul could win. (The same way George McGovern was able to get up to 39%)

I have never seriously considered voting for a Democratic nominee for President in my life, but then I've never been presented with a Republican Nominee with an avowed program to destroy the country's defense capabilities, which is what I would have if Paul were nominated. On national defense, compared to Paul, Barack Obama is Curtis LeMay....

I know that there have been polls showing Paul running even as close as 8 points behind Obama, but that's only because the vast majority of the electorate does not know the full story of just what policies this radical Randian paranoid crackpot would pursue...

Team Obama would make absolutely certain that Paul's full platform was well known by election day, and there's something in it for everyone to hate and/or fear....

The mush- brained lefty pacifists who think it would be just peachy for the US to withdraw from every corner of the planet and moth ball our entire blue water fleet, would recoil in horror at Paul's plans to dismantle every social program and worker protection adopted since the turn of the century; (That would be the turn of the 20th century, not the 21st)

And those who think that eviscerating all social programs is a capital suggestion, would probably find Paul's plan to do nothing about Iran until they detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil rather off putting...

I wonder how many of the naive college stoners in love with his drug legalization plan are aware that he would eliminate all federal student loan programs?

The list goes on and on....

The bottom line is, that regardless of the frustration one might quite legitimately feel about current political status quo, no responsible person who is aware of the totality of this fruitloop's agenda could ever cast a vote for him if they believed that voting for him might actually cause him to win the election.

A person who would do that is irresponsible, by definition.

[Crackpot]

May I remind you of all the people that thought Obama was against the war in Afganistan? Never underestimate people desire to hear what they want to hear and ignore what they don't

[Rick]

I wouldn't vote for him...

[Crackpot]

Unfortunately I have more than a few in my (extended) family that would.

[Lord Jim]

Well CP, if they're Liberals, just dig up some quotes from him on his domestic policy positions, and if they're Conservatives, just show them some quotes on his "defense" and drug legalization policies....

[Crackpot]

Never underestimate people desire to hear what they want to hear and ignore what they don't

[Guinevere]

LJ, I didn't say *I* think Paul is the answer, nor would I *ever* vote for him. But there are enough people on both sides of the aisle paying attention to him that he is a concern. Clearly, he concerns the Progressive movement -- they've started sending out emails and creating social media posts to help educate people about what he really stands for/bring him down to size.

[rubato]

Ron Paul, and Libertarianism itself, is attractive to people who are more narrowly focused and only vote issue by issue. They are attractive to those who think legalizing drugs, 'ending the war on drugs', is the most important thing. They are attractive to people who are convinced that the gold standard (against 100 years of evidence to the contrary) is the "only way" to support a national currency. They are attractive to people who believe the ideological idea that it is immoral for the state to constrain individual agreements even if the outcome of such a system is de jure slavery. They are attractive to those who, due to a lack of breadth of education and insight into the human species believe that a simplistic ideology, which cannot even derive justification for such obviously necessary limitations on behavior as zoning laws, can actually be used to design a system of functional laws which can create a 1st world society in the 21st century.

Ron Paul himself fails to be a 'true' libertarian by supporting the criminalization of abortion.

yrs,
rubato