Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

well that's probably true - its not the text book libertarian stance.

but its one thing to talk about taxing the public to support social programs and a global empire and its another to talk about infrastructure. Its the classic give a man a fish versus teach a man to fish comparison.

Mitt Romney isn't going to build a high school in Cheyenne with the money he saved in reduced taxes, he isn't going to repair a bridge in Peoria, buy a fire truck in Savannah or hire 3 additional policemen to work the night shift Biloxi.

Our local, state and federal government may be highly inefficient in running that type of process but they are the only game in town.

And I'm not even sure Ron Paul would disagree with my assessment, he would suggest its not a federal responsibility, but a state issue on infrastructure revenue.

[hedge]

Not that it hasn't been noticed by everybody, but Ron Paul is basically being ignored, and in a way that I can't imagine is anything but deliberate. I watched commentary after the debates for a few hours last night and this morning on several channels, and to hear all of them talk (at least 40 different journalists and political analysts, all told) you wouldn't even know Paul was in the race. It's a travesty. I can't quite understand why they're giving him such an obvious cold shoulder other than that he doesn't fit into the status quo that the media (whether its FoxNews or MSNBC) so desperately wants to maintain. Even during the debate on a question about abortion, the moderator let the other three candidates go on at some length about the subject, then tried to move on to the next one without letting Paul speak at all. The audience went into a minor uproar and forced the moderator to ask Paul if he had anything to say on the subject, and Paul said "well, I'm the only person up here who has medical experience and this is a medical question", then went on to give his views. Still, it was glaring that the moderator was literally about to go to the next question without letting Paul speak at all...

My favorite moment last night was when Paul was going on about something and when he was through, Santorum bristled up and butted in and said "well that was obviously directed at me so let me answer" and he went on for a few minutes with his lame ass spiel and when he finished Paul said "I have to say that when I was making my comments, I wasn't thinking about you at all, Rick. I don't know why you're so sensitive", and Santorum just sat there looking like a fool while the audience laughed...

[eCat]

I think its a combination of two things - one - the perception that Ron Paul will not be accepted by the GOP no matter what, so he is a nuisance candidate, a novelty and the fact he is holding about 15% of the GOP vote, and about 45% of the independent vote just infuriates them.

The other is the belief that Ron Paul himself isn't serious about being President. All he is concerned about is having a platform to push his ideas.


Finally, they know Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. He'll continue with his money bombs where he'll get another $1.5m a month and he'll ride it out. But if they can stir up shit between Gingrich and Romney to where Gingrich can stay in the race until after Super Tuesday then that makes for good ratings.

There is no shortage of Ron Paul people who buy into the conspiracy of the liberal media pushing for Romney because they know Ron Paul would pull in votes from the GOP, Independents and Democrats (that part is true) but I don't really get into that.

I think alot of people believe a Ron Paul presidency would be chaos both domestically and foreign, as well as a Ron Paul campaign directly takes away from a decision between the Republican and Democratic nominees.

What infuriates Ron Paul supporters is this complete dismissal that even though he came in 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire that somehow a Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich have to be considered the real threat Romney.

The real threat to Romney is the reality that Ron Paul supporters will not vote for Romney or Obama. So can Romney win the election with 85% of the GOP and only 20% of the Independent vote? The numbers would suggest he can't.

[sardis]

Even though Ron Paul is not my candidate of choice, I believe he is getting screwed by the media. There were many shots of just three candidates on stage with him out of the picture and very few questions directed at him.

Newt is not my candidate of choice either, but I loved the dressing down he gave John King.

[eCat]

Newt is not my candidate of choice either, but I loved the dressing down he gave John King.

He knew you would. He knew it would be the first question out of the gate, he knew the audience he was going to have in front of them and he knew the response he'd get which would feed to a national audience.

But if he was in Iowa with an audience of mostly women, he would have apologized to his ex-wife, beg forgiveness from God and tell everyone he intends to open a charity for compulsive adulterers.

[Bklyn]

Good string of posts...fwiw

[Bklyn]

Romney could've won a 2016 election for POTUS if he were a Democrat. I still see very little (if any) margin of error for an LDS candidate to come out with a national victory as a GOPer.

It's funny Rick Perry was so unprepared to make this run. He should have waited til the next election, like was his initial inclination. The race was his, from a superficial perspective, and he blew it by running out the house naked.

[Owlman]

Damn, I have had a very busy 2 weeks.

Ron Paul is being ignored because media outlets (conservative and liberal, print and oral) know that he can't win the nomination. He will not be relevant until everything is sewed up and Romney (still don't think Gingrich has the infrastructure to do it) wins the nomination. Then the big question will be, "What will Ron Paul do?" Will he be so angry at being ignored that he'll go as an independent. Will they give him a prime time speech as he will likely have a decent (if not second) amount of delegates. Will he be able to leverage the platform any?

For the record, because his son has national aspirations, I doubt he runs as a libertarian or an independent. I think he will get a prime time speaking engagement during the convention and ultimately, 95% of those that supported Paul will end up voting for Romney.

[eCat]

it won't be even be 50%.

The Ron Paul crowd isn't a Anyone But Obama voter.

He refused to endorse McCain, he won't endorse Romney. They'll give him his plank at the convention in the hopes it will sway his voters to go with Romney but it won't, at least not to the degree they need.

What is Romney promising in his platform that is going to appeal to Ron Paul supporters? Not cutting any defense spending and keeping our global footprint the same doesn't balance out repealing Obama care. Sounds like Obama is actually cutting spending more than Romney would.

Don't get me wrong, they won't vote for Obama. They just aren't going to vote for Romney.

[Owlman]

Before this week, I felt Romney had a better than 50% chance of winning against Obama. I think he needs to stop this thing that his life has been just as difficult as everyone else. That just isn't going to fly. Now, you find out that he downplays 375,000 dollars, he only payed 15%, but worst, he's stashing money in the Cayman Islands.

In some of the swing states, there will be a battle based on how many Democrats eligible to vote can be kicked off the roles against how pissed off the Dems (and Independents) are at the Republican govs and legislature for overreaching (as in Wisconsin and Ohio)

[Owlman]

Don't get me wrong, they won't vote for Obama. They just aren't going to vote for Romney.

If they vote, they'll vote for Romney. Who else they going to vote for? Gary Johnson? He won't get any press for any of them to know about him, not without some sort of push/endorsement/support from Ron Paul. And Paul won't do that for the above reasons.

Maybe Johnson can buy some superbowl commercial time.

[eCat]

I think Obama is going to pounce on what Gingrich started and that is Romney is a 1% that is only going to help other 1% by focusing on deregulation , calling it free enterprise and not do anything for main street - and when polls show that 75% of the people support the occupy movement, that isn't going to bode well for Romney.

[eCat]

Don't get me wrong, they won't vote for Obama. They just aren't going to vote for Romney.

If they vote, they'll vote for Romney. Who else they going to vote for? Gary Johnson? He won't get any press for any of them to know about him, not without some sort of push/endorsement/support from Ron Paul. And Paul won't do that for the above reasons.

Maybe Johnson can buy some superbowl commercial time.

I'm telling you , they are not going to vote for Romney. Something might change where Paul tells them to throw their support to him but unless that happens, the hard core Ron Paul people won't reward the GOP by voting for their liberal nominee. That's why so many GOP are pissed at Ron Paul. For better or worse, his followers are scorched earth.

[Owlman]

and when polls show that 75% of the people support the occupy movement, that isn't going to bode well for Romney

agree. Romney sure has beeng giving ammunition to his opponents on that. Socking money away in the Cayman's? I'll be interested in the details of that.

[Hizzy III]

This is how I see it - I could be way off base but I don't think so

You look at a guy like Mitt Romney or John Huntsman and I think its a valid question to ask

if it weren't for the infrastructure of this country, from the community they lived in ,the college they attended, the business environment made available to them (for their fathers mainly) - would they be where they are today? Alot of Americans like to buy into the "America is the land of opportunity for those that want to work hard and get ahead" but what we really don't want to talk much about is the obligation we have as an American to make sure the people following us have that same opportunity.

For the most part that opportunity still exists but the hurdles to get there for many Americans is much tougher. The days of a high school educated student working their way into the 3/2 with the white picket fence with a new chevy in the driveway and the new Kelvenator in the kitchen are gone.

And if you talk about the obligation a wealthy capitalist has to society, then you are labeled anti-free market or a socialist.

Now I'm not in favor of a payroll tax - I firmly believe that if you provide a days worth of work, you should get paid a fair days wage and there is no gain on either side. That kind of service transaction was never intended to be taxed by the founders of this country. However, if you take your money and invest it or otherwise utilize it where in the sense your capital is doing the work as opposed to you, then that is the clear definition of a capital gain, and that was intended to be taxed.

Now is 15% too much? not enough? I don't know but I do know that this idea that the wealthiest Americans are job creators is a bullshit premise pushed down on the middle class who are scared to death of losing their jobs, and they buy completely into the idea that reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans translates into more jobs for America. And that might be true to some extent for white collar jobs, but the people that are on the government dime - those parents of 49% of kids who are on free or subsidized lunches, the 52% of Americans who pay little or no income tax, the 1 out of almost 2 that are at or below the poverty line in America aren't white collar job holding people. They don't have 401K's or pensions and working a $10 an hour job in a service industry is about as close as they are going to get to corporate America. They are the people who can't wrap their head around how America is the largest manufacturer in the world, yet has seen its manufacturing base of jobs decline steadily since the 1970's.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example where his vast resources in terms of his own personal wealth or the wealth he controls thru investment firms is not concerned with job creation. And no I'm not buying into the talking points about buying a company, raiding it and laying off workers -but I am pointing out that there is very little in his process that relates to "giving back" to those people I mentioned above. Yea, he might help a guy like me - either by investing in my company or providing a investment opportunity for my 401K but to those people mentioned above they don't see it - matter of fact, whatever help I do get either directly or indirectly is probably offset by the fact that I'm having to give some of it back at the state and local level to support the people mentioned above - from the cost of my ever increasing healthcare to the levy increases and bonds that I have pay to keep the schools, fire, police and various services in the black every year.

So that goes back to my point - Does a Mitt Romney have an obligation to this country for providing him, his father, his children with the opportunity to become a 1%, or is his obligation no more by % than the $45K a year blue collar guy? If you assume everyone has the same opportunity from birth, does a person who ends up in a job making X regardless of why have more obligation than a person in job Y? Should a person who puts in an 8 hour day of hard labor be taxed less or more than a person who earns their income from interest or increased value of their holdings?

It seems to me we've gotten to the point that the wealthiest people in this country believe that because of their work and status, they aren't obligated to pay for the opportunity they've been given to insure that those who follow them have the same, and over the years, the working class (up until the financial meltdown) were led to believe that was in their best interest even when the data in front of them suggested otherwise.

Now I know someone could say "how can you say the wealthiest don't pay their fair share, half of Americans don't even pay taxes" but that is confusing the issue. The issue is that half of America doesn't have incomes that merit paying taxes - and asking why that is, and how do we fix that is the issue.

While I've never been given the authority, I'm going to put this in TGP's Top 10 All-time posts.

[crashcourse]

romney loses southcarolina and gingrich picks up santorum voters when santorum drops and you have a new ball game

palin endorsing gingrich then last nights debate might give gingrich not only south carolina but florida too.

[Owlman]

My roommate from college is a developer in Chicago, architect, masters of architecture, MBA U. Chicago, wall streeter before going out into his own business 20 years ago.

He thinks Gingrich would be a much greater challenge to Obama than Romney.

[eCat]

if you believe that debate performance could sway an election, I would agree that Gingrich could score points in a debate where Romney couldn't.

But Gingrich isn't even the ballot in Virginia. He has a host of issues.

[Owlman]

Gingrich, if he is still in the running would ask all of his supporters in Virginia to vote for Paul as a protest.

[crashcourse]

he does

he almost HAS to have Florida because

super tuesday has virginia/massaachusetts and virginia all which romney should carry easily. newt will get georgia and probably tennesee which leaves ohio as the big one that day and potentially the one that decides it all. sound familiar