Anyone want to make a bet on who wins Virginia? We're down to two candidates there: Paul vs Romney

Apparently, none of the other candidates submitted their signatures in time.

steve

Now, I'll grant you that it's better for Obama not to be down substantially, but what does it say that he's statistically tied with Romney?

Considering that a plurality are unhappy with his job performance, that the economy is sputtering and hasn't rebounded, he should be way behind. Considering that he tends to lose to a generic opponent as well, its startling that at this point he isn't way behind at least one of the republicans on offer. .
The point is Steve, that many of the people who aren't happy with Obama, are going to vote for him because they have no where else to go. They are left of Obama on the political spectrum and will never vote for a republican. And many in the middle who might vote republican won't vote for any on offer because they are moderates who are willing to seek compromise and a middle path. The hardening of the republican right has made that compromise impossible. And even a soft centred type like Romney, is offering little new that wasn't part of Bushes policy bag, and as a result isn't attractive.
At least right now. But we both agree its early days yet.
My second prediction is that Romney wins New Hampshire in a walk.

I never bet money on anything Steve. A legacy of a gambling problem in the family. So stop with the silly baiting.

Neal Anderth wrote:The problem for Paul is that he's the only one not wanting to use the government to force his personal values on others.

That is not entirely true. He is all for state goverments outlawing abortion and same sex marriages.

That is not really an example of Paul using the government to force his way on other people.

Of course it is. Man, the Paulistas are so scared to question the perfection of their prophet.

No it's not.

He is all for state goverments outlawing abortion and same sex marriages.

As president, Ron Paul has no power over what state governments do. He can't use the states to "force his way on people".

theodorelogan wrote:No it's not.

He is all for state goverments outlawing abortion and same sex marriages.

As president, Ron Paul has no power over what state governments do. He can't use the states to "force his way on people".

The comment wasn't Ron Paul is against using the Federal Government to impose his beliefs on people. The comment was Ron Paul is against using Government to impose his beliefs on other people.

That statement statement is demostrably false because he is perfectly willing to use a level of government to impose his beliefs on people when he supports states limiting abortion.

Archduke Russell John wrote:That statement statement is demostrably false because he is perfectly willing to use a level of government to impose his beliefs on people when he supports states limiting abortion.

I am not a fan of Ron Paul. For every position of his I like, there are two that I don't.

That said, I think it is good to be fair. Paul's position would be that States are free to do as they wish under the umbrella of the Constitution. Now, that could mean legalizing prostitution and it could mean banning abortion. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of supporting forcing something or other. Paul's stated beliefs are the less the government does, the better.

If he were an advocate of an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion, you would have a point. Paul sees himself as a strict adherent to the Constitution. Therefore, the idea that he would use government to force anyone to do anything beyond the scope of the Constitution is not consistent.

Does he support state's limiting abortion? Remember, saying that a state should have the freedom to do something is not the same thing as supporting that thing. He also supports legalizing drugs, but is not in favor of people using drugs. You can be pro-choice and still recognize that overturning Roe v Wade is constitutionally correct.

That said, I would not be terribly surprised if someone found a clip of Paul saying that abortion should be illegal. But I have never seen or heard that, and a glance at his website on the abortion issue page talks about how we should value life (which he says begins at conception) and that he would work to overturn Roe v Wade and support a "sanctity of life" act (which, upon examination, does not outlaw abortion).

As far as marriage is concerned, I know his position on that. It is that government should get out of the marriage business and let people get married who want to get married, and let people recognize (or not) those marriages as they see fit.

rickyp wrote:steve

Now, I'll grant you that it's better for Obama not to be down substantially, but what does it say that he's statistically tied with Romney?

Considering that a plurality are unhappy with his job performance, that the economy is sputtering and hasn't rebounded, he should be way behind. Considering that he tends to lose to a generic opponent as well, its startling that at this point he isn't way behind at least one of the republicans on offer. .

How far was Hillary ahead of Obama at this point four years ago?

Look, people like Obama personally. They like his family. He's going to get the benefit of the doubt, if there is a doubt.

The point is Steve, that many of the people who aren't happy with Obama, are going to vote for him because they have no where else to go.

Really. How's he doing with independents? In fact, if you look at the polling across the board, he's lost a lot of support he had when he was elected. And, the facts are just starting to become evident regarding Obamacare.

Wait until the USSC decision comes down. If it strikes down Obamacare, he'll have to defend it. If they uphold it, he'll still have to defend it because people don't like it. Romney is running ads saying it's a "moral imperative" to repeal Obamacare. No matter how the Supreme Court goes, he's going to have to defend it in light of the cost, which leads to the budget problems, which leads to the fact that he has not led--he's proposed NOTHING to cut the deficit. Even when he proposes "savings," he balances that out with even larger "investments."

The only question is whether Americans are grown up enough to realize someone at some point has to pay the bills or whether they're going to accept Obama's notion that a few rich people can buck up trillions of dollars (against all evidence to the contrary). In the end, I don't believe there are enough Peter Pan idiots out here to re-elect the man.

They are left of Obama on the political spectrum and will never vote for a republican.

Left of Obama?

Those five guys are trying to decide who should run on the Green ticket.

The middle of the electorate are the people Obama needs. He won't get them. His only chance is a big 3rd party effort.

And many in the middle who might vote republican won't vote for any on offer because they are moderates who are willing to seek compromise and a middle path.

Ricky, if you really want to contribute something to this board, answer these questions: what great compromises has Obama wrought? What compromises has he pushed through? What sorts of deals has he pushed for the past few months? Why no federal budget for going on three years?

The hardening of the republican right has made that compromise impossible.

Really?

That is factually incorrect. PA Senator Toomey proposed raising taxes in the Super Committee negotiations. What part did Obama play?

Oh yeah, as usual, he did nothing.

My second prediction is that Romney wins New Hampshire in a walk.

Bold. Not.

I never bet money on anything Steve. A legacy of a gambling problem in the family. So stop with the silly baiting.

It's not baiting. I didn't know you have a gambling problem. I know you have no grasp on American politics. That is consistently evident.

Doctor Fate wrote:That said, I think it is good to be fair. Paul's position would be that States are free to do as they wish under the umbrella of the Constitution. Now, that could mean legalizing prostitution and it could mean banning abortion. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of supporting forcing something or other. Paul's stated beliefs are the less the government does, the better.

If he were an advocate of an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion, you would have a point. Paul sees himself as a strict adherent to the Constitution. Therefore, the idea that he would use government to force anyone to do anything beyond the scope of the Constitution is not consistent.

The problem was the statement made was absolute Ron Paul does not support using government to impose personal standards on others.

If this was true, Ron Paul's stance would be I am pro-life and believe life begins at conception but government has no place in regulating what is in essence a personal decision.

However, his position is he is pro-life an that life begins at conception but states should limit abortion. Therefore, he is ok with some level of government imposing personal standards on other.

Which is contrary to what Neal said.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Which is contrary to what Neal said.

Generally, just about anything that is factual or makes sense falls into the category of "contrary to what Neal said."

Did some research, and it looks like Ron Paul is indeed in favor of state laws against abortion.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.” - Ron Paul

So he is indeed in favor of using the state against doctors who perform abortions. Not really the worst libertarian lapse (it's a hot point of contention even in the LP) but I am disappointed to read this.

He also voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban...although he seems to suggest that, constitutionally, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'd have to learn more about the law and the circumstances that brought it about to decide how I feel about this.

theodorelogan wrote:So he is indeed in favor of using the state against doctors who perform abortions. Not really the worst libertarian lapse (it's a hot point of contention even in the LP) but I am disappointed to read this.

He also voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban...although he seems to suggest that, constitutionally, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'd have to learn more about the law and the circumstances that brought it about to decide how I feel about this.

Have you figured out yet how you feel about the Bircheresque sentiments of the newsletters that went out in his name and his handling of the issue over the past 20 years?

theodorelogan wrote:So he is indeed in favor of using the state against doctors who perform abortions.

It's even worse then that dude. He recently signed the Personhood USA pledge that commits a candidate to actively work for a Human Life amendment as President. In a signing statement he explained

I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.

So I take this to read that he has absolutely no problem with using the Federal Government to impose personal standards on others. All he wants to leave to the state governments is the enforcement of the Federal law.