The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)

[Infinite_Loser]

I'd heard about Ron Paul before this thread, but didn't really know much about him. Anyway, after taking the time to read up on him and watch a few of his videos on YouTube, I only have one thing to say...

If Ron Paul doesn't win, then it just goes to show that this country is full of morons/people who care more about lining their own pockets with money instead of the general welfare of the public. I'm not looking forward to living in an America where I have to live in astute poverty because this generation's leaders (Like that idiot in office) were more interested in protecting big business/the rich than they were than upholding the principles that this country was founded on.

It's a sad day in America when someone is called a fool for wanting to uphold the Constitution...

[dc_dux]

IL....can you explain Ron Paul's position that the income tax is unconstitutional?

Perhaps before the 16th amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 and ratified by the states in 1913:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

His rhetoric on taxes and spending may be popular with some (2% of Repubs in latest polls), but it has no basis in Constitutional law (despite dk's "whatever...I'm right" argument).

Characterizing those who dont support him as`"morons/people who care more about lining their own pockets with money instead of the general welfare of the public" still doesnt explain how we would govern based on his position of opposing nearly all spending.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

It isn't any different than trying to 'lead a horse to water'. If they aren't willing to drink what is plainly in front of them, who am I to force it on them?

I back it up with the plain text of the constitution, what more do you want?


The USSC is completely capable of interpreting the constitution. What people conveniently bury their heads in the sand about is that there are two political agendas in this country when it concerns the judiciary power and neither of them have the constitution in mind. Again, the plain reading of the text of the constitution is very easy to understand. It's when you get people with an agenda that does not jive with the plain text of the constitution is where you end up with tortured definitions of words like 'is'.

Your criticisms seem to amount to, "people who think like me are the only people capable of seeing the common sense logic of the constitution for what it is. Everyone else is corrupt."

So, i know you think that the constitution is plain as day, but just because you think it, does not make it so.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IL....can you explain Ron Paul's position that the income tax is unconstitutional?

I'll explain it as I understand. An income tax means that the people work for the government when, in fact, the government works for the people. The government can't take a portion of our pay simple because it believes it can, as it doesn't 'own' anything 'we' work for.

*Shrugs*

It makes sense to me.

His rhetoric on taxes and spending may be popular with some (2% of Repubs in latest polls), but it has no basis in Constitutional law (despite dk's "whatever...I'm right" argument).

I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'scientific' polls, as they are done solely by land line phone. Most people-- Well, I'll just speak for myself here-- Almost use cell/internet phones exclusively. Still, just look at the internet polls. While they might not be 'scientific', they seem to indicate that the Ron Paul has garnered an absolutely HUGE following. I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but I'll make an exception in this case.

Despite current national polls showing Paul to be favored by only three percent of Republican-leaning voters,[73] Paul is receiving strong support on the Internet. He continues to rank highly in online indicators such as Technorati,[74] YouTube,[75] Facebook,[76] MySpace,[77] Eventful,[78] visits to Paul's campaign website,[79] and online polls conducted by news networks.[80][81][82][83][84]

Link

Just go to YouTube and type in 'Ron Paul'. You get about 40K returns. That's more than any other presidential candidate by a mile. I tend to believe that people are genuinely interested in Ron Paul and, besides what the biased media has to say, I think he has a real shot at winning the GOP.

Characterizing those who don't support him as`"morons/people who care more about lining their own pockets with money instead of the general welfare of the public" still doesn't explain how we would govern based on his position of opposing nearly all spending.

What Ron Paul opposes is channeling billions upon billions of dollars into useless/ineffective government agencies. It's a waste of money which could be effectively put towards other endeavors-- Such as correcting the national debt (Which, in my opinion, should be of paramount importance. The US can't even finance it's own activities anymore and is relies heavily on foreign investors to buy government issued bonds. While such a strategy might have worked in the past, it doesn't seem to be working now as evidenced by the fact that you see more and more foreign investors taking more and more dollars out of their reserves-- Thus causing the dollar to lose any kind of value it has left-- And switching to more stable currencies, such as the British pound or Euro.).

Care to guess how much money is wasted on programs such as "Art Behind Bars"?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'll explain it as I understand. An income tax means that the people work for the government when, in fact, the government works for the people. The government can't take a portion of our pay simple because it believes it can, as it doesn't 'own' anything 'we' work for.

*Shrugs*

It makes sense to me.

It may sense to you, but the income tax is still not unconstitutional, as RP claims.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'scientific' polls, as they are done solely by land line phone. Most people-- Well, I'll just speak for myself here-- Almost use cell/internet phones exclusively. Still, just look at the internet polls. While they might not be 'scientific', they seem to indicate that the Ron Paul has garnered an absolutely HUGE following. I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but I'll make an exception in this case.



Link

Just go to YouTube and type in 'Ron Paul'. You get about 40K returns. That's more than any other presidential candidate by a mile. I tend to believe that people are genuinely interested in Ron Paul and, besides what the biased media has to say, I think he has a real shot at winning the GOP.

You dont put stock in scientific polls (I agree with you about landlines), but you put stock in online polls and You Tube clicks?

Care to guess how much money is wasted on programs such as "Art Behind Bars"?

Not nearly as much as the $1/2 trillion for the Iraq invasion/occupation. The one issue where I agree with RP>

[archetypal fool]

After a lot of researching about Ron Paul, I was very interested, and was planing on voting for him. Actually, I'm not sure yet, so I may after all (though I'm leaning towards Kucinich) - but I have one huge concern: Free-market.

I don't believe a "truly free market" amounts to anything positive for the average person. Free-markets = the possibilities for monopolies, and if there's one thing Rockefeller taught us, with price rising and price dropping to destroy competition, is that monopolies are neigh-impossible to topple. The result? Consumers are royally screwed.

My other critique of Dr. Paul is that, while I know his position on constitutionality, I also know what he thinks of abortion (human life begins at conception), meaning that it may be his only hypocritical move (in my opinion - I'm pro-choice).

Those of you who support Dr. Paul may benefit from researching Mike Gravel or Kucinich.

In any case, the more I think about what an unregulated free market would result in, the more I can't help but lose support for Dr. Paul.

[eggman414]

Ron Paul is a rare creature, an honest man in politics. I respect him, but I usually disagree with him and would NEVER vote for him for President. I mostly agree with the posters who likened him to a Republican Kucinich - a good man, but out there. And I'm not talking about electability; I'm talking about policy. I'm pretty moderate and would be likely to vote for someone closer to the "center" (though, really, I prefer not to speak in political categories).

Also - I forget where I first heard this, but it always comes to mind when I hear these debates about the Constitution - The Constitution is not a suicide pact. What that means is that the Constitution, a great and wise document though it is, was not handed down by God. Its purpose was to create a nation of laws, for men. How did it do that? By the clever use of language.

What does this mean? It means that just like language, the Constitution can be interpreted. This is why the slippery-slope argument with regards to constitutionality usually doesn't hold water. Most - though not all, mind you - ways in which the Constitution has been interpreted fit pretty well within the paradigms of the interpretation of language. Anyone who has ever tried to discern meaning from a cryptic phrase knows that the are a number of possibly valid interpretations; the same applies to the Constitution (and most legal matters). Furthermore, the Constitution is vague deliberately. If it weren't vague, nobody would ever have agreed to it, and the framers understood that. So, they left a lot up in the air, figuring that future generations would sort it out. As their disagreements make plain, they had some pretty different ideas of how it should be interpreted, too.

And sort it out we have, albeit tragically at times. Generally speaking, in terms of federal powers, the Hamiltonian doctrine has won out. You may disagree with this outcome, and have some very good reasons why. Lots of very intelligent, well-informed people, believe federal powers have been interpreted too broadly (I tend to disagree with this view, though there are some notable exceptions). The key word there, though, is interpreted. You don't know what the Constitution means because the Constitution is open to interpretation and it was always meant to be that way. If people could read the Constitution and know its exact implications for everything, there would be no lawyers or judges.

[intecel]

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

My other critique of Dr. Paul is that, while I know his position on constitutionality, I also know what he thinks of abortion (human life begins at conception), meaning that it may be his only hypocritical move (in my opinion - I'm pro-choice).

He is pro-life, but he does not want the federal government to be in control of that. He believes the states should individually decide.

[dc_dux]

I find Ron Paul's position on earmarks to be just a tad hypocritical and dishonest.

He claims earmarks are unconstitutional on the grounds that they do not support the "general welfare", yet in the fiscal 08 appropriation bills, he submitted 65 requests for earmarks for projects in his district (last year the average was under 60).

Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

"I don't think they should take our money in the first place," he said. "But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."

The way it works in Paul's office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair "for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk."

But in the end, Paul said, he would likely vote against the spending bills even if they included earmarks he sought.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...o/4935311.html

RP earmark requests: (pdf or link)

So he submits earmark requests from constitutents with barely a review of their merit; then votes against the appropriation bills on principle, knowing full well that the bills will pass with his earmarks included.

If he truly believes earmarks are unconstitutional, then he should reject them all. But turning down funding requests from constitutents for projects like marketing wild shrimp, renovation of an old theater, bridge repair, hospital research, etc...might hurt his reelection.

I do give him credit, along with Barak Obama, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, for making their earmark requests public. The other candidates have not.

But Is he really that much different?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I find Ron Paul's position on earmarks to be just a tad hypocritical and dishonest.

He claims earmarks are unconstitutional on the grounds that they do not support the "general welfare", yet in the fiscal 08 appropriation bills, he submitted 65 requests for earmarks for projects in his district (last year the average was under 60).


So he submits earmark requests from constitutents with barely a review of their merit; then votes against the appropriation bills on principle, knowing full well that the bills will pass with his earmarks included.

If he truly believes earmarks are unconstitutional, then he should reject them all. But turning down funding requests from constitutents for projects like marketing wild shrimp, renovation of an old theater, bridge repair, hospital research, etc...might hurt his reelection.

I do give him credit, along with Barak Obama, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, for making their earmark requests public. The other candidates have not.

But Is he really that much different?

I think he's just caught between a rock and a hard place. Is it really fair for his constituents to get screwed over? Ideally his district would be able to spend their money how they see fit, but for some reason the Feds think they have to micro manage state affairs. I guess he just feels they should get some of that money back.

I highly doubt any of this will hurt his re-election at all, especially with all the support his been getting nationally. His house seat isn't going anywhere.

[joshbaumgartner]

You play by the rules of the game as they are, even if you seek to change those rules. You might want to see earmarks halted, but so long as they are part of the fabric of our politics, you have to work within that framework or your own constituents end up getting the shaft. You might be in favor of publicly funded elections, but until it comes about you have to fund your campaign by the current system. You might be in favor of alternative energy programs, but it doesn't mean you don't own a car.

I like seeing people make some moves to show their convictions, but I don't expect them to go so far as to be incapable of succeeding within the current framework.

[dc_dux]

josh....the distinction I would make is that Ron Paul does not only want the change the rules on earmarks, he says without reservation that they are unconstitutional.

If he believe that strongly in his constitutional interpretation, he should stand by it all the way and not act in what he believes is an illegal manner. He is trying to play it both ways that IMO is counter to his conviction. He should tell his constituents right up front that he will not submit earmarks and stand or fall on that position...or back off from the constitution argument.

John McCain believes earmarks are fiscally irresponsible and will not request any on behalf of his constitutents. His constituents know that and accept it.

[joshbaumgartner]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

josh....the distinction I would make is that Ron Paul does not only want the change the rules on earmarks, he says without reservation that they are unconstitutional.

If he believe that strongly in his constitutional interpretation, he should stand by it all the way and not act in what he believes is an illegal manner. He is trying to play it both ways that IMO is counter to his conviction. He should tell his constituents right up front that he will not submit earmarks and stand or fall on that position...or back off from the constitution argument.

John McCain believes earmarks are fiscally irresponsible and will not request any on behalf of his constitutents. His constituents know that and accept it.

Well you are very correct about that all, I think in this instance, and depending on the earmarks in question, one could definitely make the argument that Paul's public pronouncements, due to their strong nature, would require a requisite show of action to back them up. And it is also true that there are more than just McCain that do in fact avoid earmarks and yet successfully retain their seat.

My statement was really more of a general commentary on the general concept of how much one should be expected to go against the system in demonstration of their desire to change the system. As for Paul in particular, I have to admit I've not closely analyzed him as he is not a candidate in an election I'll be voting in.

[samcol]

It looks like he did very well in this last debate. He won the ABC post debate poll, the MSNBC poll and the Drudge Report poll. I have also heard that he has spent only $600,000 of his $3 million raised so far.

He as accomplished quite a lot with nothing but a strong message and little money. If he had a 90% household name recognition like guliani and mccain instead of <10% he'd probably be in first place for the nomination.

Here's a great clip from the recent debate

Love how romney tries to pull the "..but.....but..but 9/11" and gets shut up. Paul makes so many great points in that clip.

[intecel]

I just checked the ABC poll. It shows Ron Paul as winning the poll with 30,000 votes. The next in line is Romney with 3,861....

[ubertuber]

I think that a lot of that is poll voters self-selecting. I'd be shocked and awed if those figures were in any way representative of the voting public.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I think that a lot of that is poll voters self-selecting. I'd be shocked and awed if those figures were in any way representative of the voting public.

I agree they probably aren't very representative of the public, but I do think they are representative of people who follow the debates which may only be 5-10% of the public if that.

[Not Right Now]

I find it so odd that I may actually vote Republican for once in my life if he runs.

[samcol]

The energy around this guy is incredible so I hear. He usually has more supporters than any other candidates at debates and events.

The last couple minutes of this clip is really awesome imo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ#h

He managed to beat out some very recognized candidates in the Iowa straw poll coming in at Fifth.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by samcol

The energy around this guy is incredible so I hear. He usually has more supporters than any other candidates at debates and events.

The last couple minutes of this clip is really awesome imo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ#h

He managed to beat out some very recognized candidates in the Iowa straw poll coming in at Fifth.

FIFTH. Tommy Thompson dropped out after coming in sixth.

Look, Ron Paul may be super great, but people need to get past the idea that internet support is any kind of important. The vast majority of voting Americans are not frequenting the tubes. Ron Paul has zero chance. Get over it, move on.

[ubertuber]

Kadath - here's a caveat. There will eventually come an election in which what you say is no longer true. I think that it is entirely possible for a candidates internet strategy, presence, and support to translate to real-world gains. The first time that happens, there will be a lot of surprise and confusion and armchair quarterbacking. My gut tells me that we aren't quite there yet. Ron Paul's candidacy (and Mike Gravel to a lesser degree) are an important part of that paradigm shift, but I don't think we're close enough for them to push us over the line.

And let's be honest here. Ron Paul came in fifth when two of the anticipated three strongest candidates didn't even show up. If McCain and Giuliani had made even a slight effort, Paul would have been in 7th. It's not time for a victory dance yet.

[Willravel]

20 years from now YouTube will have importance in elections. Possibly.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Kadath

FIFTH. Tommy Thompson dropped out after coming in sixth.

Look, Ron Paul may be super great, but people need to get past the idea that internet support is any kind of important. The vast majority of voting Americans are not frequenting the tubes. Ron Paul has zero chance. Get over it, move on.

It's funny how he's gone from like 250:1 to 15:1 in Vegas. He has the most internet support out of any GOP candidate. He's gets first or close to the top in every single debate poll despite a horrible household name recognition compared to other candidates. He's achieved far more than most candidates who have out raised him in donation by far. His message spreads like a virus and his positions (even if you disagree with them, they are unwavering) are backed up with 20+ years of congressional voting consistency.

Plus his internet support has gotten him all over the TV recently.

I'd say he has a better chance than most of the corporate whore candidates. Don't forget it's still very early in the presidential campaign and his support continues to go UP unlike many of the candidates.

The RP presidential dream is till very much alive.

[Kadath]

Okay, samcol. I will give you better than Vegas odds. 50-1. Bet as much as you like. Everyone is witness. I'll take all your action. I'll take anyone's action.

ubertuber: I agree, it will matter one day. Not today, though, and those who think otherwise are fooling themselves (and possibly giving me money. Who wants to back Ron Paul? Taking all bets!)

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Kadath

Okay, samcol. I will give you better than Vegas odds. 50-1. Bet as much as you like. Everyone is witness. I'll take all your action. I'll take anyone's action.

ubertuber: I agree, it will matter one day. Not today, though, and those who think otherwise are fooling themselves (and possibly giving me money. Who wants to back Ron Paul? Taking all bets!)

Honestly, do you not like his message or do you not like the hope he has given to so many people to have a real candidate that will restore the constitution?

There are a ton of people who are really fed up with the status quo of what both parties are offering. The biggest road block for Ron Paul is getting his message out. If he can do this effectively he can win.

PS: Alright, I'll take you up on 50-1. PM your paypal address.

Oh, and he's currently tied with Romney at 8 to 1, even after Romney won the Iowa straw poll.

[dc_dux]

Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in hell. To think otherwise is sheer folly.

He's at 1-2% in the national polls (yeah yeah, I know that polls arent a true measure of his support because his supporters dont have landlines....but 98% of the tens of millions with landlines who will vote Repub dont support him).

And lines like this of his from the Iowa straw poll:

"The terrorist attack on Sept 11 could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment."

are just plain nutty.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And lines like this of his from the Iowa straw poll:

"The terrorist attack on Sept 11 could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment."

are just plain nutty.

ROFL. I actually looked up the Second Amendment because that made so little sense.

[dc_dux]

I think he is for concealed carry on airplanes. The founding fathers said its a second amendment right to fly with a deadly weapon!

[Willravel]

Hmm... Ron Paul wants to give terrorists guns.

The story goes they took over the planes with box cutters. This means that the people on the planes weren't going to do anything. They sat in their seats. Guns wouldn't have done shit, and that's a fact.

[samcol]

Thursday, August 9, 2007
Romney Leadership Team Member Overseeing Straw Poll
I could certainly write volumes about this, but I think the facts paint the picture themselves.

The Iowa GOP is facing possible suit over their use of the same Diebold machines that were just de-certified. Story here.

They are claiming of course, that there is nothing to worry about since the voting procedure will be conducted with the assistance and oversight of the Story County Auditor's Office. Story here.

If we look here we see the Story County Auditor is Mary Mosiman.

Mary Mosiman also happens to be on Mitt Romney's "Romney for President Leadership Team".

So there you have it, the Story County Auditor who will take part in overseeing the voting on the questionable machines is part of a team dedicated to "help Governor Romney share his vision for America".

That's a blatant conflict of interest and this is something we cannot ignore.

PS. It's also worth noting that according to this article, Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave State Auditor David A. Vaudt $1,000 in 2004.

Stealing elections just never ends. Questionable Diebold voting machines and election auditors working for Romney's campain.

This shouldn't make only Ron Paul supporters upset, but everyone who cares about fairness in elections. Yes, I know it's only a straw poll, but it's a microcosm of the kind of shit that happens nationwide on election days.

Straw Poll Results Delayed Due To Voting Machine Malfunction
11 Aug 2007 08:25 pm

AMES -- The announcement of tonight's straw poll results has been delayed due to what one informed source says was a voting machine malfunction. About 4,500 ballots had to be re-run. We are waiting....

So, 4500 votes were 'rerun', by Romney's own campaign member, which is almost exactly how many votes romney got.

[dc_dux]

I share your concern with the integrity of the election process, but no one stole from Ron Paul what he never had.

BTW, Paul voted against the bi-partisan Help America Vote Act of 2002 that requires States and localities to meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration standards and provides tougher enforcement mechanisms for the Federal Election Commission. It passed in the House by a vote of 357-48.

Last year, he also voted against the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, one of the landmark bills of our lifetime that guarantees that citizens are not disenfranchised. It passed 390-33.

Way to go, Ron....your NO votes are really helping to ensure free and fair elections.....not.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I share your concern with the integrity of the election process, but no one stole from Ron Paul what he never had.

BTW, Paul voted against the bi-partisan Help America Vote Act of 2002 that requires States and localities to meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration standards and provides tougher enforcement mechanisms for the Federal Election Commission. It passed in the House by a vote of 357-48. Way to go, Ron....you sure helped clean up the election process.....not.

He also voted against the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, one of the landmark bills of our lifetime that guarantees that citizens are not disenfranchised. It passed 390-33.

It's funny how you admit election irregularities then say it couldn't of effected a candidate in the poll....

You don't get how bills work do you? Just like in the other thread where you listed all the proposed bills by the democrats as evidence of them 'not doing nothing', the names of the bills almost never do what the title implies.

So now instead of having occational localized voter fraud and problems, now we have nationalized voter fraud through diebold e-voting machines. Candidates no longer have to buy off hundreds of districts, they just have to buy off the centralized Diebold vote counting database. Don't forget last election the head of diebold said he is 'commited to delivering the election to Republicans.

I'm wondering how many congressman Diebold had to buy to get this massive E voting machine contract that is the Help America Vote Act. All this did was waste more money, resources, and wasted what little integrity was left in the voting system.

Sometimes it's nice to have a candidate that can't be bought. Tell me why Ron Paul should of voted for this again?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by samcol

It's funny how you admit election irregularities then say it couldn't of effected a candidate in the poll....

The Iowa straw poll was hardly a serious election.

You don't get how bills work do you? Just like in the other thread where you listed all the proposed bills by the democrats as evidence of them 'not doing nothing', the names of the bills almost never do what the title implies.

I helped write a few bills. I think I know pretty well how the process works.

So now instead of having occational localized voter fraud and problems, now we have nationalized voter fraud through diebold e-voting machines. Candidates no longer have to buy off hundreds of districts, they just have to buy off the centralized Diebold vote counting database. Don't forget last election the head of diebold said he is 'commited to delivering the election to Republicans.

I'm wondering how many congressman Diebold had to buy to get this massive E voting machine contract that is the Help America Vote Act. All this did was waste more money, resources, and wasted what little integrity was left in the voting system.

Sometimes it's nice to have a candidate that can't be bought. Tell me why Ron Paul should of voted for this again?

You might try actually reading the bill for once, as well as the many analysis of numerous non-partisan public interest groups before you make bogus claims about HAVA and what its certification standards may mean to Diebold.

I dont suggest any pierce of legislation is perfect....but these two are pretty damn good despite Ron "DR NO" Paul's interpretation.

[samcol]

Your right Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty in voting. If you actually believe that I've got some land on the moon I'm selling.

Diebold is a fucking joke.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by samcol

Your right Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty in voting. If you actually believe that I've got some land on the moon I'm selling.

Where did I suggest Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty? I simply asked you to read HAVA to see how it might help (by requiring paper trails, voting machine testing and certification, provisional voting, etc)

Diebold is a fucking joke.

So are RP's votes on bills to help ensure free and fair elections.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Where did I suggest Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty? I simply asked you to read HAVA to see how it might help (by requiring paper trails, voting machine testing and certification, provisional voting, etc)

Sorry I misread your post.

[ubertuber]

Here's a link that came up on Digg today:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...0_election.php

It's an interesting piece about whether the web really matters in elections yet. The text is too long to post here, but it's worth a read.

The crux of it is that the net would suggest that we're headed for Obama v. Paul. Pauls say it's Clinton v. Giuliani. I think the latter is more likely.

[dc_dux]

The web has become an increasingly important (and inexpensive) way for a candidate to get his/her message out, but it has a long way to go before it becomes a reliable means of measuring voter sentiment.

The article does debunk the claim of the RP camp that traditional polls drastically undercount his real level of national support.

Ron Paul's campaign has alleged that his poor polling numbers are a result of pollsters under counting youth voters who only use cell phones (and have no landline for the pollsters to call). Even if this were the case, it's unlikely that the 13% of Americans who don't use a landline would differ in opinion from their traditional phone using brethren enough to swing the polls very much. And as I said in point one: the youth vote -- who account for most of that 13% -- is a small slice of the election pie.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I think the latter is more likely.

And more terrifying.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Way to go, Ron....your NO votes are really helping to ensure free and fair elections.....not.

So you're saying that he should have voted "Yes" simply because the bill was going to pass anyway? I don't understand this train of thought one bit.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

And more terrifying.

I'm okay with Clinton but Guiliani? What idiot would vote for him (Or is he still riding the whole "9/11" thing)?