Just to clarify- I don't want a republican in office. I want Ron Paul in office. He is not a republican by defintion and is only on the ticket as one because he would have no chance of being the nominee, otherwise.

If he is the nominee (and I do hope he is), he will most likely put up a bigger fight against Barry than any of the others might --but I don't think he will beat him. Unfortunately, the vast majority of America is brainwashed and think Obama is King or they say "he needs to get us out of the mess he got us in" and will cast a vote for him on that as well.

Just to clarify- I don't want a republican in office. I want Ron Paul in office. He is not a republican by defintion and is only on the ticket as one because he would have no chance of being the nominee, otherwise.

He has a chance as a Rep?

when do you think you might come out from under that rock you are under?

??

Why would the Reps put up someone who yourself claims is not a Rep but just using them?

At this point in time Gingrich would be a long shot with more delegates then him,

Whomever the nominee is (if not Ron Paul), they will NEED the votes from the Ron Paul supporters/voters to secure a Republican as POTUS. It won't happen, because a significant majority of Ron Paul voters will not vote for Mittens, St. Rick or Chickenhawk under any circumstance. They will refrain from voting or will write Ron Paul in.

If Ron Paul is not the nominee it will be very difficult for the Republicans to win the Presidency, which will land Barry another term.

If Ron Paul is the nominee (less than a slim chance) many reps will not vote for him because he is nuts.

However I would vote for him because of ABO as the Paul and non-Paul should be.

Well that's some sound reasoning by the Ron Paul supporters...

He would lock up the "Black Helicopter" bloc.

Why do you think it is a slim chance?


Which is why Barry will ultimately win the election.

Being realistic, honest, and RIGHT apparently means a person is "nuts" these days.

We never should have been involved in WWII....

His foriegn policy is not realistic or right. He seems to forget about signed treaties and the global economy.

Isolationism in the 21st century, sure it will work. And spare me the he is a non-interventionist. I already quoted the good doctor arguing against every multinational institution and treaty, meaning he is an isolationist.

Its all our fault. If we mind our own business, no one will care about us, even though we are the largest economy in the world and our currency is the benchmark currency, oh and we have the largest military oh and we are the only superpower.

Other than that, if we kept to ourselves no one would care about us.

He doesn't have a slim chance. He has no chance. I know his propoganda is full of how he has all these delegates. No chance. In fact, I am willing to bet my 401k against yours that he has NO chance.

Hey!!!

The only period of time in his adulthood when Dr. Paul was not a Republican was briefly in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian.

He has served in the House as a Republican all this time. His son serves as a Republican Senator.

Right now we take in $2.2 Trillion and spend north of $3.6 Trillion per year. China is only holding 8% of our debt and their the largest creditor. That said, where is the money coming from? Inflation!!! Bernanke is showing up at treasury auctions and scooping up our debt as demand is low for it. As such, he proceeds to print money out of thin air to pay for the debt. That increase in the money supply is the very reason for a barrel of oil costing us $108+ right now and rising. Or gold trading at $1500+ per ounce. As inflation continues to happen, interest rates will remain artifically low allowing us to continue to service the debt obligation. But when inflation spikes to "defcon 5", Uncle Ben will have two choices. 1. He can choose to continue to scoop up our debt and spur hyperinflation. 2. Stop scooping up treasuries forcing interest rates higher, thus making it impossible to service the debt obligation. They only way to begin to correct this is to CUT SPENDING! By cutting spending to match that whcih we bring in on revenue would potentially allow us to begin to unwind ourselves out of this interest rate trap we are in. The reason that this has global implications is because the USA conned the world for decades into giving us their gold and using US dollars as their trading vehicle (since we had been on a gold standard). When we went off the gold standard in 1971 and started printing money backed by NOTHING, we stiffed the WORLD out of the US paper they're holding as it increasingly is devauled.

Seeing that Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate proposing any spending cuts, that means he is the only candidate who can potentially avert the worst financial collapse we will ever see.

So, what is realistic or right, in your mind?

As such, he proceeds to print money out of thin air to pay for the debt

He did that to improve exports and was called on it so he stopped.

They only way to begin to correct this is to CUT SPENDING!

That is what the Reps are saying

By cutting spending to match that whcih we bring in on revenue would potentially allow us to begin to unwind ourselves out of this interest rate trap we are in.

Nope that will keep us in the mess We need to cut spending more than we are taking in.

The reason that this has global implications is because the USA conned the world for decades into giving us their gold

nope again if we had the gold we could sell it and get out of this mess.


Seeing that Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate proposing any spending cuts, that means he is the only candidate who can potentially avert the worst financial collapse we will ever see.

Once again this is what the Reps are about (this year)

We have signed treaties.

If we stop they will leave us alone. yeah right.

just so I am clear, are you saying that the delegate information is propaganda, and therefore not true? if so, please elaborate because i would like to understand a bit more...

I will gladly discuss, but can you reference which signed treaties you are talking about here?

Oh boy where to begin.

First an increase in the money supply can (usually does) cause inflation, but it is not the mere increase in the supply. Inflation will happen from the increased velocity (rate at which money changes hands). Since so much of the increased supply is simply sitting at the Fed in reserves, consumer inflation is muted. You are correct though that the dollar's decreasing value in relation to other currencies is causing a commodity bubble, reflected in the price of gold, oil, minerals, etc.

Second, demand for US debt is high, not low, as reflected in the low yields we need to charge for the debt. Bernanke is "scooping up" US debt in an effort to try to force those yields even lower (conspiracists will say to allow Obama deficits, others will say in an effort to fight deflation and force capital into equities).

When inflation increases, debt yields will increase, forcing the government to pay more to service its debt and then the crisis will be upon us.

Regarding spending I agree we need to cut. The good doctor offers a great plan to do so and has no chance of passing it.

Others in the field don't do a great job on the spending cuts, although Gingrich does show how his tax plan will grow the economy, which is really the secret to reducing the debt but something no one in either party, including the good doctor, are talking about.

NATO, SEAN, UN, NAFTA, bilateral trade agreements with S. Korea, Panama, Chile. Feel free to explain all together or one at a time.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

I know that the NYtimes is a libral rag however I do not think that they would be mistating that mr paul only has 18 delegates when he must have more than romney at 105 to be ahead.

PS Not a romney supporter

noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.


Is that clearer?

That's the problem. You don't "think" NYT would be mistating information. The truth is that they (the delegates) haven't been awarded, yet.

This article, is more accurate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb...n?newsfeed=true