2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

what does Paul have to do with aces comment and my subsequent question?

1. Bernie said only in America could a candidate doing what he is doing could be considered not serious

2. You appear to agree

3. I recall you never believing Paul was a serious contender

Are you following? I just love your consistent hypocrisy
 
never said Sanders was a serious contender.

I agree with a lot of what he says bu realisticly h hasn't a snowballs chance.

I agreed with Paul on many issues. In August 2016 I think Sanders will have more effect on (D) platform than Paul in 2012.

But a serious contender- no. Niche candidate- if you will
 
You do recall Ron Paul? He raised many many millions more than Sanders... and had sold out crowds in arenas to hear him speak... And I believe you did not think of him as a serious contender, correct?

Difference between Sanders and Paul is that more Democrats align with Sanders's beliefs than republicans aligned with Paul.

Rand is a more viable because he's less libertarian.
 
Rand comes across more viable because he has kept his mouth shut while the others piss all over their shoes.
 
11401321_856166104476445_1733502947399967016_n.jpg

As has been discussed many times, the US is much closer to socialism than it is to free market capitalism

And here we are... what's that national debt number? Oh yeah - it doesn't matter. See Greece

is Sen Sanders wrong ?
If yes, why ?

You do recall Ron Paul? He raised many many millions more than Sanders... and had sold out crowds in arenas to hear him speak... And I believe you did not think of him as a serious contender, correct?

what does Paul have to do with aces comment and my subsequent question?

1. Bernie said only in America could a candidate doing what he is doing could be considered not serious

2. You appear to agree

3. I recall you never believing Paul was a serious contender

Are you following? I just love your consistent hypocrisy

let's put all of this into one post

cause sturg is nowhere near answering the original question etc
 
Paul was as high as high as 23% in the republican field (around 8 candidates) - and generally performed best in head-to-heads against Obama

It still pisses me off the way Paul was shafted in the Republican debates, then again he never was one for the zinger -- not able to adequately formulate his opinion in a quick-fire format.
 
It still pisses me off the way Paul was shafted in the Republican debates, then again he never was one for the zinger -- not able to adequately formulate his opinion in a quick-fire format.

Agreed... it was totally messed up how both the debates commission (which is owned by the Republican and Democratic parties by the way), as well as the GOP treated Paul.

But you're right... he generally went a little too complex with many of his answers - especially about economics - for the average voter to understand
 
Paul as going to no more be POTUS than Bedell was going to be Queen of England

Nobody is saying otherwise, just noting that the same could be said to those who actually believe that Bernie Sanders has a similar shot in hades. And Paul profiled better, actually having had a legitimately robust/successful grassroots fundraising machine.
 
pretty sure that is right. But like i said, I think he (Sanders) will move (an already has moved ) the conversation more-so than Paul could have imagined

Now that we've covered Sanders and Paul ---- what about Bedell ?
 
pretty sure that is right. But like i said, I think he (Sanders) will move the conversation more-so than Paul

Not really sure what would lead you to say that, Paul moved the needle on economic awareness (at a time when it actually mattered) in a more profound way than any fringe candidate since the OG, Ross Perot. Sanders is a one trick pony, populism is only cool until you start trying to talk about ... other things.
 
Nobody is saying otherwise, just noting that the same could be said to those who actually believe that Bernie Sanders has a similar shot in hades. And Paul profiled better, actually having had a legitimately robust/successful grassroots fundraising machine.

I disagree with this sentiment. 40 years ago, Paul would have been the Republican Nominee for president. Post-Reagan the religious right has wielded too much power for Paul to have a shot. The RR and the moderate reps would push another candidate (like McCain and Romney) in over Paul. Sanders is campaigning on things that pretty much every liberal likes. Do I think he could have beaten Obama? No. But there are chinks in Hillary's armor. If Bernie can last long enough and keep true to himself he'll make some noise. I think Hillary wins in the end but he'll make it super close. I don't think he quite has the team around him to make an Obama type of run and he won't take PAC money so that will be tough. Sanders appeals to a much broader base in the Democrat side than Paul did in the R side, and he is energizing the Millennials and young Gen Xers who pay attention. I can't go on facebook without a few friends posting various Bernie things. And they aren't all the same age at all. I've seen it from about 36 ro about 20.
 
Back
Top