Who here likes Ron Paul?

[xlz916]

Hey Nailhead.

Please show me where I said RP supports a flat tax. I can save you time: I never said he did. I did say he supports getting rid of the IRS. I am pretty sure I am correct about that.

I am not trying to claim to be smart. I never meant to do that, and I'm sorry if I appeared that way to you or anyone else. I'm not trying to be an ass, or belittle anyone. You are the one that said I was not a social scientist (some idiocy about MySpace), so I was really just defending myself. (FYI: personal attacks are neither polite nor a strong argument make.)

When I say that if I make an incorrect statement you should provide a link to correct me, I am not asking you to do my research for me. I am asking you to prove me incorrect. If I have said anything incorrect, I will take it back. Simple as that.

As for Ron Paul not standing a chance, we will see about that won't we. I don't deny he has raised a lot of money. However, I don't know a SINGLE political scientist that would claim he has a snowflake's chance in hell (including myself). Sorry. But this is really a silly argument. If I am wrong, I will concede I don't know a damn thing about politics. I will be shocked if he gets higher than 4th in Iowa, and 3rd in NH. That is being generous.

I will be either proven right or wrong very soon.

[Nailhead]

Hey Nailhead.

Please show me where I said RP supports a flat tax. I can save you time: I never said he did. I did say he supports getting rid of the IRS. I am pretty sure I am correct about that.

Here you go:

Abolish the IRS? Replace it with what -- a flat tax? This will disproportionately affect poor people. Our current tax system is not perfect, but there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system. Why? Because people with more disposable income will not have their needs taxed, whereas those who have little to no disposable income will have much less financial "breathing room."

I am not trying to claim to be smart. I never meant to do that, and I'm sorry if I appeared that way to you or anyone else. I'm not trying to be an ass, or belittle anyone.

Then why did you say...

I'm a newb here, and mostly a lurker, but I am also a social scientist.

I do have a Ph.D.

Whether intentional or not, you have a condescending attitude in your posts. You didn't even say what your Ph.D is in or how that relates to the topic we are discussing, thus it is completely irrelevant. George W. Bush attended Harvard University, one of the most respected schools in America, but what good did that really do? If you want to impress me, do it with words of wisdom, not your personal history of education.

As for Ron Paul not standing a chance, we will see about that won't we. I don't deny he has raised a lot of money. However, I don't know a SINGLE political scientist that would claim he has a snowflake's chance in hell (including myself). Sorry. But this is really a silly argument. If I am wrong, I will concede I don't know a damn thing about politics. I will be shocked if he gets higher than 4th in Iowa, and 3rd in NH. That is being generous.

lol, I know I didn't post it but I was thinking to myself how your most likely response would be something along the lines of "we will see what happens". If we are talking about chance then surely you are basing your assumption of Ron Paul having 0% chance on some sort of evidence, right? I gave you specific reasons why he does indeed have a chance at winning, I didn't say it was a sure shot, but I did provide good reasons to back up my opinions and you have not done the same for your own. Why should I hold your opinions over anyone else's?

[xlz916]

You still did not show me where I said RP supported a flat tax.

EDIT:

Whether intentional or not, you have a condescending attitude in your posts.

You have a hard time accepting apologies?

This is what I wrote:

I am not trying to claim to be smart. I never meant to do that, and I'm sorry if I appeared that way to you or anyone else. I'm not trying to be an ass, or belittle anyone.

WTF is your problem dude? Seriously. I'm just trying to chill and discuss politics. If occurs to me that maybe I have been and ass, so I man up and say I'm sorry. If that is not good enough for you, then whatever!

[xlz916]

lol, I know I didn't post it but I was thinking to myself how your most likely response would be something along the lines of "we will see what happens". If we are talking about chance then surely you are basing your assumption of Ron Paul having 0% chance on some sort of evidence, right? I gave you specific reasons why he does indeed have a chance at winning, I didn't say it was a sure shot, but I did provide good reasons to back up my opinions and you have not done the same for your own. Why should I hold your opinions over anyone else's?

Fair question. My evidence is that polls have consistently shown Paul having low support consistently. You say those polls are not accurate. Correct? I think they are not perfect, and tend to underestimate his support, but Paul will not do better than 4th place in Iowa.

Any yes, will will see soon won't we?

EDIT: grammar.

[Nailhead]

If by your own post you did not mean to insinuate Ron Paul supports a flat tax, why did you even bring it up? Was it just another irrelevant post just like you mentioning your Ph.D or your job title? What other irrelevant information would you like to post that has nothing to do with what we are talking about?

[Fencewalker]

I tend to side with the folks that say the polls are pretty inaccurate. For instance, traditional phone polling only call those that are (let's take the republicans) "likely republican voters" and their definition seems to be those that were registered republican and voted in the last election.

I have seen folks say that amounts to about 4-6% of republicans in 2006, most of whom voted for Bush, which is a pretty small pool to be choosing out of and would not be Paul fans anyway.

Paul's demographics seem to draw from young voters (never voted before and use cell phones more than land lines), disenfranchised voters (didn't vote in the last election) and Independents and Democrats that registered as Republicans solely to be able to vote for Dr. Paul this time around. The polls would not reflect those demographics.

As you say though, we will know shortly, won't we?

See, I didn't even need to insult anybody or be belligerent to get my point across. Amazing how that works Nailhead, huh?

[xlz916]

If by your own post you did not mean to insinuate Ron Paul supports a flat tax, why did you even bring it up? Was it just another irrelevant post just like you mentioning your Ph.D or your job title? What other irrelevant information would you like to post that has nothing to do with what we are talking about?

Dude, you are the one that brought up that the only thing that made me qualified was having 5000+ MySpace friends. You attacked me remember? Point out where I have insulted you.

So, after you insulted me, I decided to try and defend myself. In doing so, I likely made as ass of myself. So I apologized to you. You chose not to accept my apology and basically say "fuck you." If that's how you wanna be, then fine I guess. I was trying to be cool with you. I really was. But I guess that is not happening. Hopefully there are other people more chill than you on this board. Thankfully, it seems most people here are much nicer.

My "qualifications" don't mean shit. I have a piece of paper that supposedly means I know something, and a LOT of fucking student loan debt. You are 100% that a degree, in and of itself, means nothing.

I would like to be cool with people here, including you. If you can't be cool with me, then seriously just leave me the fuck alone. If you can, then fine.

[xlz916]

I tend to side with the folks that say the polls are pretty inaccurate. For instance, traditional phone polling only call those that are (let's take the republicans) "likely republican voters" and their definition seems to be those that were registered republican and voted in the last election.

I have seen folks say that amounts to about 4-6% of republicans in 2006, most of whom voted for Bush, which is a pretty small pool to be choosing out of and would not be Paul fans anyway.

Paul's demographics seem to draw from young voters (never voted before and use cell phones more than land lines), disenfranchised voters (didn't vote in the last election) and Independents and Democrats that registered as Republicans solely to be able to vote for Dr. Paul this time around. The polls would not reflect those demographics.

As you say though, we will know shortly, won't we?

Good points. You have just outlined why I think that the phone polls underestimate RP's support in Iowa (not as much in NH).

Check out what I bolded above. That is a lot of shit to do just to vote for RP! Did some people do it? Yes, certainly. Did enough do it to make him likely to contend for a Republican nomination? I don't think so. Voting tends to be habitual -- people that have never voted are notoriously unreliable as far as turnout goes.

The big question: is RP's young, inexperienced based MOTIVATED enough to overcome all expectations? If so, if RP manages to even get 2nd, or even 3rd in Iowa, then we might actually have a RP revolution!

See, I didn't even need to insult anybody or be belligerent to get my point across. Amazing how that works Nailhead, huh?

I'm not going there anymore. But thanks for talking to me in a civil way. I like to think that people that disagree can have a civil discussion.

[Nailhead]

Sorry if you took this all so personally because I wasn't trying to attack you, but rather attack your political statements. I only criticized your education after you presented it as part of your support for your statements, I only considered this as part of the political debate we were having, nothing personal. If you took it that way, then I am sorry.

But back on topic...
As for phone polling, another reason it's not very accurate for showing Ron Paul's support is that it is one thing to have somebody call you and ask you about your political opinions. I know a lot of people that while they can give a definite answer to who they support, the question of if they will actually vote is another issue. Many will not, but I would say most Ron Paul supporters understand how important the primaries are and know the dates of when and where they need to be. Most people, that vote at least, only vote in the general elections. The primaries are usually for people that are more involved in politics than others, and while people in early states might be more excited to be involved with the countries future, I'm not convinced other states have people just as interested.

I don't think Ron Paul is a majority, I'm guessing it's probably more like 12%, but while Giuliani might have 21.5%, maybe only 20% of those supporters will actually go and vote in the primaries, whereas Ron Paul might have a mere 12%, but 99.9% of his supporters will be bright and early at their states polling location.

It's just a theory of course, but I do think it is something to consider because many republicans are not really thrilled with any of the candidates and may not vote at all because of that.

[Stoney Toney]

I like ron paul and yes he supports the end of war on drugs but yall all know he really isn't going to win. if yall are willing to admit that like me then vote for obama i don't care what he says he gonna do but i know he won't take us to war.

Hillary is going to win and we don't need clinton's or bush's in the white house so just think about waste your vote on the right canidate or sacrifice your vote for the second best.


Hillary is going to win! fight back

oh well doesn't matter anyway:smokin:


:smokebong: