I disagree with Mr Paul on just about everything, and he's got a lot of baggage, but if you take all the bullshiat 'small government' populism the Republican party has been preaching since the late 70s, he's clearly the most ideological consistent.

And he consistently talks about ideas during the debates rather than that politi-speak the rest of the GOP field tires to communicate in.

Riche: No- Ron Paul is NOT electable.


Aside from his crazy ideas (mixed in with a few damn good ones) Ron Paul is what-- 76 years old? That's just too farking old.


Ageism is completely unacceptable!

Understandable, maybe, if you own a farmer's market, but still unacceptable!

/Now get off my lawn. I have to drive over it.

I'd agree, but if in the general election I'm faced with the choice between habeas corpus and the Department of Education, then I might very well vote RON PAUL.

Riche: No- Ron Paul is NOT electable.


Aside from his crazy ideas (mixed in with a few damn good ones) Ron Paul is what-- 76 years old? That's just too farking old.

While he seems to be in very good shape for his age, I seriously doubt he would survive the stress of even one term as president-- especially during the global catastrophe that implementing his fiscal policies would bring about.

So he would keel over after a year or two then it would be up to his veep to deal with the mess-- and Paul would probably pick one of the crazier right wingers to help get votes from the Republican base.

So you end up with somebody like Bachmann as president. In the middle of a financial meltdown that makes 2008 seem like a bull market. There would probably be huge riots in every major city in the world and governments collapsing into chaos left and right.

After a few days of emergency cabinet meetings in the situation room, I wonder what "God" would decide to tell her what to do with the nuclear launch codes.

Yeah, that's NOT going to end well.

Now hold on there. As batshiat crazy as I think Ron Paul is, I still don't believe he'd pick Bachmann for veep.

I was a Paultard in college (SURPRISE!) and still have some mild affection for how consistently against-the-grain he's always been in a congress full of blowhards.

I think tech savvy people, engineers, young atheists (weird how many atheists support a fairly openly religious guy), and self reliant people love him because he would seem ideal for many of these people who have their shiat together and are looking to maximize their talents.

Unfortunately the world is chuck full of incompetant, dependent, drooling idiots and villains.

/If anything, I would love to push some true libertarians into office, not to impose their worldview in some sweeping manner, but to say FUCH NO to many of the excesses of congress and force more open discussion on policy.

2wolves: Curious thing is that Mr. Huntsman is electable, just won't ever get the nomination.

I came here to say this.

The only way I can explain this is that Huntsman isn't really a Republican of 2012. In order to be a "today's Republican" you have the think Obama was born in Kenya, disbelieve any science that doesn't please your funding sources, own an Ayn Rand love doll, kowtow to the Jeebus crowd and in general act retarded.

So far Huntsman fails on all of that so he's unelectable.

I'm going to go waaaaaaaaay out on a limb here, and affirm my belief that Ron Paul had a little itty bit of involvement with "Ron Paul's Freedom Report" and the "Ron Paul Political Report."

So Paul is crazy, but it's completely rational to keep spending money we don't have and expect things to turn out ok... which is what everyone else in the race, including Obama, actually believe.

They are all completely sane while destroying the country, while the one guy who points out the insanity is insane.

Ok.

The oligarchy will never let Ron Paul be President nor anyone they don't approve of.

zenobia:
Now hold on there. As batshiat crazy as I think Ron Paul is, I still don't believe he'd pick Bachmann for veep.

Of course not; Paul's been consistent that he doesn't think women are smart enough to make their own decisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Huntsman is the most electable person the Republicans have.

Successful state governor who was re-elected with 78% of the vote. Successful businessman. Ran an anti-cancer charity at the same time. Served four Presidents, and Obama appointed him Ambassador to China.

Highly conservative but capable of articulating why he proposes a certain policy beyond "because the alternative is too liberal" insanity Republicans love. Capable of negotiation in good faith. Walks a pragmatic line when he has to on energy, foreign policy, fiscal, and immigration issues.

But he's Mormon, and he doesn't do the OMG LIBERAL FARTBONGO SOCIALISM song-and-dance on the stump, so he never stood a chance in the GOP primaries despite the fact that (A) he'd be a good President and (B) he'd easily clean Obama's clock in the general election.

Where is the ironic tag. I am a fan of Huntsman, but the man's consistently low poll numbers make him one of the most unelectable candidades of the 2012 election

emkajii: and Obama appointed him Ambassador to China.



That there is his biggest problem. Nothing else good or bad about him matters; to the insane base, that Obama likes him is enough to damn him.

Riche: No- Ron Paul is NOT electable.


So why has he been re-eelected so many time s in the last 40 years?

BloodySaxon: I was a Paultard in college (SURPRISE!) and still have some mild affection for how consistently against-the-grain he's always been in a congress full of blowhards.

I think tech savvy people, engineers, young atheists (weird how many atheists support a fairly openly religious guy), and self reliant people love him because he would seem ideal for many of these people who have their shiat together and are looking to maximize their talents.

Unfortunately the world is chuck full of incompetant, dependent, drooling idiots and villains.

/If anything, I would love to push some true libertarians into office, not to impose their worldview in some sweeping manner, but to say FUCH NO to many of the excesses of congress and force more open discussion on policy.

Yep, he's either really naive or just doesn't give a fark about others and whatever may happen to them.

skylabdown: So Paul is crazy, but it's completely rational to keep spending money we don't have and expect things to turn out ok... which is what everyone else in the race, including Obama, actually believe....

We're not out of money, we're out of ideas. Once we get some ideas going again we'll be fine, but -- and this is important -- they can't be ideas from 1949.

cineris: Where is the ironic tag. I am a fan of Huntsman, but the man's consistently low poll numbers make him one of the most unelectable candidades of the 2012 election

He is "unelectable" only because he has to get through a primary crowd that is utterly farking insane. When the primary voters are birthers, creationists, Rand-worshipers, and people who think Obama is Hitlerstalin and that Boehner is a pussy sellout who should start playing hardball, a reasonable, science-accepting moderate conservative who worked in Obama's administration doesn't have a chance. He's certainly the most qualified candidate they have. He's the most intelligent and the best speaker to boot, and his ideas are most in line with what the American public wants.

But he doesn't get off the ground because the modern Republican voter doesn't want a qualified, intelligent statesman to be President. They hate the idea of Mitt Romney because they're worried he might flip-flop again and wind up trying to do what the general public wants him to do rather than what the far right wants him to do. They want a Perry/Bachmann/Cain (who can speak in complete sentences), and Huntsman is the furthest thing the party has from that.

skylabdown: So Paul is crazy, but it's completely rational to keep spending money we don't have and expect things to turn out ok... which is what everyone else in the race, including Obama, actually believe.

They are all completely sane while destroying the country, while the one guy who points out the insanity is insane.

Ok.

Seconded.

Great headline, Subby.

It is absolutely hilarious listening to the Democrat Underground types and the FreeDerpublic types go all "hand in hand" when it comes to Ron Paul

And, Jon Huntsman calling Ron Paul "unelectable" is like the St Louis Rams saying the Green Bay Packers can't win the Super Bowl.

The delirious NutJobs are not the Ron Paul supporters...its the people from the left and right hooking up together to hate on him....

Ron Paul's no less electable than the other jokers in the field, except maybe Romney (and Huntsman in a general, but you have to get there first)

This isn't to say he's actually electable, though. Against this group of clowns, economy or no economy Obama wins in a landslide.

UCFRoadWarrior: It is absolutely hilarious listening to the Democrat Underground types and the FreeDerpublic types go all "hand in hand" when it comes to Ron Paul

And, Jon Huntsman calling Ron Paul "unelectable" is like the St Louis Rams saying the Green Bay Packers can't win the Super Bowl.

The delirious NutJobs are not the Ron Paul supporters...its the people from the left and right hooking up together to hate on him....

That's not fair. Jon Huntsman is at least trying to win.

/Bitter Rams fan
//God do we suck this year!

But Kim Kardashian can't act.

Anyone mocking RON PAUL today ought to check out Glenn Greenwald's (new window) latest column (new window). Long, but worth it.

Then again, too reasonable for many farkers.

skylabdown: So Paul is crazy, but it's completely rational to keep spending money we don't have and expect things to turn out ok... which is what everyone else in the race, including Obama, actually believe.

They are all completely sane while destroying the country, while the one guy who points out the insanity is insane.

Ok.

Shhh....don't confuse the PaulHaters with facts. Makes it harder for them to use the "Ron Paul is a NutJob" spin....

FuturePastNow: But Kim Kardashian can't act.

She's an actress? I thought she was just some attention whore.

Ron Paul is electable. So is anyone else who's eligible.

It's rather vulgar to mix-up one's opinions and facts.

AntiNerd: Anyone mocking RON PAUL today ought to check out Glenn Greenwald's (new window) latest column (new window). Long, but worth it.

Then again, too reasonable for many farkers.

Yep, Progressives love his foreign policy because it makes the most sense to them.

His domestic policies on the other hand... (There's a reason Greenwald didn't cover those as heavily as he did his foreign policies)

So, lets just keep voting for the same kinds of people we always have before, the ones who don't mind bankrupting everyone else, who use the Constitution as toilet paper while they line theirs and their buddy's pockets.

That will fix everything!!!

/Move along citizen, you are not in an approved free speech zone.
//You look like a terrorist to me, no due process for you.

Most of us have a 76-year-old version of Ron Paul in our families that is so batshiat crazy, you have to resist the fervent urge to kick him down a flight of stairs at family get-togethers. Why the f*ck would you want a guy like that to be president? Unless you are a fan of Paul's libertarian version of the Rapture.

As for Huntsman: he picked the wrong party. If he ran as an independent, he would have a much better chance. Huntsman will have to start channeling the babbling coherence of Herman Cain if he wants to make any headway in the Iowa caucus.

Mrtraveler01: FuturePastNow: But Kim Kardashian can't act.

She's an actress? I thought she was just some attention whore.

No, she's a slut.

AntiNerd: Anyone mocking RON PAUL today ought to check out Glenn Greenwald's (new window) latest column (new window). Long, but worth it.

Then again, too reasonable for many farkers.

The more I read Greenwald, the more I dislike him. I could critique each of "Those views [held by Ron Paul that] desperately need to be heard," but they'd all boil down to Ron Paul's belief that central control causes those problems -- not any particular opposition to those problems.

Huntsman would be very electable if he didn't have to run the wingnut gauntlet.

I'll admit, we have been giving RON PAUL and his erstwhile ragtag army of derpish supporters too much credence.

The fact?

He's a write-in candidate. Always was.

Paul Christoforo: Riche: No- Ron Paul is NOT electable.


So why has he been re-eelected so many time s in the last 40 years?

Because he knows the Mayor of Boston?

zenobia: Now hold on there. As batshiat crazy as I think Ron Paul is, I still don't believe he'd pick Bachmann for veep.

He might pick Dennis Kucinich.

/Which would be hilariously awesome.
//Dennis would keep trying to create a Department of Peace, and Paul would keep trying to remove the Department of Education. There may be wrestling involved.

Huntsman is probably more electable than Paul in terms of the General but the point is moot cos he's never getting out of the Primaries.

/Also, as much as I hate Paris/KK I would prolly watch a pr0n tape of just the two of them.
//But I would be most disappointed in myself afterwords, FWIW.