Did Ron Paul Win Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri?

[deprave]

Dan if you are so pro-regulations and you think lack of regulations is the problem then why do you think the same crooks that exploited the regulations in the first place are going to better regulate it? i.e. Tim Geitner

 

[PetFlora]

He doesn't stand a chance as long as people continue to be led (like sheep to the slaughter house) by the MSM. WAKE UP.

deprave is right, but only because the times we live in are a byproduct of thousands of years of deceit at the highest political and religious levels. A house cleaning is in order. I expect to see it soon

 

[Parker]

SOME of the bad loans were made for this reason, sure. But the reason ALL of the bad loans could be made is because the corporation issuing the mortgage could then sell the mortgage to Wall St, eliminating their risk in the event the mortgage defaulted. The reason they were able to do this was because we removed government regulations and allowed Wall St to regulate itself with the CFMA.

It doesn't matter on the reason why except to mentioned government interference with the free market. The people insured them through Freddie and Fannie.
The loans should never have been made in the first place.

People were buying 2 or 3 and flipping them. That had absolutely nothing to do with the government programs helping low income people people move into a starter house. It had everything to do with lending institutions not having financial liability for the mortgages they were giving out.

Remove failure, remove the free market. Also someone must have told you only some of the bad loans and you didn't research the impact.
"Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006."

Flippers were a small part and they were making money during this process as housing prices were being increased through the artificial bubble. Flippers didn't get left holding the bag as well as get bailed out. Dunno why you even mentioned them.

Even those government programs to get people into starter homes were subject to this. Those housing programs were intended to put low income families into starter homes on 30 year and even 50 year fixed rate mortgages. At the time those laws were made that's how it was done. But a couple years after that, lending institutions figured out they could put literally anyone into a home on an adjustable rate subprime loan. And yes, fannie and freddy were just as guilty as every other bank in doing this. But in no way was it limited to government programs. EVERY lender in the country public or private was doing the same thing.

No, quite a few businesses were smart enough to stay out. And as a reward their weaker competition was bailed out in the end.

The common denominator in all of this, from private banks to government backed loans, was that the companies issuing the loans were not held financially responsible for the results of the loans because they were selling these mortgages to Wall St. Yes, the government programs were guilty of this. But it was not limited to them. It was just as bad with private banks. And none of this would have been possible without the banks ability to sell of these bad loans to Wall St. That was 100% caused by the CFMA and nothing else. 100%.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. The loans would never have been made in the free market.

Even if you remove all the government programs out of the equation, the crisis would have still happened because ALL lenders were issuing these loans. The government programs were only part of the problem. But none of this would have been possible with the CFMA. That's why it's a root cause of the problem. Simply saying "no it wasn't!" does not counter that what I've said is indisputable fact. Not my opinion, fact.

It is not a fact that is related to the cause.
I never said no it wasn't. You lie to often.
It wasn't the reason, it came after the bad loans were made.

If you think that then you failed to comprehend the facts I put in front of you. I explained in detail how these bad loans were profitable and possible. If you didn't get that, well I can't force you to learn. I explained it 3 or 4 times.

You can keep explaining what happened after the fact all you want. It wont change things. I haven't argued too much with your on your facts since they are not related to the cause.

You're calling me names while I'm citing specific laws and explaining exactly what those laws did, so look in the mirror.

Because they are not related to the cause. My answers are not complicated. I'm not trying to impress anyone with bullshit. You must be missing some chromosomes.

You're not understanding any of this.

Yes I am. It's you that don't understand and lie about me. Maybe because you have suffered a defect in the region above the neck, your don't understand simplicity.

The government never did regulate the qualifications for mortgages. The rated the safety of them as investments when they were bought up by Wall St and sold on the exchange.

More specifically, they rated the safety of the swaps that were backing them. When this market got deregulation and the safety ratings were now done by Wall St instead of the SEC, Wall St just rated all the bundles as AAA rated investments. This made them extremely easy to sell on the market. At that point banks could make profits by selling whatever loan they could get someone to sign regardless of their ability to pay to Wall st. That's why banks were giving out bad loans. They could make a profit just by getting someone to sign them and then selling the loans to Wall St. They were not being held financially liable for defaults. Understand?

Doesn't matter. it's not important. Just more of your bullshit.
When government adds or removes segments from the free market that is regulation.

I can't make you less stupid or ignorant. I give up.

Give up? In the game of seeking the truth you didn't even enter the room.

parker -So what you're saying is the regulations allowed banks to make bad loans.
Yes. That is a proven fact.

Good that you get it.

I have indeed explained what made it all possible. You just aren't understanding for some reason.

More bullshit on your part. I've mentioned many times I fully understood what you are saying its just a related symptom not the cause.

What made that possible was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which took deregulated the swap ratings allowing Wall St to self rate the swaps.

LMAO Turtle shit for brains. You are unable to find the cause yet again.

You are a simpleton of the highest order. Seriously. I've been saying this whole time these were terrible loans that should have never been given out in the first place. If the only part of this you're understanding is that these loans were bad, then I probably shouldn't even bother trying to explain this too you anymore. It's clearly too complicated for you.

Not it's just you lying again. Same bullshit when you try to portray yourself as being informed by spouting off all this unrealted rhetoric.
It's not complicated. All that you said would naever have happened until government interference. You don't make those loans.

As I said, simpleton of the highest order. There was no fear of failure because the free market allowed them to just scam everyone. hen I probably shouldn't even bother trying to explain this too you anymore. It's clearly too complicated for you.

LMAO You don't know what the free market is you dumb twat. Great quote though. There was no fear of failure when you have your losses insured a head of time.

• Mindful of the concentration of default risk as one of the causes of the S&L crisis, regulators initially found CDS's ability to disperse default risk attractive.[SUP][47][/SUP] In 2000, credit default swaps became largely exempt from regulation by both theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). TheCommodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for theEnron loophole,[SUP][8][/SUP] specifically stated that CDSs are neither futures nor securities and so are outside the remit of the SEC and CFTC"
  ​

  ​

• 
  ​

You just copied and pasted garbage.

The funny thing is you don't even know that reason. Ever heard of the Federal Reserve? You remember them? They set the interest rates so low it caused all that mal investment in the housing crisis. Same type of thing that caused the Great Depression. Mal investment. Same type of thing we saw in the dot com bubble. Anti free market strikes again.

Why are you discussing any of this when you don't know the cause and you don't know who funded it?

 

[UncleBuck]

LMAO Turtle shit for brains.

i love it.

::

 

[Harrekin]

As much as I think Ron Paul is THE man, unless he wins a few decent states now he is pretty fucked.

 

[deprave]

As much as I think Ron Paul is THE man, unless he wins a few decent states now he is pretty fucked.

It is still too early to even make such a statement, You can't possibly predict this accurately untill the end of February.

 

[Harrekin]

It is still too early to even make such a statement, You can't possibly predict this accurately untill the end of February.

Iv been trying to keep optimistic, but with an average of 16ish percent, it's less of a revolution, more of an easily finished scuffle.

 

[deprave]

I hear ya man but it wasn't in the plan to even do good in SC or FL, RP did good without even going he took the youth vote. FL is all old people and also not worth what it used to be in delegates, and also its winner take all so the strat was to avoid FL. After February is over then we will have a good idea.

 

[NLXSK1]

I hear ya man but it wasn't in the plan to even do good in SC or FL, RP did good without even going he took the youth vote. FL is all old people and also not worth what it used to be in delegates, and also its winner take all so the strat was to avoid FL. After February is over then we will have a good idea.

Maybe after February is over you will have figured it out...

 

[londonfog]

I hear ya man but it wasn't in the plan to even do good in SC or FL, RP did good without even going he took the youth vote. FL is all old people and also not worth what it used to be in delegates, and also its winner take all so the strat was to avoid FL. After February is over then we will have a good idea.

after Feb. it will be too late....

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

"Vote totals - 2008 vs. 2012:

IA: 2008 - 11.817 ... 2012 - 26,036 that's 2.2x as many
NH: 2008 - 18,346 ... 2012 - 56,872 that's 3.1x
SC: 2008 - 16,155 ... 2012 - 77,993 that's 4.8x
FL: 2008 - 62,887 ... 2012 - 117,105 that's 1.9x
​

Now look at the first 4 contests coming up in February (ALL CAUCUS STATES)

NV: 2008 - 13.7% of the vote
ME: 2008 - 18.4%
CO: 2008 - 8.2%
MN: 2008 - 15.2%
​

I have every reason to believe that this trend of getting 2 to 5 times the number of votes will continue. February is shaping up to be great for Ron Paul!"

 

[Danielsgb]

I thought I'd share and see if anyone else can corroborate these calculations: Crunching the numbers: No matter what the media wants you to believe, The Republican nomination is already a two-man race.

FACT: Of the 2,286 total Republican delegates, 1,144 are needed to win nomination.

FACT: In five (5) States: Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois, Gingrich and Santorum are not even on the ballot. That's 564 delegates that they cannot get.

FACT: After South Carolina, only 59 delegates have been allocated to the 4 candidates. Mitt Romney has 39 of those. This means Santorum or Gingrich has to pick up 1,144 delegates from the remaining 1,683.

Let's say that Ron Paul only picks up 20% of the total number of delegates.
That's 457 delegates for Paul. Add that to the 564 that Newt and Santorum won't have a shot at and now there are 1,021 delegates that Santorum and Gingrich have no chance of getting.
Subtract that 1,021 from the total 2,286 and you're left with 1,265 delegates. That means that Gingrich and Santorum, one or the other, have to pick up over 90% of the available delegates to get the nomination.

So, essentially, we're down to Paul and Romney.

 

[desert dude]

*The Independent Voter Network tries to argue that a Paul who wins the GOP
nomination is
so electable:

As is consistently attested by poll results and even the Republican Party’s
most recent primary votes in
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the facts are these: Ron Paul performs
better among independentsthan any other Republican candidate for the
presidential nomination. He also performs
better among young voters under 30 than any other Republican. Ron Paul also
outperforms any of the remaining Republican candidates among
Democrats, liberals, moderates, and low-income voters.

Independents, people under 30, liberals, moderates, and low income voters are
all key constituencies that helped Obama win his primary and the general
election in 2008. It only stands to reason that the candidate with the broadest
appeal to Obama’s key voters and the greatest chance of swaying their votes is
the most electable candidate. Even former Florida Governor Jeb Bush realizes
that the Republicans can only win the general election with a candidate who
appeals to independents, which is why he recently
admonished the GOP’s candidates, saying “You have to maintain your
principles but have a broader appeal.”



http://reason.com/blog#article_155450
​

 

[NLXSK1]

Paul is a RINO....

As you have shown, he is attractive to everyone but the Republican party...

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

I thought I'd share and see if anyone else can corroborate these calculations: Crunching the numbers: No matter what the media wants you to believe, The Republican nomination is already a two-man race.

FACT: Of the 2,286 total Republican delegates, 1,144 are needed to win nomination.

FACT: In five (5) States: Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois, Gingrich and Santorum are not even on the ballot. That's 564 delegates that they cannot get.

FACT: After South Carolina, only 59 delegates have been allocated to the 4 candidates. Mitt Romney has 39 of those. This means Santorum or Gingrich has to pick up 1,144 delegates from the remaining 1,683.

Let's say that Ron Paul only picks up 20% of the total number of delegates.
That's 457 delegates for Paul. Add that to the 564 that Newt and Santorum won't have a shot at and now there are 1,021 delegates that Santorum and Gingrich have no chance of getting.
Subtract that 1,021 from the total 2,286 and you're left with 1,265 delegates. That means that Gingrich and Santorum, one or the other, have to pick up over 90% of the available delegates to get the nomination.

So, essentially, we're down to Paul and Romney.

I have heard this before, Doug Weed brought this up as well. Does anyone have a reliable source that shows which candidates are eligible for which states? I think this makes Gingrich and Santorum UNELECTABLE.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

*The Independent Voter Network tries to argue that a Paul who wins the GOP
nomination is
so electable:

As is consistently attested by poll results and even the Republican Party’s
most recent primary votes in
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the facts are these: Ron Paul performs
better among independentsthan any other Republican candidate for the
presidential nomination. He also performs
better among young voters under 30 than any other Republican. Ron Paul also
outperforms any of the remaining Republican candidates among
Democrats, liberals, moderates, and low-income voters.

Independents, people under 30, liberals, moderates, and low income voters are
all key constituencies that helped Obama win his primary and the general
election in 2008. It only stands to reason that the candidate with the broadest
appeal to Obama’s key voters and the greatest chance of swaying their votes is
the most electable candidate. Even former Florida Governor Jeb Bush realizes
that the Republicans can only win the general election with a candidate who
appeals to independents, which is why he recently
admonished the GOP’s candidates, saying “You have to maintain your
principles but have a broader appeal.”



http://reason.com/blog#article_155450
​

The trolls of these forums will ignore this and wait for their next opportunity to say "There is no chance in hell RP could win." Then they will go back under their bridge with nothing more to add.

 

[londonfog]

There is no chance in hell RP could win, because the GOP will never allow it...

 

[UncleBuck]

currently we are stacked up like this:

romney 69
gingrich 23
santorum 13
paul 3
huntsman 2

http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R

2286 total, 1144 to win.

question of this thread is: how badly will ron paul lose?

based on the math so far, paul has garnered an AWESOME 3/110 delegates. this would put him at a total of 62 delegates by the end of things.

i am going to be generous and nearly TRIPLE that number. yes, paulistas, i am THAT generous.

my prediction is that ron paul will LOSE with a paltry 180 delegates to show for it.

anyone else want to stick their neck out there and predict how badly ron paul will lose?

 

[Carne Seca]

Ron who?

 

[bowlfullofbliss]

He's got a lot of great ideas and points, but he just doesn't understand world politics. I don't know why he keeps doing this. He's fucking old....he'd die in office with no question.

He'll lose so bad it won't really be a loss....not even a blip, as always.