Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (89884)	5/7/2012 8:25:10 PM
From: orkrious	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220493

Ron Paul has zero chance. It isn't great, but it's significantly better than zero. endoftheamericandream.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (89884)	5/7/2012 9:00:33 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220493

CB, it does look like your opinion rather than a fact. < Ron Paul has zero chance. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. > That article is interesting: endoftheamericandream.com I suspect it has some truth to it. An aspect of the way people work is that old geezers carry a lifetime of sagacity and traditionally have a vital role in keeping societies on the straight and narrow. The likes of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and JFK have the charisma and the self-indulgent sexual shenanigans to go along with their general self-interest in the reins of power. Age tends to be looked at as a great limitation, but in the right position, it's a mark of stability of good sense. The old geezers don't come up with all the new-fangled stuff, but new-fangled stuff such as sub-prime mortgages with $trillions in derivatives and leveraged whatnot is not necessarily all that great. They leave the new-fangled stuff to the youngsters who go at it with intensity. They just keep the whole show on the straight and narrow. You already said that it's OTHER people who dislike Ron Paul and that's a standard comment [I have noticed various times from various people as though saying they support Ron Paul is somehow uncool]. Elections are about what individuals want themselves, not what they think other people want. It's weird that they start voting not according to what they think and want but what other people tell them other people are thinking. With Obama apparently odds-on to beat Romney, it would be tempting to put up Ron Paul who is quite different and more direct and purposeful, with the presidency to achieve the ideas he has rather than to act as a vehicle for his self-glory [the Obama situation]. I asked Google if you are right that there is "zero chance". There are many links saying there is. For example> rt.com If Ron Paul can beat Obama, but Romney can't, why would the Republicans vote for him to be the Republican candidate? It's not as though his policies mismatch Republican principles [such as they are]. Mqurice