Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Romney Calls for Year's Delay on Spending Cuts

Friday, 03 Aug 2012 04:13 PM

Romney Calls for Year's Delay on Spending Cuts <---Link


Meet Mr. Irrelevant



Doesnt Have a Clue on Monetary Policy

and that Put's him Right Along Side Obama

Mitt Romney’s Abortion Business Made Him $50M

by karenfish | July 18, 2012 at 05:39 am

by Karen Fish



Truth is stranger than fiction. You can’t make this stuff up because nobody would believe you. Mitt Romney’s business record is his chief qualification to be President, he says. Did you know that Mitt Romney’s business was the abortion business, from which he made $50 Million burning aborted fetuses through his company Stericycle?

When Mitt Romney was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts on Jan. 2, 2003 he was Pro Choice. Mitt Romney was so pro choice that he was in the abortion business. Did Mitt Romney campaign when he ran for Governor that his chief qualification to be Governor of Massachusetts was that he was the owner of the largest aborted fetus incineration company in the United States of America? Mitt Romney’s Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare provided tax payer funding for abortions, which Obamacare does not. Mitt Romney introduced Romneycare to get the taxpayers to pay him personally as the owner of Stericylce to burn aborted fetuses.

Mitt Romney went on national television on five channels this week to publicly tell the American people that he absolutely left his company Bain Capital in Feb. 1999. When the Huffington Post reported on the Romney abortion scandal earlier this year Mitt Romney’s campaign and Bain friends said that Mitt had nothing to do with it because Mitt left Bain Capital in Feb. 1999 and they knew that Romney’s companies did not buy Stericycle until November 1999 when Mitt had severed ties with Bain Capital they said.

Now David Corn a brilliant hard hitting journalist for Mother Jones in the mold of Woodward and Bernstein, Redford and Hoffman who uncovered the Watergate scandal that proved that Richard Nixon was a b & e artist and chased him from the White House, David Corn has uncovered documents which show that Mitt Romney signed personally for the purchase of Stericycle in Nov. 1999, had sole voting and dispositive power and on the Bain Capital 2002 SEC filing Mitt Romney is listed as the sole shareholder, CEO, President, and Fetus Burner.

Mitt Romney is only going to release his 2010 and 2011 tax returns he just told America. When in 2008 Mitt Romney auditioned to become war hero Senator John McCain’s Vice President pick Mitt provided John McCain with 23 years of his tax returns which show exactly when and how Mitt Romney made $50 Million on his investment in Stericycle. This is why Senator McCain recently said that Sarah Palin was a better choice for VP than Mitt Romney. The Republican Party, the self proclaimed Pro Life party is running Mitt Romney, the biggest owner of the fetus disposal arm of the nation’s abortion clinics.

Mitt Romney’s business record is his chief qualification to be President, he says. Since when did outsourcing jobs to China and disposing of fetuses put a person in a position to continue pulling the American economy out of the ditch George W. Bush drove it into by cutting Mitt Romney’s taxes and waging two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan paid for with trillions of dollars of borrowed and printed money taking us from the Clinton surplus to the Bush jobs depression?

In case the GOP wakes up and runs Mitt Romney out of the country on a rail Mitt will be fine because his abortion millions are stored in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland safe from the arms of the tax man. To now tell the American people that he is pro life, you have to admire Mitt Romney’s chutzpah or just ask yourself if he is just a plain ordinary bully, liar and sociopath. The real question is why are we still listening to Mitt Romney let alone voting for him?
Interfaith Harmony

Mitt Romney

Your Complete, One-Stop Presidential Election Guide


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/13/2012 17:46 -040

With less than three months to go, the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain. SocGen notes that, as always, economic performance over the coming months will be a key determinant of who wins and who loses. If the elections were held today, the most likely outcome would be a Republican win in both Congressional races and a Democratic win in the race for the White House. This means that any new significant legislation will almost certainly have to be a product of compromise. In this sense, we may very well be looking at a status quo in terms of bipartisanship and gridlock which have dominated Washington politics over the past few years. This would be bad news at a time when the country faces a number of serious challenges with significant long-term implications. From the economy to long-term fiscal health, and from the debt-ceiling to Housing, Healthcare, and energy policy differences, the following provides a succinct review.

Societe Generale: American Themes - US Elections
There is a strong need for leadership in Washington. The economy is performing poorly and monetary policy options have been nearly exhausted. Unfortunately, the ongoing split promises more of the same from Washington: politics instead of leadership.

A close race for president, coupled with uncertain congressional power. A split in the Congress can inhibit the agenda no matter who wins the presidential race. Unless the president’s party makes gains in Congress, it will be difficult to agree on any changes. The healthcare overhaul was achieved with a Democratic congress during President Obama’s first year in office. Reversing course requires not just a Republican president but a cooperative Senate. Sadly, gridlock is likely to prevail.

In Washington, there is widespread support for fiscal stimulus, at least for immediate support within the context of long-term discipline.

Specifically, there is support to reduce the anticipated fiscal drag of higher tax rates and spending cuts that are set for 1 January 2013.

Election-year politics prevent current action. Congress may take action immediately after the election to reduce onerous tax rate increases or may wait until the new government takes office in January before acting. This uncertainty comes at a cost to markets and indeed to the economy in the short-term.

Key main assumptions and potential for surprises:
President Obama expected to win re-election but faces a Republican Congress.

Challenger Governor Romney victory would be a surprise. Narrow Republican control of Senate would be an obstacle.

Choice of vice presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, hints at a more aggressive entitlement spending overhaul. The differences between President Obama and Ryan are fundamentally ideological and represent a serious choice for voters. Yet, it should not be forgotten that it is Governor Romney who is running for president, and the agenda of the presidential candidate is what will be focused on, no doubt. Moreover, Romney is the underdog.

Quantitative approaches for determining whether a Republican or Democratic president are better for the equity market are somewhat flawed by a low sample size. Only 13 presidents have held office since the late 1920s when many current equity indices start with continuous data. Democrats have faired better according to the S&P500. The timing of bubbles, inflation and wars are key drivers, rather than coincidental party affiliation. Simple party alliance is not a driver for fundamental analysis.

Election scenarios – latest odds

Much could still change between now and the 6 November election. However, based on the latest indications from online prediction markets, the Republican Party is seen as the likely winner of both Congressional races.

Democrats are still seen as the favorite in the race for the White House, with President Obama winning re-election. In any case, it is unlikely that one party will control all three institutions. Moreover, any one party in the Senate is unlikely to hold the 60 seats (out of 100) needed to avoid filibusters. Therefore, in the absence of the majority needed for any post-election scenario, significant new legislation will require bipartisanship and compromise. In this context, the risk of gridlock remains high.





With less than three months to go, the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain. As always, economic performance over the coming months will be a key determinant of who wins and who loses. If the elections were held today, the most likely outcome would be a Republican win in both Congressional races and a Democratic win in the race for the White House (see Charts 1a-c above ). This would give Republicans an improved standing relative to the current configuration (in which they only control the House), but it would nonetheless leave power divided. The latest indications from online prediction markets suggest only a 40% probability that any one party will end up controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, leaving a 60% probability of a split scenario (see Chart 2 below).



It is also very unlikely that any party will win a filibuster-proof super-majority. This means that any new significant legislation will almost certainly have to be a product of compromise. In this sense, we may very well be looking at a status quo in terms of bipartisanship and gridlock which have dominated Washington politics over the past few years. This would be bad news at a time when the country faces a number of serious challenges with significant long-term implications.

US election issues – what’s at stake

There is a lot at stake as we look to 2013. Immediately after the new Congress and/or administration take over, they will have to deal with the fiscal cliff as well as the long-term fiscal challenges, healthcare and financial regulation, and lastly, with energy policy, which is also crucial for long-term economic sustainability. We discuss these issues in greater detail in the following sections.

1. Economy

The first and perhaps the most important decision to be made by the incoming Congress and/or administration will be resolving the fiscal cliff in a way that does not undermine the still fragile economic recovery. If all of the planned spending cuts and tax increases go into effect as scheduled, the economy will experience a reverse stimulus of $600bn next year, or about 3.5% of GDP. A shock of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to a contraction in activity in the first half of 2013, which in turn could push unemployment toward 9.5-10%. The alternative, which is to extend all expiring tax provisions and do away with planned spending cuts, is unfortunately not viable. Maintaining the status quo on fiscal policy would result in a continuation of large deficits which would push the debt/GDP ratio above 90% by the end of the decade. Without addressing entitlements, the ratio would start rising even more rapidly after 2020, largely due to the effects of the aging population.

The ideal outcome is one that addresses long-term fiscal challenges, while recognizing the near-term fragility of the economy. This could be accomplished via a plan which phases in gradual tax increases and spending cuts over the next 10 years. The risk is that a post-election gridlock may lead to a more rapid fiscal consolidation, with adverse implications for the US economy. Given the high odds of a split government, as highlighted above, this is not a non-negligible risk. The most likely scenario is that some portion of the planned fiscal contraction will be delayed. But it is very unlikely that all of it will be legislated away. For example, payroll tax cuts look unlikely to be extended, which by itself could shave about 0.7% from next year’s growth. In our central forecast for the US economy, we have discounted a fiscal drag of about 1.3% in 2013.

Our central economic forecast does not rely on any specific assumption about the outcome of the November election. Indeed, we can envisage our economic scenario under a number of post-election configurations. First, it must be noted that both presidential candidates recognize the need for fiscal reform, and at the same time, neither wants to do consolidation in a way that would significantly undermine the US economy. And, although there are significant distributional differences between their prospective fiscal plans, both will most likely have to work with the opposing party in order to pass any significant legislation. This, then, leads us to two key conclusions. First, the early phases of post-election negotiations may prove highly disruptive, with a non-negligible risk of a gridlock scenario resulting in greater fiscal restraint than is desirable. Second, after all the dust settles, the ultimate fiscal deal could well end up resembling the Simpson-Bowles blueprint which itself was a product of compromise and bipartisanship.

2. Long-term fiscal health

In the tables below, we offer a summary of where the two candidates stand on key issues with respect to fiscal finances and the economy. We also include the Simpson-Bowles recommendations which we consider to be a benchmark for a balanced and pragmatic approach to fiscal reform.



There are significant differences in how the two candidates plan to achieve fiscal balance. President Obama’s plan relies on a combination of revenue increases (to 19.7% of GDP by 2020) and spending cuts (to 22.5% of GDP by 2020), with spending cuts spread across both defense and non-defense budgets. In contrast, Governor Romney’s plan aims to cut taxes further, increase defense spending relative to the baseline and offset the budgetary impact by very large cuts to discretionary spending (see Table 1 for details). Under his plan, federal spending would eventually be capped at 20% of GDP. These ambitious cuts would bring spending below the long-term average despite the aging population and the projected growth in mandatory spending. As a benchmark, the Simpson-Bowles proposal aimed to stabilize federal spending at 22% while bringing revenues to 20.5% by 2020.

Tax Policies Under Competing Proposals



Mandatory Spending Policies Under Competing Proposals



3. Debt ceiling

The debt limit will soon rear its ugly head, but only after the 6 November elections. Fortunately US Treasury debt limits do not overlap the immediate election calendar. In August 2011, politics intertwined with debt ceilings and Congress appeared near the brink of a technical default. The rising risk of dysfunction and the impact it would have had on debt was partly the reason for Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the US’ long-term debt.

The US Statutory Debt Limit is $16.394 trillion. At the end of July 2012, the Treasury had just under $500bn of borrowing authority. Further, Treasury estimates its borrowing need in the second half of 2012 at nearly $600bn – calling it close. Treasury already indicated it could hit debt limit at the end of the year. Importantly, hitting the debt limit and the need for Congress to approve an increase will not occur until after the elections.

The US Treasury is very likely to temporarily suspend certain debt transactions and could delay hitting the debt limit until Spring 2013. At that point a new Congress can consider legislation that is free of an immediate election. Congress can tie in the debt limit to legislation to reduce the “Fiscal cliff.”

4. Dodd–Frank Regulation

Reversing elements of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation has been a talking point among many Republican candidates. Yet concrete plans are thin. Romney calls for replacing Dodd-Frank with a streamlined, modern regulatory framework. Streamlining may be hard to differentiate from normal evolutions that would occur in the aftermath of such a major overhaul in financial regulations.

Regulation of financial institutions following the crisis is a force influencing global markets, regulators and economies. Voter sentiment against financial institutions is too strong at the moment. The best scenario may be no more than to dial down the anti-“fat cat” rhetoric. The Republican party may have differing views. The essence of the Tea Party is a grassroots, main-street effort to change the business-as-usual practices of both Washington and New York. Dodd-Frank legislation is already two years underway. Many important provisions, regulatory bodies and market exchanges have yet to be implemented. Nonetheless, considerable progress has been achieved in defining these functions, rules, markets, etc. Re-steering at the margins rather than any major repeal would be a more likely scenario with a Romney presidency. Even the current government, that passed Dodd-Frank legislation, would find needs to modify elements at the margins during a second term. Chances for a major reform is low.

5. Healthcare

The Republican party is more uniform on its healthcare positions, relative to financial regulations. Futile repeals of Obama’s healthcare law (Affordable Care Act) were passed in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, but progressed no further. Repealing what is now termed Obama-care would require a Republican President and Congress. A simple majority in the Senate might not be enough.

Healthcare would be the biggest game in play with a Republican president.

Assuming also a Republican Congress in 2013, efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would gain momentum. The US Supreme Court only narrowly upheld key portions of the heathcare reforms. Taxation and choice are unifying elements to counter the government-led widespread health insurance coverage advocated.

By the next election, 2016, Obama-care, or Affordable-care will be far more deeply ingrained in the US economy. Modifications rather than a reversal would be more likely. This election is most likely the last chance on a major reversal of the 2009 legislation. Yet the voter interest is not there. Governor Romney has not succeeded in capitalizing on healthcare repeal as a significant campaign issue.

6. Energy policy - no fracking difference

Broadly speaking, the US has not historically had a strong energy policy, in terms of market impact – that is, in terms of the fundamentals and pricing of energy, especially petroleum and natural gas. This has been true since the twin oil crises of the 1970s and it remains true today.

For Obama and Romney, the common ground on energy far outweighs the differences. The bottom line is that growing US natural gas and oil roduction is good for the economy. It should directly boost GDP, it will narrow the trade deficit and it should be supportive for the dollar.

In conclusion, no matter who wins the election, we believe that energy policy will not be dramatically different, especially given the likelihood of some sort of divided government in Washington. The emphasis will be on encouraging growth in US oil and natural gas production. This pretty much means getting fracking regulations resolved, in coordination with states and industry, and then getting out of the way. We do not expect the election results to have any impact on oil and natural gas prices.

7. Housing—GSE reform

Although not included in the debt figures reported by the government, the US government has moved to more explicitly to support the soundness of obligations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, starting in July 2008 via the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and the 7 September 2008 Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) conservatorship of both government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The on- or off-balance sheet obligations of those two independent GSEs was just over $5tr at the time the conservatorship was put in place, consisting mainly of mortgage payment guarantees. The extent to which the government will be required to pay these obligations depends on a variety of economic and housing market factors. The federal government provided over $110bn to Fannie and Freddie by 2010.

8. President without re-election

President Obama is a known commodity, at least he is perceived that way. As a second-term President, Obama may take a different turn. Without pressures of re-election, President Obama could return to early promises to move beyond partisan politics and build the future by taking steps to control long-term fiscal trends. Tackling long-term deficit trends was too dangerous for the president seeking re-election. Simpson-Bowles offers a blue-print for bipartisan support. This is hopeful – but may be unrealistic. Pressures to take action on the deficit, however are building. The bi-partisan groups in Congress offer some reflection on this. Grassroot efforts are also building and the Tea Party owes its start to one extreme effort to control deficits.

For financial markets, a President intent on building a legacy on long-term deficit reduction would be a positive-risk scenario for financial markets in the medium term. It is doubtful, however, that any immediate market response will occur on deficit reduction.

Conclusion

Following the elections, Washington will focus on the fiscal cliff, that is the currently legislated tax increases and spending cuts that would materially slow the US economy at the start of 2013. Election-year gamesmanship prevents pre-emptive efforts to reduce this fiscal drag on the US economy. A lameduck Senate may not take immediate action on tax cuts, and rapid action may be required in January. This is more timing uncertainty, and path uncertainty, but not eventual outcome uncertainty. At least not for major elements to reduce the threat from a fiscal drag.

The most likely scenario of President Obama and a Republican Congress suggest status quo. Importantly, however, status-quo reduces uncertainty surrounding fiscal policies as well as recently passed legislation on healthcare and regulation. The upside surprise would be a second-term president that wants to build a legacy of long-term deficit control. The downside risk would be a failure to reach compromise on the fiscal cliff despite overwhelming similarities in the party positions.
Within the Congressional elections, the risk versus our scenario would be that the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. This would be more of the status quo. Lack of a super majority in the Senate and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would still foster gridlock on major economic and financial market legislation. A split Congress would make it difficult for President Obama to reach on a compromise on legacy building.

In the presidential elections, the surprise would be a victory by Governor Romney. With a Republican Congress, there are greater chances to repeal or substantially modify the recent healthcare overhauls. Additionally, reducing fiscal drag in early 2013 would be less complicated. Lastly, with full Republican control, we would expect lower taxes in the medium term and greater efforts on cost control. Drastic changes under a Romney presidency would likely hinge on the degree of control by Republicans in the Senate. Control of the Senate is likely to be razor thin. In the end, the election alone is unlikely to produce major legislative changes. Responses to market, economic and demographic pressures are more likely the triggers for significant legislative action in the next few years.


Your Complete, One-Stop Presidential Election Guide | ZeroHedge

Dylan Ratigan's Epic Rant on the International Banking Cartel and Political Corruption

Revenge votes for Obama is the solution. Black balling Dr Ron Paul was not a smart move this time.

No self respecting Ron Paul supporter will vote for Mitt Romney since he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rothschild's and Rockefeller banksters just as Obama is.

The Presidency is a wholly owned subsidiary of the international banking cartel, multi national corporations, and Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan Chase.
Many millions of Ron Paul supporters like me will be voting directly for Obama in November in a political strategy so we can get a real Liberty candidate on the ballot in 2016.

If you don't like Obama next year, then impeach him for illegally attacking Libya, gun running fast and furious, and being disqualified for his forged birth certificate.

Fox news is an infomercial for the republicans and the GOP. MSNBC is an infomercial for the democrats, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are left leaning, brainwashing, social engineering scum. Try not to get your news from them.

What's Romney gonna give me? Will he cancel the TSA/government 1.2 million hollow point bullet order, abolish NDAA, and the anti-Patriot act?
The war on a Military Tactic(Terrorism) used by The Base(in Arabic Al-Qaeda) is idiotic. The base doesn't even have any tanks or boats.

I've been warning and warning.... there are a hell of a lot of people that are going to Vote for Obama out of backlash for what the GOP / RNC did to Ron Paul

this is the wild card and it will play out on election day

Guest Post: How Badly Does Wall Street Want A Romney Presidency?


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/13/2012 15:01 -0400

• Algorithmic Trading

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,

Apparently, this badly:

But this is chickenshit money — it doesn’t even add up to Lloyd Blankfein’s 2007 bonus.
Let’s see where the real money is going.

Markets couldn’t seem to care less:



Markets are still well up during Obama’s presidency.

So does Wall Street really want a Romney Presidency? Or could Wall Street not care less, because they know that both sides will gladly do their bidding? After all it’s not like Obama has tried to jail corrupt bankers — Corzine, who after raiding segregated accounts is surely up there with the most corrupt guys on Wall Street — has been bundling for Obama as recently as April.

Ignore the chickenshit donations. If markets fall significantly between now and November — 1300, 1200, 1100, 1000 — the powers that be on Wall Street want a Romney presidency. After all, it’s not only possible but extremely easy to deliberately crash the market when you have at your disposal algorithmic trading programs that can buy the spike and sell the dip 40 times a second (that’s 2400 times a minutes, 144,000 times an hour). No S&P crash? They’re happy to stick with Obama.

Guest Post: How Badly Does Wall Street Want A Romney Presidency? | ZeroHedge

With Both Presidential Candidates Full Of Hot Air, El-Erian Warns Of Populist Anger Returning


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/13/2012 13:35 -0400

As the 'new' normal limps on, PIMCO's Mohamed El-Erian focuses his attention on the political dysfunction that roils the 'new new' normal in an excellent op-ed in Foreign Policy today. The economic and financial system risks breakages that the political system will be increasingly incapable of mending rapidly enough," he opines as he fears sluggishness in economic growth, unacceptably high youth unemployment and long-term joblessness, redoubled debt and deficit concerns, and worsening inequalities between rich and poor leading the US down a path towards Europe's disruption.
Via Foreign Policy:

"Sadly, neither Obama nor Romney has yet offered a meaningful, forward-looking economic reform program to address problems such as a malfunctioning labor market, unsustainable public finances, a broken credit system, inadequate infrastructure, and a lagging education system.


The risk for the United States, as well as the global economy, is that a lack of vision and political courage ends up leading to even greater economic disappointment and financial instability, bringing with it the social unrest we've seen in so many other countries over the past 18 months. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party may have somewhat fizzled, but populist anger could return with a vengeance.


The longer America's interlocking economic and political challenges persist, the greater the number of companies and long-term investors that begin to worry -- and, more importantly, act on those fears. They hire fewer people and invest less in factories and equipment. As they increasingly sit on the sidelines, the country's fate will be left in the hands of tactical position players and short-term traders, further ramping up volatility and reducing future growth and job opportunities. And when day traders and company flippers start running a country's economy, watch out.


The warning bells are ringing, and they are ringing loudly. We've already allowed bad economics to lead to bad politics. Now, it's high time to put a stop to the cycle where bad politics undermines an already fragile economy."

With Both Presidential Candidates Full Of Hot Air, El-Erian Warns Of Populist Anger Returning | ZeroHedge

Uh oh, Ryan sold shares on same day as private briefing on banking crisis

Submitted by Freedom's Remnant on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 20:49
Daily Paul Liberty Forum

[ The Guardian UK ] - Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.
The congressman is facing questions about whether he profited from information gleaned from the meeting on 18 September 2008 when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, then treasury secretary Hank Paulson and others outlined their fears for the banking sector.

Public records show that on the same day, Ryan sold stock in troubled banks including Wachovia and Citigroup and bought shares in Goldman Sachs, Paulson's old employer and a bank that had been disclosed to be stronger than many of its rivals. The sale was not illegal at the time.

Not long after the meeting, Wachovia's already troubled share price went into free fall. It plunged 39% on the afternoon of 26 September alone as investors worried the bank would collapse. It was eventually taken over by Wells Fargo for $15bn, a fraction of its former value.

Continue reading at The Guardian UK

Uh oh, Ryan sold shares on same day as private briefing on banking crisis | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Attention RNC Delegates! Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney with 58% favorability in national poll.

Submitted by JamesRushing on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 15:52
Delegates
California
DP Original

Give our Ron Paul Republican activists and Ron Paul Delegates the information they need to show all the RNC Delegates in Tampa that Paul can beat Obama and Romney can't. Please "ChipIn" to fund the Paul vs. Obama Poll #3:

ChipIn: Ron Paul vs. Obama Poll

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 13 August 2012

New Poll: 45% Vote Ron Paul For President With 58% Favorability. In a new poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research matching up presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul, 45% of one thousand likely voters across America said they would vote Ron Paul for President.
58% of those surveyed have a favorable view of Ron Paul, while just 36% have an unfavorable view. Compare this to Mitt Romney (50% favorable, 45% unfavorable) and Barack Obama (51% favorable, 48% unfavorable). Ron Paul is viewed in a favorable light by significantly more people than Obama or Romney.

The "likely voters" were asked the following question: "Suppose in this year's Presidential Election you had a choice between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Ron Paul or Democrat Barack Obama?"
The results are: 45% Ron Paul and 47% Barack Obama. (+/-3%)

###

Top Line Numbers:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted August 5, 2012
By Pulse Opinion Research

1) Suppose in this year's Presidential Election you had a choice between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Ron Paul or Democrat Barack Obama

45% - Paul
47% - Obama
6% - Some other candidate
2% - Not sure
2) If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney or Democrat Barack Obama?
48% Romney
46% Obama
4% Some other candidate
2% Not sure More
New poll: 58% Favor Ron Paul For President
3) I'm going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.
Mitt Romney
24% Very favorable
26% Somewhat favorable
21% Somewhat unfavorable
24% Very unfavorable
5% Not sure
4) Barack Obama
35% Very favorable
16% Somewhat favorable
10% Somewhat unfavorable
38% Very unfavorable
1% Not sure
5) Ron Paul
17% Very favorable
41% Somewhat favorable
21% Somewhat unfavorable
15% Very unfavorable
7% Not sure
6) How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President. do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?
34% Strongly approve
17% Somewhat approve
8% Somewhat disapprove
39% Strongly disapprove
2% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Contact:
James Rushing
jimrushing@cox.net
Ron Paul Republicans:
New Poll: 45% Vote Ron Paul For President With 58% Favorability | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
"The national telephone survey of 1000 likely voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on August 5, 2012. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC."
# # #
Thanks for the continued support.
Give our Ron Paul Republican activists and Ron Paul Delegates the information they need to show all the RNC Delegates in Tampa that Paul can beat Obama and Romney can't. Please "ChipIn" to fund the Paul vs. Obama Poll #3:
ChipIn: Ron Paul vs. Obama Poll
Poll#1 resullts were published on 11 Aug 12.
Poll#2 is funded and ready to be launched on 15 August, with results on 17 Aug.
Poll#3 needs to be funded by 22 Aug to have results on 24 Aug.
The polls show what the RNC Delegates need to know - Ron Paul is America's choice for President.
Harm no one. Let no one harm you.

Attention RNC Delegates! Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney with 58% favorability in national poll. | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Chuck Baldwin Warns Ron Paul

Submitted by johnemms on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:30
Ron Paul 2012

I think there is zero chance Ron endorses Romney



"Chuck calls Ron Paul, the greatest congressman in u.s. history" but warns not to endorse Romney

Source: http://www.infowars.com/c...

Chuck Baldwin Warns Ron Paul | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Ron Paul Will Not Seek To Be Nominated From The Floor, Because The DELEGATES Seek To Nominate Ron Paul From The Floor.

Submitted by telepathic on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 15:48 Ron Paul 2012
DP Original
Florida

Jesse Benton's comment, "Dr. Paul will not seek to be nominated from the floor" has stirred a lot confusion among the DPers.

This is understandable, but at the same time EVERYBODY has to remember that the only important thing is to understand that it is the DELEGATES that seek to nominate Ron Paul from the floor.

It is not the job of Ron Paul, but of the delegates. Everything else is distraction. PERIOD!

This is well understood by the highest Up-Voted comments on this thread "Benton: ‘Dr. Paul will not seek to be nominated from the floor.’":

By youjustgotpauled +45 votes: Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution | Daily Paul

By Independent_Thought +42 votes: Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution | Daily Paul

By mk3suprafy +41 votes: Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution | Daily Paul

Ron Paul Will Not Seek To Be Nominated From The Floor, Because The DELEGATES Seek To Nominate Ron Paul From The Floor. | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution