If Ron Paul Gets the Nod

Would you support Ron Paul if he gets the nod, regardless of who you now support?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 72.2%

  • No

    Votes: 21 15.8%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 11 8.3%

  • Would vote Democrat

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Total voters
    133
There is no chance he would get the nod, especially after the last debate. He blew it with the whole "negotiate" with Iran thing, not to mention his inability to explain his position about the CIA.

If the choice was him or Hillary, I would vote for him though.
 
I would vote for any democrat over Paul. Better the enemy I know than the one that I cant predict.

Besides, both Hillary and Barack are waay smarter than the good doc and far less "wierd"

WildscarydudeAlaska TM
 
Wild, I agree with you to a great extent. The problem with what you describe is that you are going to end up with Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. So, although you could predict what they would do, you have absolutely no means of preventing whatever they want to do. Paul might be weird and unpredictable, but with the Democrats in control of Congress, there isnt much he can really do. They would cancel each other out nicely. I think the worst thing we can have is to have one party (Rep or Dem) in control of everything.
 
wildalaska said:
Well lets work towards a republican congres then
Click to expand...

i think its odd that your arguments change with who you are talking about. when someone is explaining why to not vote for a candidate that you would vote for, you tell them the president has little power to do all the bad things that they are saying. but when you are telling people they shouldnt vote for paul, you act like he would have complete control over the country.
 
What say we just focus on gun related issues and Ron Paul, since this is that kinda place? I'll start.

Arm the pilots, said Ron Paul shortly after 9/11.

Paul introduces legislation to repeal lots of federal gun laws in each session.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."
Click to expand...

Whether it's Virginia Tech or the DC sniper attacks, Ron Paul recognizes that people who can defend themselves are always safer.

He seems to have a pretty good understanding of what the mean looking weapons ban is all about.

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America” – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
Click to expand...

Yep. He's one scary guy.
 
Ron Paul also thinks we can negotiate with the President of Iran, a man who believes the end of the world will come in his lifetime, and wants the nuclear weapons to self fulfill his belief..
 
Vote for Paul???

OK, he wants to bail from Iraq. That would be good, but is he prepared to bomb the crap out of Iran and/or any of our other enemies attempting to fill the resulting power void? His statements regarding non-violence leave me very doubtful. He says “All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights”. Which, in my mind, precludes preemptive use of force. Kinda like waiting for the BG to put a pill in you before shooting back.

Abolish the IRS, FBI, CIA and the DHS? That would be fine, but what’s the plan? Gotta have some of the services these agencies provide. A quick search on my part produced no evidence of actual plans on his part.

Adamantly oppose giving up the most minor of liberties? For the most part I agree, but I get the distinct feeling this guy would probably make a case for letting Osama himself onto a plane without a pat-down.

He wants to talk to our enemies? I don’t think that’s a good idea! That's what got us to where we are today... impotent giant and soon to be former world power. "Talk to our enemies"? No... don’t say a word; just bomb the crap out of them!

Vote for Paul??? … I don’t think so!
 
Yep. He's one scary guy.
Click to expand...

Even Uncle Adolf liked dogs and Ted Bundy was polite.

Campaign slogan for his second term....Hey, our economy is collapsed, our government paralyzed and suitcase nukes are in every harbour, but ya got your guns :)

WildnothanksAlaska TM
 
Even Uncle Adolf liked dogs and Ted Bundy was polite.

Campaign slogan for his second term....Hey, our economy is collapsed, our government paralyzed and suitcase nukes are in every harbour, but ya got your guns
Click to expand...

Is the first line above relevent to anything or is it just a joke I don't get?
Please explain how you arrived at your predictions for all the bad things to happen in President Paul's first term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's strange how I encounter people (normally those who describe themselves as conservative) that would tend to agree with nearly everything that Ron Paul says, except for his foreign policy goals, so they say they could never vote for him. Please tell me what you find so revolting about his foreign policy ideas, and why would it be any worse than the current course?
 
Is the first line above relevent to anything or is it just a joke I don't get?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm begets sarcasm.

It's strange how I encounter people (normally those who describe themselves as conservative) that would tend to agree with nearly everything that Ron Paul says, except for his foreign policy goals, so they say they could never vote for him. Please tell me what you find so revolting about his foreign policy ideas, and why would it be any worse than the current course?
Click to expand...

Do a search :)

WildnotalloveragainAlaska
 
Please tell me what you find so revolting about his foreign policy ideas
Click to expand...

He thinks we can negotiate with insane extremists like the President of Iran.

Ron Paul also thinks that if we just leave the middle east alone, they will leave us alone. Osama Bin Laden just released a new video where he says that if America wants to end the war with Islam, we all have to submit and become Islamists. He doesn't care if we leave the mid east or not. He wants us to worship his god or die.
 
wildalaska said:
Even Uncle Adolf liked dogs and Ted Bundy was polite.
Click to expand...

wonderful. call the person you dont agree with hitler and a serial killer. really boosts the level of the conversation.

wildalaska said:
Do a search
Click to expand...

if youre not willing to participate in a discussion, why do you post?

i would also like to know why all these horrible things would happen. ive never seen you explain them, but you sure say them a lot.

the feeling i got from ron paul on iran, was that he would take a similar approach as reagan took with the soviets. not just invade the country because we can. we cant financially keep up with all these useless wars, we're gonna go broke soon if we dont stop invading countries.
 
Unregistered said:
He doesn't care if we leave the mid east or not. He wants us to worship his god or die.
Click to expand...

so when he says things like this we believe him, but when he says the reason that he is attacking us, we dont believe him? its not as simple as "islam or die". yes, they do hate us for "our freedom", but that is not the reason they are attacking us. they are attacking us because we are over there, and they hate us. even if they didnt hate us, they would probably still be attacking us. we havent exactly been very nice to the people of the middle east over the years either...
 
Let me understand this: If our military is ordered to leave the middle east, bin Laden will come and make me practice his religion? And how is he going to force me to do this? Strange how the greatest military power in the world is all scared of some fringe group without a real military. Six years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and a few thousand young Americans dead; and we're still all scared of some fringe group. Back in September 2001, Ron Paul proposed a bill to grant a letter of marque and reprisal. (in the same clause in the Constitution granting congress power to declare war, power is given to congress to grant priviteering permits and place bounties on our enemies) I do believe that for the right price, which would be less than what has been spent already, someone would have brought in the Al-queada leadership, dead or alive. Money talks. Or should I believe that the current course has somehow been successful and Ron Paul's plan would have been a failure.

All of that put aside, his pimary foreign policy objective is to end our military involvement in Iraq which has nothing to do with protecting us against terrorism here.
 
wonderful. call the person you dont agree with hitler and a serial killer. really boosts the level of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Huh? Whatever are you talking about.

if youre not willing to participate in a discussion, why do you post?

i would also like to know why all these horrible things would happen. ive never seen you explain them, but you sure say them a lot.
Click to expand...

*edited so as not to engage in puerile bickering with newbies*

Back in September 2001, Ron Paul proposed a bill to grant a letter of marque and reprisal. (in the same clause in the Constitution granting congress power to declare war, power is given to congress to grant priviteering permits and place bounties on our enemies) I do believe that for the right price, which would be less than what has been spent already, someone would have brought in the Al-queada leadership, dead or alive. Money talks. Or should I believe that the current course has somehow been successful and Ron Paul's plan would have been a failure.
Click to expand...

Theres an example of why he is totally unqualifed to be president. letters of marque indeed:rolleyes:

WildisittimetogetseriousyetAlaska TM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top