Paul strong in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Their primary focus seems to be on a lack of foreign involvement and the Dems cater widely to this
Click to expand...
Hmmm. The Democrats took great pains to initiate almost every war the US government participated in during the 20th century. That makes the above ahistoric.

Warfare is a liberal endeavor, pure and simple.

Ron Paul embodies American conservatism at it's truest meaning.

As Mr. Bellmore has stated, for a Republican to have a hope of winning in the fall he'll have to get every "Reagan Democrat" there is to vote for him.

Only Ron Paul can do that.
 
Can Paul win? God, no. But, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." The GOP had an opportunity to set out on that journey, by merely treating Paul civilly. Instead they've done a darned good job of proving they'd rather crawl across broken glass than take that step.

The question in my mind wasn't whether the GOP deserved my vote; It never has, except as a last ditch way of keeping Democrats out of office. The question was, is is the current GOP even redeemable enough to get my vote on that basis? And the answer is looking to be a big NO!
 
As Mr. Bellmore has stated, for a Republican to have a hope of winning in the fall he'll have to get every "Reagan Democrat" there is to vote for him.

Only Ron Paul can do that.
Click to expand...
Pat H, you've posted on this forum that "Reagan was a failure." Why would Reagan Democrats vote for Ron Paul, whose supporters believe Reagan was a failure?
 
The Democrats took great pains to initiate almost every war the US government participated in during the 20th century. That makes the above ahistoric.
Click to expand...

Painfully disingenuous statement. The Paul people here decry BUSH foreign policy, as you are all to well aware.
 
Pat H, you've posted on this forum that "Reagan was a failure." Why would Reagan Democrats vote for Ron Paul, whose supporters believe Reagan was a failure?
Click to expand...
Reagan was a failure due to his inability to implement his most important policies, among those were failure to make government smaller and to abolish several cabinet level bureaucracies.

Reagan Democrats would vote for Ron Paul because he supports most of the Reagan policies, in a more robust way.
 
Last edited:
Perfect example. Reagan is so widely viewed as a success that even Obama is singing his praises to garner votes, yet a Paul supporter derides him as a failure.

Way to garner support for a potential Republican nominee there, Pat.

The Paul Fringe sunk Paul. Nothing else.
 
Way to garner support for a potential Republican nominee there, Pat.

The Paul Fringe sunk Paul. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the logic goes like this: "Hey, all you Democrats who voted for Reagan because he's the only Republican you've ever respected, guess what? Your guy Reagan was a failure! So now vote for Ron Paul, because he supports Reagan's policies!"

With supporters like that, Paul needs no enemies.
 
Regarding Paul's supporters, something I just saw on a private journal.

Someone liked some of Paul's ideas, but they didn't want to get involved with the campaign because they were afraid they might mistakenly be investigated for militia stuff, they saw too much craziness going on on forums that was "like unabomber stuff".

Deal with that, Paul people. Your supporters sank the guy. With friends like that...
 
Wild The photos caused me no disquiet whatsoever , of course i am the affore mentioned poster who affirmed that he would vote for hilldibeast over the " good DR. " . I do find it interesting tho that none of the " now banned descriptive phrase " have even refuted or in fact mentioned the fine Dr Paul posing with fine, well known members of Stormfront at public events . Oh excuse me , its his message , not the ilk he runs with or that supports him . Sorry folks i grew up in southeast CO and some of my " best friends " are American Ag , as well as the AN, the AB and a few other fine folk who gather as a club beginning with the letter A. Now i agree with a lot of this thougt as does the Dr the difference is i admit it . and i am specific on what i agree with . Being " White " dont get you crap with me . Being willing to work does . In fact ill trade two buerocrats for every mexican now working day labor and personally set up a program to teach them english , with the crevat that mexico got to keep the beurocrats ( no do over on the trades ) . Pauls racist connections is not what calls his " presidential timber " into question to me , His 17th century isolationist ideals since the us is now seen as the sole superpower are . The man ( tho maby an genius ) is a true idiot , an hillory would be better for the us as the helm than he . BTW Lets not talk about his personal integrity anymore , it wears thin when he poses knowingly with members from stormfront .

flame away i am used to it . And btw i have never posted my affiliation so no one can accuse me of running the sensitive paul supporters off from any party .
 
Based on recent posts, I apologize for any snide references to spelling or grammar. Obviously, my slings and arrows were inappropriately aimed.

Apropos of nothing...

Redneckrepairs, I applaud your efforts to teach illegal aliens English. Good luck with your endeavors.

Having said that, I want no part of your contention that Hillary would be better than Paul. I'm obviously no Paul supporter, but I'd almost rather have another Bush term than put Hillary in the White House.
 
Wild The photos caused me no disquiet whatsoever
Click to expand...
I see that the StormFront representative is back. Too bad.

Getting back on topic.

I think James Ostrowski's analysis is spot on, and each of you wishing to stop the two Democrat front runners, one of which will be the nominee barring any unuual occurrences in the near future.

If you've decided to not put one of the Democrats in the White House, then you need to get behind the only, repeat, the ONLY Republican candidate capable of winning in the fall.
 
Pat, I am voting for Ron Paul in the primary. But come on, everyone knows he is going to lose the primary, and if by some freak chance all the other candidates were abducted by aliens and he was the only Republican left, he would still lose to Hillary or Obama in the general election. He could probably beat Kucinich, but thats about it.
 
If you've decided to not put one of the Democrats in the White House, then you need to get behind the only, repeat, the ONLY Republican candidate capable of winning in the fall.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this. You folks only garner about 8 percent of the party, yet you're demanding that the clear winners come over to your side? These are the demands of adolescents...surely you recognize that?

If we're talking the capabilities of candidates to beat the Dems, RINO McCain is obviously the best bet. He garners a lot of support on the other side.

Just because I don't like McCain doesn't make that an untruth.

Magical thinking doesn't help your cause. A close grip on reality is necessary in politics. So is compromise.

Note Huckabee's campaign. Whether you like him or not, his campaign was torpedoed in SC because of Fred's reluctance to call it quits. Fred didn't have a chance of winning, but he certainly took the most like-minded candidate with him when he went down.

Fred was my candidate, but I recognized him as a Huck spoiler. As a gun rights proponent, I wanted Fred to drop out. He didn't, and now we're stuck with less than strong 2nd candidates.

Political acuity is necessary here. Many lack it, instead choosing the magical belief that a overnight return to Constitutional values can occur without tanks.

If you don't believe in compromise, pick up a rifle. Otherwise, don't claim to work within the system when you refuse to take reality into consideration.
 
Yes. He can't win versus Hillary or Obama.

It would take a deliberate dismissal of reality to not have seen how easy it was for the other candidates to bait him into a shrill rant during the debates, voice getting higher. The moderator even had to stop him once and ask what he was arguing about, since the other candidates had agreed with the same point. He looked mystified, Giuliani snickered, and the audience laughed. He still looked confused.

That's not a president. That's your granddad who gets a little confused sometimes and has to have grandma usher him to his favorite chair and give him a nice cup of tea.
 
Stormfront appears to be a white supremacist organization. The link looks like their forum. Are those pictures of Paul attending an event they held?

I detest race baiting and trying to label someone a racist just to discredit them. But if Stormfront is the white supremacist group it appears to be, and Paul did in fact participate in their event this would seen to re-enforce the ties to the New Confederate movement the newsletter was aimed at.

I read a number of posts and was frankly quite surprised by the similarities in rhetoric used there compared to that used by some here. Examples being claims of media bias against Paul ignoring that the rest of the lower tier candidates were also excluded, the prolific use of the neocon ad hominem, the 'only hope' tone, the returning America to what is was before that evil Lincoln and so on.

I respect people that have the courage of their convictions whether i agree with those convictions or not. But people that are only willing to speak boldly under the cover of anonymity but openly deny such convictions are in my opinion cowards. If a person can't say openly what they say under the cover of anonymity they are acknowledging either the lack of respectability of the message or their lack of belief in it.

I would like to know if Stormfront or neo-confederacy groups' events are really being attended by Paul. Is this true? Who knows enough about these groups to KNOW, not THINK or FEEL what they are really about.
 
In reference to the South Carolina Republican debate, Dr. Paul handled himself beautifully, and with accuracy. Seems the moderator was the one that was confused, or was that an intentional disruption? You decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UO731mEo

McCain will not beat either Hillary or Obama. Either one will have his lunch in November.
 
I think your wrong Pat. I think McCain can beat Hillary or Obama, especially if he teams up with Lieberman. I think Romney would get beaten badly, but I think McCain could do it. Pretty much all Republicans would vote for McCain, and some democrats would cross over.
 
I'm not so sure. I believe the odds are on the Dems this year.

Again, I don't like it, but that's the way it's shaking out. Hopefully we can work to turn it around.

Saying Paul could win was silly a year ago. Saying it now is completely ludicrous.

I would normally consider Pat and others to simply be trolls out having fun, but I still see Paul signs decorating every yard with three empty beer cans and a rusty car.
 
If all of the Republicans vote for McCain, he will lose. You're thinking that all of the Reagan Democrats, the largest in history, will come to McCain?

I don't think that's going to happen even a little bit. I think we Paul supporters will stay home, and most of the Reagan Democrats will stay on the Democrat farm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top