Ron Paul and Ross Perot
- Thread starter G-Cym
- Start date
You are right on!
God I love (c). My NRA uses this like beating a dead horse.
Most voters that do the most harm and choose (d)......this just continues the rewarding of moderates by more votes. Instead of taking a stand on what they believe in, they give in to choice (a) and (b) so they settle for (d). This only drags out the slow death of principle.
This election is interesting, for me, voting for Ron Paul, I dont waste my vote or play the above depressing game AND I am sending a message to MY GOP that is so lost in the woods right now.
How else am I going to send the message to the GOP that I am pissed with moderates.........by voting for one??
Unregistered
Moderator
If, by some strange luck, Ron Paul got 20 percent of the vote in the Republican Primary, do you think the Republicans would even acknowledge it and incorporate any of his views into the party platform?
No, because they are stupid. They would assume that those 20% would vote Republican in the general. The problem is, most supporters of Paul are not supporters of the Republican party as it is now.
From my point of view there are primarily 2 types of Paul supporters:
1.)Those who have mostly voted Republican in the past and have decided to vote principle over the less of 2 evils and will likely never just vote Republican again;
2.)Younger voters who would never have voted Republican except for Paul.
To keep these 2 groups the Republicans will have to return to the traditional principles of the party. They will not.
From my point of view there are primarily 2 types of Paul supporters:
1.)Those who have mostly voted Republican in the past and have decided to vote principle over the less of 2 evils and will likely never just vote Republican again;
2.)Younger voters who would never have voted Republican except for Paul.
To keep these 2 groups the Republicans will have to return to the traditional principles of the party. They will not.
Speaking of shots in the arm, a huge difference between Paul and Perot is that Perot had a successful business doing contract work for the government, among other things. He spent his own money on his campaign. I think it's great that zany billionaires can do that in America.
Ron Paul's campaign has millions on hand, and is daily raising an amazing amount of money for an obscure Texas Congressman who is said to only represent a few fringe kooks. Watch what happens on November 5th, when a whole bunch more will be raised for Ron Paul in a mass donation event.
Ron Paul's campaign has millions on hand, and is daily raising an amazing amount of money for an obscure Texas Congressman who is said to only represent a few fringe kooks. Watch what happens on November 5th, when a whole bunch more will be raised for Ron Paul in a mass donation event.
It doesn't take a 20% vote to change the outcome of a presidential election, but unquestionably Ross Perot's influence gave the presidency to Bill Clinton. In 2000, Ralph Nader, garnering only a fraction of the votes that Perot achieved, effectively took the election from Al Gore (fortunately!). I think it is great that many of you are excited enough by Ron Paul to support him in the primary process, but I can only hope that when he fails to get the Republican nomination you then move your support, even if only lukewarm, to whoever is the nominee. Saying it doesn't make a difference if Hilary or Guliani is president is dangerously naive. Life is more than guns, and this country would be much the worse if we have a liberal Democrat controlled congress and a liberal Democrat in the White House. Do you really want to see Charlie Rangel's draconion tax increases passed and signed into law? Do you really want liberal judges placed throughout the Federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court? As much as I disagree with Rudy on guns and abortion, I can still take comfort in many other areas where he is enormously more acceptable than is Hilary or Obama. And what about national security? Do you really believe it would be no different to have Hilary leading this nation than it would to have Rudi? So stick with Ron Paul all the way and see the U.S.A. possibly go down the pacifist socialist path, possibly to the point of no return, or face reality and unite against Clinton even if the eventual Republican nominee is not your "perfect" choice.
Last edited:
Lessee, those would be arguments
(a) the boogie-man argument;
and
(d) the lesser-of-two-evils argument.
Not to be flip, and your fears are cogent. But if Rudolph Giuliani is the best this nation of 300 million souls has to offer, then maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board.
(a) the boogie-man argument;
and
(d) the lesser-of-two-evils argument.
Not to be flip, and your fears are cogent. But if Rudolph Giuliani is the best this nation of 300 million souls has to offer, then maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Unregistered
Moderator
Or, if the Republicans lose, maybe they need to blame themselves, and not Ron Paul.
Don't you think its a little silly on their part to expect their base, who are traditionally pro-gun and anti-abortion, to get real fired up about a nominee who is anti-gun and pro-abortion?
Vito has nailed it!
Vito is firmly in the X ring. Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a distraction and will hurt whomever gets the Republican nomination.
The bad thing is I do not think it will matter, I firmly believe Hillary will win no matter what. About the only scenario I can see where she will not win is if Rudy gets the nod and then somehow wins New York. The odds very high that Hillary will carry all the same states Kerry did plus Ohio (20 Votes) and very possibly Florida (25 votes).
:barf::barf:
Vito is firmly in the X ring. Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a distraction and will hurt whomever gets the Republican nomination.
The bad thing is I do not think it will matter, I firmly believe Hillary will win no matter what. About the only scenario I can see where she will not win is if Rudy gets the nod and then somehow wins New York. The odds very high that Hillary will carry all the same states Kerry did plus Ohio (20 Votes) and very possibly Florida (25 votes).
:barf::barf:Vito and ibfestus,
The problem with rewarding bad behavior is that you get more bad behavior.
When the dog relieves himself inside the house, do you say "good boy" and give him a treat"?
When your child draws on the walls, do you say "well done, son, have some ice cream"?
When a politician violates your principles, do you say "here's my vote"?
Why did the first Bush lose re-election? I think more important than Perot was his bad behavior "Read my lips: no new taxes"
And you are ignoring the possible long-term benefits of having Hillary over Rudy. (These have been mentioned before, either here or in other posts, but a couple of examples):
If Rudy wins, all of the liberal stuff he wants to do will be mostly unopposed, whereas if Hillary wins the Republicans will fight against her on things they would have supported Rudy on.
Why did Reagan beat Carter in a landslide? Carter really sucked. I would bet we would have a repeat in 2012, if Hillary wins in '08. All we would need would be someone to espouse the principles of responsible (limited) government and personal responsibility.
Reagan was a return to those principles in '80, as was the "Contract with America" in '94.
Again, reward good behavior, not bad.
The problem with rewarding bad behavior is that you get more bad behavior.
When the dog relieves himself inside the house, do you say "good boy" and give him a treat"?
When your child draws on the walls, do you say "well done, son, have some ice cream"?
When a politician violates your principles, do you say "here's my vote"?
Why did the first Bush lose re-election? I think more important than Perot was his bad behavior "Read my lips: no new taxes"
And you are ignoring the possible long-term benefits of having Hillary over Rudy. (These have been mentioned before, either here or in other posts, but a couple of examples):
If Rudy wins, all of the liberal stuff he wants to do will be mostly unopposed, whereas if Hillary wins the Republicans will fight against her on things they would have supported Rudy on.
Why did Reagan beat Carter in a landslide? Carter really sucked. I would bet we would have a repeat in 2012, if Hillary wins in '08. All we would need would be someone to espouse the principles of responsible (limited) government and personal responsibility.
Reagan was a return to those principles in '80, as was the "Contract with America" in '94.
Again, reward good behavior, not bad.
1973Maverick
Inactive
Support the Constitution
I'm pretty amazed at the comments of the Ron Paul detractors here.
He's the only candidate that supports the return to a Constitutional goverment, ie: the 2nd Amendment, AND he's the only one with a muli-decade voting record to support what he says.
Please look into this and see if you feel any different.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul73.html
Here's an excerpt of legislation he introduced:
"Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act."
- Ron Paul
I'm pretty amazed at the comments of the Ron Paul detractors here.
He's the only candidate that supports the return to a Constitutional goverment, ie: the 2nd Amendment, AND he's the only one with a muli-decade voting record to support what he says.
Please look into this and see if you feel any different.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul73.html
Here's an excerpt of legislation he introduced:
"Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act."
- Ron Paul
No one is detracting the man or his positions. We just don't believe in honorably running into a burning building and dying in the process. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. I wish he did. But he doesn't. Reality sucks. But it's still reality. I vote in the manner that I think will have the best real physical effect on life. Not the manner that will make me feel the best about myself, while physically hurting me.
Not applicable. Fighting for liberty had both and effect and fulfilled his honor. They were complimentary. Voting for Ron Paul has a negative effect and a positive feeling. They are opposed.
And Patrick Henry's choice is only the good one now because we won. If we lost the war and he died, he'd just be another guy who died. We can afford to talk about it because we won. Winning is what matters. Back to real physical effect. Winning is what matters. Not feeling.
And Patrick Henry's choice is only the good one now because we won. If we lost the war and he died, he'd just be another guy who died. We can afford to talk about it because we won. Winning is what matters. Back to real physical effect. Winning is what matters. Not feeling.
But you ignore previous points made: Most Paul supporters don't "feel" that a Rudy presidency is a win. And some might even believe in honor over victory. Do not tell me what is right for me.
I survived Carter, Bush the elder, Clinton the Mister, Bush the younger, and I will survive Clinton the Misses, too.
I survived Carter, Bush the elder, Clinton the Mister, Bush the younger, and I will survive Clinton the Misses, too.
Well in the 2000 Election, I supported Alan Keyes. He lost the primary. My choice was then between George Bush and Harry Browne. I won't reveal my choice here, but GB won. I didn't elect Al Gore as everybody said. GWB won the election squarely and the country hasn't gone to Hell.
Therefore, I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary this year. When he likely will lose, I will then choose between the most libertarian of the candidates. I will choose who I like the most and vote for them. It isn't a hard process. In the meanwhile, Ron Paul is amassing a nice treasure chest to run for the soon-to-be vacated senate seat of Kay Bailey Hutchison whom I have never liked. I will again open my wallet to the only man on the hill who says what he means and means what he says (unless Bob Barr is still in congress).
These elections aren't rocket science. They aren't chess. They are pick the guy you like the most and vote for him. Trying to triangulate strategy on elections gets you John Kerry who was selected only because the democratic voters believed he was the most "electable". We see how that went down. Don't turn an election into some strategic game. Pick the guy you like the most for whatever reasons and vote for him in the primaries. If he doesn't win, find a new guy and vote that way.
Therefore, I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary this year. When he likely will lose, I will then choose between the most libertarian of the candidates. I will choose who I like the most and vote for them. It isn't a hard process. In the meanwhile, Ron Paul is amassing a nice treasure chest to run for the soon-to-be vacated senate seat of Kay Bailey Hutchison whom I have never liked. I will again open my wallet to the only man on the hill who says what he means and means what he says (unless Bob Barr is still in congress).
These elections aren't rocket science. They aren't chess. They are pick the guy you like the most and vote for him. Trying to triangulate strategy on elections gets you John Kerry who was selected only because the democratic voters believed he was the most "electable". We see how that went down. Don't turn an election into some strategic game. Pick the guy you like the most for whatever reasons and vote for him in the primaries. If he doesn't win, find a new guy and vote that way.
With this "logic", you would have been against the American Revolution itself. But instead the unthinkable happened.
IMHO Comments like these above are sad, and are exactly what the people in power of this current GOP/and the washington elite want to hear......defeat by the american voter.
Tell me....when in America did voting for principle and the Constitution become a wasted vote?
(moderates are like a cancer in this party.)
Not to be too insensitive to the people in real life who have done this, but what you guys are proposing sounds a lot like the people who refuse to leave their homes during a disaster because of some sentimental attachment. And then they end up dying.
That's what this devotion to Ron Paul is. You have some romantic view of honor and going down fighting. All you're really doing is going down. And screwing the rest of us in the process. Splitting the vote and electing Hillary Clinton is dying in a fire or hurricane. Rudy is leaving my home and possessions but staying alive.
That's what this devotion to Ron Paul is. You have some romantic view of honor and going down fighting. All you're really doing is going down. And screwing the rest of us in the process. Splitting the vote and electing Hillary Clinton is dying in a fire or hurricane. Rudy is leaving my home and possessions but staying alive.
