Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred--again
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
- Status
Starscream02
Moderator
Ron Paul is a Populist. He knows damn well none of his crazy ideas will make it through Congress. That's why he's free to promise so much, he knows he will never have to pay up on it. He's just telling you what he wants, not what he will actually do and be able to do if he is elected President.
He won't win.
He won't win.
No he will not win. What he is promising though is exactly what he would try to do.
What is funny is he is not considered a "real" candidate yet Rudy has yet to post a greater draw than him in NH, MI and IA (three fairly diverse states) and Fred is doing equally bad (much to my original dissatisfaction and due purely to Fred's lack of desire for the job).
If Rudy is going to be the Nominee doesn't he need to eventually win some votes?
What is funny is he is not considered a "real" candidate yet Rudy has yet to post a greater draw than him in NH, MI and IA (three fairly diverse states) and Fred is doing equally bad (much to my original dissatisfaction and due purely to Fred's lack of desire for the job).
If Rudy is going to be the Nominee doesn't he need to eventually win some votes?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Ron Paul beating Fred Thompson isn't saying much.
Fred Thompson's campaign is shaping up to be the biggest fizzle since New Coke.
Fred Thompson's campaign is shaping up to be the biggest fizzle since New Coke.
azredhawk44
Moderator
I don't want Paul to win.
I do, however, want his policies to influence the next administration.
Ron Paul is a terrible leader and subscribes to George Washington's demonstrably flawed isolationist international policy stance.
That being said, the man has a picture-perfect domestic policy stance. I want those perspectives to drive the rest of the field to the right. Rudy McRomney and friends would be wise to become true conservatives again.
I do, however, want his policies to influence the next administration.
Ron Paul is a terrible leader and subscribes to George Washington's demonstrably flawed isolationist international policy stance.
That being said, the man has a picture-perfect domestic policy stance. I want those perspectives to drive the rest of the field to the right. Rudy McRomney and friends would be wise to become true conservatives again.
IZinterrogator
New member
I was thinking Crystal Pepsi, myself.
I happen to think the Founders were exactly right in their warnings that foreign entanglements would get us in trouble. In fact, they were almost prophetic. If you read the 9/11 Commission Report and the writings of ex-CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer, among others, you'll see how US foreign policy is to blame for 9/11 and the (greatly exaggerated) terrorist threat in general. Our support of Israel's brutal collective punishment of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians; our propping up of Muslim puppet dictators; our sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people just to punish a refractory ruler like Saddam; all these things multiply our enemies. And even if they didn't cause people to hate us, it's still morally wrong and hypocritical for us to do them.
Sure, many who are in favor of these policies will often try to intimidate their opponents by saying the latter are "blaming America" -- truly a cheap shot. But America is about principles and ideas, not what the government does. I happen to love what this country was meant to stand for very, very much, and that's exactly why I hate much of what the US government does.
On the other hand, "isolationist" isn't really the right word. "Non-interventionist" is a better one. RP has no problem with defending the country if attacked, and I believe he supported the invasion of Afghanistan to go after bin Laden (as did I). But fighting wars of choice is not only gravely immoral, it extraordinarily expensive in both human and financial terms.
As for Ron Paul being a terrible leader...well, I'll admit that he's not the best speaker. But he's shown balls of steel by getting up in front of debate audiences and making a case about foreign policy that he knows is going to be unpopular among the Fox News fans who make up the majority of today's GOP. That says a lot for his courage -- an essential part of leadership. He tells people painful truths that make many people bristle, rather than beautiful lies that make people flush with pride. Lastly, his intellect is unquestionable. His credentials speak for themselves.
Agreed about RP's domestic policy, but I don't think it will rub off on the statists you mention. They're only in this game because they want power for its own sake. With one of them as president, expect more domestic surveillance, more wiretapping, more email interception, and in the case of Rudy and Mitt especially, more gun control.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have to admit, some of the Ron Paul support is very strong, sort of like zealots. Bragging that he beat Thompson and Guliani in MI isn't anything to brag about. How many delegates did he pick up in MI again? Was it...ZERO? I believe it was. Granted, Thompson and Guiliani picked up the same amount of delegates, so they all three essentially tied in that regard. Paul only has 2 delegates, double that of Guiliani and 1/3 that of Thompson.
So how far off the mark is Paul right now? Well, Romney has 26 times the amount of Paul with 52. Next is Huckabee with 22 delegates, then McCain with 15. McCain is in 3rd place right now and is not making a great showing at all, but he still has 7.5 times the delegates that Paul has.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
And so when was Paul going to start winning? Comparing Paul to Thompson and Guiliani is like trying to figure out who isn't quite in last place yet and then bragging for not being in last place...but Paul is very close. With 2 delegates, he is in next to last place right now.
So how far off the mark is Paul right now? Well, Romney has 26 times the amount of Paul with 52. Next is Huckabee with 22 delegates, then McCain with 15. McCain is in 3rd place right now and is not making a great showing at all, but he still has 7.5 times the delegates that Paul has.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
And so when was Paul going to start winning? Comparing Paul to Thompson and Guiliani is like trying to figure out who isn't quite in last place yet and then bragging for not being in last place...but Paul is very close. With 2 delegates, he is in next to last place right now.
Whether or not his advise applies to today, where we can talk to people on the other side of the world instantly and be there in a matter of hours, is debatable. At the time it was given though, when the USA had next to no military to defend itself, huge indefensible borders, no navy worth mentioning, was located on the other side of the world, and weeks and weeks away from the people he was suggesting we steer clear of, then the advise seems pretty sound. You had France and England conducting their normal on again off again warfare as well as continuous problems across Europe.
Staying clear of that for a fledgling nation seems like pretty good advise!
I don't think most Paul supporters had any realistic hopes of him winning the GOP nomination. We know that the GOP establishment has been taken over by neocons. Nevertheless, my attitude, and undoubtedly that of other RP supporters, is that it's better to fight for what's right and lose than it is to just surrender without even trying.
Besides, I think Paul's candidacy is important even if he doesn't win. He's sending a message that this country badly needs to hear.
No, most people won't listen at first. Joe Sixpack will be too busy soaking up O'Reilly's every word and chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A! Nuke them Arabs!" with his buddies at the sports bar. But as the national debt (currently around $10 trillion and rising) becomes truly unpayable; as the dollar drops even further; as illegal immigrants (including potential terrorists) continue to swarm across our borders; as the rest of our civil liberties and privacy get flushed down the crapper; and as the rest of the world comes to hate us even more than they do now -- maybe then people will start to come around and ask themselves if Dr. Paul was, in fact, right all along. Hopefully it won't be too late, though I think it will be.
Also, I don't believe RP has 100% ruled out running as an independent. He has stated that it's very unlikely, but to my knowledge he has never promised not to do so. He has tremendous cross-over appeal, and many Democrats for whom the Iraq war is the main issue, and who don't feel it's terribly important to abort their babies or "keep guns off the streets," would vote for him. And of course conservatives who care more about the Constitution, immigration, gun rights, etc., more than about endless war overseas will likely vote for him, too. So unlike some here, I hope he runs as an independent.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Foreign involvement in wars can be very rewarding (said with full respect for soldiers and veterans of all wars of our nation's history) both philosophically, politically and economically.
Would we have won the Revolutionary War without France's assistance?
Would either the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Hitler control Europe today if not for our assistance?
Saddam Hussein would rule in Kuwait today if not for our involvement in Gulf War I.
Posted by Starscream:
Uh- no. Ron Paul is a libertarian. You know- kinda like Jefferson and Adams? They are the polar opposite of a populist. The most populist person going now is probably Huckabee.
Uh- in the revolutionary war, I believe the mother country turned and was turning on the civilians here, inciting Indians (so eloquently phrased as "savages" in the declaration) Please read the "intolerable acts" that were the cause.
Uh- in WWII, we were attacked by the Japanese.
Uh- The first Persian Gulf War: We were not attacked, we were not threatened, April Gillespie of the US State Department told Saddam that the U.S. would take no position on his attacking Kuwait- hence encouraging the pillaging he later did, and uh- there was no DECLARATION OF WAR, hence no successful conclusion, hence a need to return years later and fight a war of choice. That war is costing us money and lives and we still have no declaration of war, and we still have no firm definition of victory. With Germany and Japan, we defined victory as the Unconditional Surrender. We got that and the war ended.
I feel like I lost 7 months of my life in that war, a marriage that failed due to it, and multiple other problems. All wars cause havoc in the lives of soldiers. Some worse (much worse) than others. It is the accepted cost of war and why it is both morally, financially and logically, not smart to engage in a war of choice. BTW: The two criteria that Congress authorized Bush to do there were met in 2004. So why exactly are we still there?
Your logic is flawed.
Uh- no. Ron Paul is a libertarian. You know- kinda like Jefferson and Adams? They are the polar opposite of a populist. The most populist person going now is probably Huckabee.
Uh- in the revolutionary war, I believe the mother country turned and was turning on the civilians here, inciting Indians (so eloquently phrased as "savages" in the declaration) Please read the "intolerable acts" that were the cause.
Uh- in WWII, we were attacked by the Japanese.
Uh- The first Persian Gulf War: We were not attacked, we were not threatened, April Gillespie of the US State Department told Saddam that the U.S. would take no position on his attacking Kuwait- hence encouraging the pillaging he later did, and uh- there was no DECLARATION OF WAR, hence no successful conclusion, hence a need to return years later and fight a war of choice. That war is costing us money and lives and we still have no declaration of war, and we still have no firm definition of victory. With Germany and Japan, we defined victory as the Unconditional Surrender. We got that and the war ended.
I feel like I lost 7 months of my life in that war, a marriage that failed due to it, and multiple other problems. All wars cause havoc in the lives of soldiers. Some worse (much worse) than others. It is the accepted cost of war and why it is both morally, financially and logically, not smart to engage in a war of choice. BTW: The two criteria that Congress authorized Bush to do there were met in 2004. So why exactly are we still there?
Your logic is flawed.
I have to disagree...
The problem with fringe candidates in this country is that they have excellent ideas, the problem is the idiotic party lines are so strong in wanting to get nothing done that they do their best to oust people that want to bring real progress to this country. Paul might not win, but his ideas strike the core of what it means to be American. While everyone else is running around blindly groping for a the popularity/pissing contest, he's at least trying to ring clearly in a sea of noise. It's like a giant high school election, may the dumbest win.
Epyon
P.S: You fail me yet again Starscream!
The problem with fringe candidates in this country is that they have excellent ideas, the problem is the idiotic party lines are so strong in wanting to get nothing done that they do their best to oust people that want to bring real progress to this country. Paul might not win, but his ideas strike the core of what it means to be American. While everyone else is running around blindly groping for a the popularity/pissing contest, he's at least trying to ring clearly in a sea of noise. It's like a giant high school election, may the dumbest win.
Epyon
P.S: You fail me yet again Starscream!
Unregistered
Moderator
Uh, but the Germans and Japanese were already allied. There was pretty much no way to go to war with one without going to war with the other.
- Status