Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred--again
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
- Status
Unregistered
Moderator
I certainly hope we would defend our allies.
This isn't a horse race. Vote for who you want to win, not who you think is going to win. If enough people vote for guys like Ron Paul, at least it sends a message to the Republicans that they better move back toward small government principles.
Or you could keep voting for RINOs, and die of a thousand cuts as they get worse and worse.
Or you could keep voting for RINOs, and die of a thousand cuts as they get worse and worse.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Oh I forgot Thompsons waiting for SC and Gulliani is waiting for FL then their going to start winning."
Big question is...
When is Ron Paul going to start winning?
Or is he being "elected" based on a bell curve or something?
Big question is...
When is Ron Paul going to start winning?
Or is he being "elected" based on a bell curve or something?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Actually, the Germans declared war on the US shortly after the Japanese and prior to the US declaration against Germany.
And the Germans had sunk the USS Reuben James, a WWI destroyer off Iceland in Oct. 1941, before Pearl Harbor, supposedly by mistake. 115 US personnel were killed.
Ron Paul's isolationist ideas wouldn't have helped keep the US neutral in WWII.
Unregistered
Moderator
The big question really is...
How will the Republicans beat Obama in the general election without the support of Ron Paul and his followers?
Paul is getting about 8% of the Republican vote. Now, that sounds like a small number, but remember that elections these days have very close margins. After systematically mocking, disrespecting, and name-calling of Ron Paul voters for the last 6 months, it is no wonder than many RP voters don't plan on voting for anyone except RP. Why did the Republican party choose not to be inclusive?
When the Republicans lose, no doubt they will blame it on RP. He is a convenient scapegoat. But the reality is, the Republican party would seemingly love to dismiss RP and his followers from the party. This is a dumb course of action. The Reps will learn this the hard way.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Uh- but not the Germans..."
Then the stupid SOBs running the "master race" shouldn't have declared war on the United States.
"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."
Sure there was. Great Britain had been doing it for over two years -- fighting Germany but NOT Japan. Great Britain and Japan didn't go to war until December 8, 1941, when the British formally declared war after Japanese attacks against British Pacific bases and interests on December 7 (which were launched in concert with attacks against American bases and interests).
What most people don't know is that they Tripartite Pact, which bound Germany, Japan, and Italy, had NO automatic war triggers when a member of the pact (Japan) attacked a non-warring nation (United States).
The mutual defense clauses only activated when a non-warring nation attacked one of the Tripartite Pact members.
Article Three of the Tripartite Pact:
ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
That bit is one of the biggest blows against people who claim that Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to attack the United States in the Pacific so that it would trigger a war with Germany, which is ultimately what Roosevelt supposedly wanted.
Not a chance. There was absolutely NO guarantee that such a move would trigger a war with Germany.
Then the stupid SOBs running the "master race" shouldn't have declared war on the United States.
"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."
Sure there was. Great Britain had been doing it for over two years -- fighting Germany but NOT Japan. Great Britain and Japan didn't go to war until December 8, 1941, when the British formally declared war after Japanese attacks against British Pacific bases and interests on December 7 (which were launched in concert with attacks against American bases and interests).
What most people don't know is that they Tripartite Pact, which bound Germany, Japan, and Italy, had NO automatic war triggers when a member of the pact (Japan) attacked a non-warring nation (United States).
The mutual defense clauses only activated when a non-warring nation attacked one of the Tripartite Pact members.
Article Three of the Tripartite Pact:
ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
That bit is one of the biggest blows against people who claim that Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to attack the United States in the Pacific so that it would trigger a war with Germany, which is ultimately what Roosevelt supposedly wanted.
Not a chance. There was absolutely NO guarantee that such a move would trigger a war with Germany.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The big question really is...
How will the Republicans beat Obama in the general election without the support of Ron Paul and his followers?"
Soooooooo....
What you're saying is that if Ronnie doesn't get the nomination, or a prize pig cabinet post or something like that, from the Republican nominee, he's just going to order all of his supporters to stay home on election day?
How will the Republicans beat Obama in the general election without the support of Ron Paul and his followers?"
Soooooooo....
What you're saying is that if Ronnie doesn't get the nomination, or a prize pig cabinet post or something like that, from the Republican nominee, he's just going to order all of his supporters to stay home on election day?
Unregistered
Moderator
First, I don't think RP wants a cabinet post in a neo-conservative administration.
Secondly, he won't have to order anyone to do anything. Ron Paul supporters are not stupid, and can tell how Republicans feel about them. Just look through RP threads on this forum and you will see plenty of insults. Watch Fox news and you will see more. There has been an undeniable effort to smear and marginalize him. After the SC primary debate last week Sean Hannity interviewed all candidates except... guess who. The body language and eye-rolling of Romney, Giuliani, and McCain tell me everything I need to know.
I have voted Republican continuously since 1980. I even voted for George W Bush twice. After seven years of fiasco, I think the party is badly broken and in need of a change in direction not dominated by fear and an apparrent desire to make America an empire. I don't think Ron Paul is the ideal candidate to do this. But he is the only one even trying to change things.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Actually, most of the name calling seems to be coming FROM the Ron Paul supporters, not the other way around.
I've yet to hear a Ron Paul supporter make an argument in his favor without using the term "neo-con" to insult any Republican who doesn't support Paul.
The Paul supporters constant use of the leftist buzz words like "neo-cons" and "Bushies" makes me wonder if many of them aren't really just hard-left moveon.org types who have latched onto Ron Paul because of his stand against the war.
You have to admit, much of the rhetoric you hear from the Paul supporters sounds just like something you'd expect to hear from the Huffington Post.
Paul's supporters probably won't be missed much since they're not the types who vote Republican in the first place. In fact, I doubt that many of them ever even vote at all. They don’t seem to be the kind to undertake the sort of long-term trench warfare that American politics demands. Paul’s supporters seem to be so caught on him because they’re the types who are always looking for a “magic bullet” to set everything right in one election. And if they don’t see that opportunity, they just stay home.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, referring to someone as a "neocon" is not calling him a name. Neoconservatism is a recognized ideology that is different from traditional conservatism (a.k.a. "paleoconservatism") in some key ways:cool hand luke said:
(1) Strong support for overseas intervention, especially where Israel's interests are at stake (this is the sine qua non of neoconservatism)
(2) Less distrust (and often advocacy) of big government at home
(3) More leftist on social issues (e.g., gun control, immigration)
Even many neocons refer to themselves by that term, though some try to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim that nothing about the GOP or mainstream "conservatism" has changed over the past couple of decades. But the fact remains that neoconservatism is a radical departure from traditional conservatism.
For some historical background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
You think that only leftists disapprove of neoconservatism and Bush?
I guess Pat Buchanan is a leftist then, huh? Have you read any of his writings?
Traditional conservatives like Buchanan and Paul have indeed been marginalized by the GOP, but that hardly makes them (or those of us who agree with them) "liberals." Try to get away from the simplistic, Ann Coulter-esque, black-and-white, "liberal" vs. "conservative" view of the world.
Last edited:
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
You're really just making my point for me. You can't seem to understand that there are what you would most likely call "Paleo-Conservatives" who support other candidates than Ron Paul.
You're the one seeing things in black-and-white here. Apparently to you and other Paul supporters the whole Republican primary election process is one of "us against the eeeevill neo-cons."
Many Paul supporters seem completely unable to counter any argument against his philosophy and/or positions on the issues without merely dismissing them as coming from "bushie neo-cons" who blindly follow "faux news" or "Rush" and who are "against the Constitution" etc.
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, the only thing that separates the average Paul supporter from the average moveon.org member is that the Paul supporter will use the term "Bushie" while the moveon.org types more typically use "shrub."
BTW- As a Paleo-con of 35 years standing I am in complete agreement with Pat Buchannan’s take on the Iraq war and the neo-con agenda. Yet I still think Ron Paul has no business being within 2 miles of the Oval Office. Go figure, huh?
Bottom line:
1. It's possible to be a true conservative and oppose Ron Paul.
2. Paul's supporters don't seem to be able to accept point 1.
The GOP candidates besides Ron Paul are neocons. They subscribe to the neocon agenda. To deny this is like denying that Ted Kennedy is a leftist.
I agree with you, however, that this doesn't necessarily mean that all paleocons must support Paul. In fact, I know of some who supported Tancredo. But I have a hard time imagining why they would not support Paul now that Tancredo is out of the race.
Care to enlighten me? You say you're a paleocon, like I am. That means you believe in small, unintrusive government; no foreign intervention except when clearly necessary to protect the US; US troops out of Iraq; a republic, not an empire; sealed US borders; and above all, rigid adherence to the Constitution.
Which candidate besides Ron Paul has a similar position? Which candidate do you favor, and why?
I agree with you, however, that this doesn't necessarily mean that all paleocons must support Paul. In fact, I know of some who supported Tancredo. But I have a hard time imagining why they would not support Paul now that Tancredo is out of the race.
Care to enlighten me? You say you're a paleocon, like I am. That means you believe in small, unintrusive government; no foreign intervention except when clearly necessary to protect the US; US troops out of Iraq; a republic, not an empire; sealed US borders; and above all, rigid adherence to the Constitution.
Which candidate besides Ron Paul has a similar position? Which candidate do you favor, and why?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Uh, sure, so then why do we get the threads and the RP supporters who talk about how much money RP is raising or how he has beaten other non-performing candidates such as in the OP? For people who know he won't win, y'all sure talk a lot about how much he is winning (even if it is trivial), like it matters.
Oh, like Ross Perot and his spoiling of the Bush Clinton election. That was truly good for the country.
I think RP running as an independent would be a sure way to get Obama or Hillary in the White House.
Funny thing about those messages that candidates deliver that their supporters think the country needs to hear, but the candidates never reach office...their messages die very quickly from memory...almost as if they had never said them at all.
Unregistered
Moderator
Neo-conservatism is not supposed to be a derogatory comment. It is simply a term used to distinguish people from Reagan-style conservatives. It is a political term. It is better to be a Neo-conservative than a liberal or socialist.
But Ron Paul and his followers are called things like Paulestinians (at best) and wack jobs and nuts (at worst). These are not terms that describe a political agenda, but are simply personal insults.
In any case, the Republican party will be unable to win the general election with 8% of its party missing on election day. They should have thought about that before alienating RP voters. Instead, they have torn the party asunder in the primary, without keeping their eyes on the true prize of winning the presidency.
But Ron Paul and his followers are called things like Paulestinians (at best) and wack jobs and nuts (at worst). These are not terms that describe a political agenda, but are simply personal insults.
In any case, the Republican party will be unable to win the general election with 8% of its party missing on election day. They should have thought about that before alienating RP voters. Instead, they have torn the party asunder in the primary, without keeping their eyes on the true prize of winning the presidency.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Neo-conservatism is not supposed to be a derogatory comment."
But yet it IS a derogatory comment when used in the manner that it has often been used here and elsewhere.
It's analagous (sp?) to how some people use the term liberal as a pejorative.
"After systematically mocking, disrespecting, and name-calling of Ron Paul voters for the last 6 months, it is no wonder than many RP voters don't plan on voting for anyone except RP."
Wow. Ron Paul supporters are the ONLY candidate's supporters who have ever been mocked/derided by those allied to other candidates, so that justifies a "I'm going home and taking my vote with me and no one can have it" attitude. Not "Well, no other candidate meets my personal criteria, so in good conscience I can't vote," it's just "Mommy! My feelings is hurted!"
The situation with Ross Perot in 1992 and Ron Paul today isn't similar, either. Perot truly ran as an independent outsider, which Ron Paul has not done. Perot's candidacy was attractive to many who saw a successful businessman who just might be able to apply business principles to goverment to straighten out some of the mess that's out there.
While Ron Paul certainly has his cadre of supporters, he's definitely not an outsider, he's running inside the Republican organizational structure, and he's not being, as far as I can tell, nearly as successful in siphoning the kind of support from both sides that Perot was.
Yes, there are Democrats for Ron Paul. There are also Jews for Jesus, but I suspect that in both cases the percentage is very small in both cases.
Just my 2 cents from someone who is looking at ALL of the candidates on both sides and is filled with the great urge to stuff them all into a large industrial blender...
But yet it IS a derogatory comment when used in the manner that it has often been used here and elsewhere.
It's analagous (sp?) to how some people use the term liberal as a pejorative.
"After systematically mocking, disrespecting, and name-calling of Ron Paul voters for the last 6 months, it is no wonder than many RP voters don't plan on voting for anyone except RP."
Wow. Ron Paul supporters are the ONLY candidate's supporters who have ever been mocked/derided by those allied to other candidates, so that justifies a "I'm going home and taking my vote with me and no one can have it" attitude. Not "Well, no other candidate meets my personal criteria, so in good conscience I can't vote," it's just "Mommy! My feelings is hurted!"
The situation with Ross Perot in 1992 and Ron Paul today isn't similar, either. Perot truly ran as an independent outsider, which Ron Paul has not done. Perot's candidacy was attractive to many who saw a successful businessman who just might be able to apply business principles to goverment to straighten out some of the mess that's out there.
While Ron Paul certainly has his cadre of supporters, he's definitely not an outsider, he's running inside the Republican organizational structure, and he's not being, as far as I can tell, nearly as successful in siphoning the kind of support from both sides that Perot was.
Yes, there are Democrats for Ron Paul. There are also Jews for Jesus, but I suspect that in both cases the percentage is very small in both cases.
Just my 2 cents from someone who is looking at ALL of the candidates on both sides and is filled with the great urge to stuff them all into a large industrial blender...
I got a kick out of seeing what happened after Fox cut Dr. Paul out of their candidates forum. Did anybody watch their stock price? True, all the media outlets took a beating, but Fox took the worst- to the tune of about 6 billion in three days. Ouch! Of course- I am sure that had nothing to do with all those who were advocating boycotts against Fox advertisers. Still, it was an interesting coincidence that Fox had him on the next debate and stock prices went up again.
Look y'all- if you don't like Ron Paul, that's fine. It doesn't matter to me who you vote for. I would hope that you're not just voting for somebody who you've been told "can win" because that's how the Democrats got John Kerry, and that's how the Republicans got Bob Dole. It is after-all a primary. You may vote for whomever you wish. I know who I support and I can give you the detailed reasons why I support him. Not one of those reasons has to do with electability. Go back into TFL archives and you'll find that in 2000, this same debate raged. I supported Alan Keyes and he lost. I am not a bit upset about voting for the man though. I'd do it again.
I'm not a bit upset about supporting my candidate this time around either. Win or lose, I chose the guy who advocates more closely with issues that are important to me and my children's interests IMO.
Unregistered
Moderator
No I didnt say that, so don't put words in my mouth. But Ron Paul supporters have been mocked and derided in this election cycle more than, say, those of McCain and Romney. Disagreeing with reality doe not change it.
And yes, I think being called a wack job or nutcase by someone who then wants your vote is complete justification for not voting for them. Why would I support someone who calls me insulting names and wants me out of the party during the primary?
Every time Mitt Romney rolls his eyes on camera over a Ron Paul comment during a debate, he loses future support from Ron Paul voters.
The reason RP's coming in ahead of Thompson and Gulliani is significant is that both candidates have had alot more media exposure than Paul, most of it free.
In fact just a short time ago Gulliani was the national front runner.
The Gulliani campaign is broke and if Fred Thompson does not win SC he will not have the funds to continue.
Ron Paul has millions upon millions in his war chest and can continue until the convention if he so desires.
Ron Paul's supporters are not made up of moveon.org leftists as it makes some of you comfortable to imagine.
His supporters are made up of people who have watched a President and congress(now in the minority) that they supported and helped get elected move farther and farther away from the ideas and values they hold dear.
Enough is enough our objections will be heard.
If it ends up costing the Republican party the presidential election, maybe they will make a return to the conservative ideas and principles that garnered our support and got them in elected.
In fact just a short time ago Gulliani was the national front runner.
The Gulliani campaign is broke and if Fred Thompson does not win SC he will not have the funds to continue.
Ron Paul has millions upon millions in his war chest and can continue until the convention if he so desires.
Ron Paul's supporters are not made up of moveon.org leftists as it makes some of you comfortable to imagine.
His supporters are made up of people who have watched a President and congress(now in the minority) that they supported and helped get elected move farther and farther away from the ideas and values they hold dear.
Enough is enough our objections will be heard.
If it ends up costing the Republican party the presidential election, maybe they will make a return to the conservative ideas and principles that garnered our support and got them in elected.
- Status