Ron Paul Third Quarter Fundraising

A detailed explanation was given about why Ron Paul would do well in the in the general election against Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the editorial that was linked earlier in the thread, what I read was an opinion piece (as editorials are) that stated lots of general opinions without any supporting facts. Things such as "Only Ron Paul can do this" and "Only Ron Paul can do that." Well, maybe. It remains to be seen. If it's true that only Ron Paul can do those things, he'll get the nomination. If he doesn't get the nomination, he's not the only one who can do those things.

It was interesting that a couple of Dems provided the responses that appeared with the editorial.
 
She'd be happy with a rematch with Rudy, she'd beat him again even if she gave him his testicles back.
Click to expand...

Thats funny because in several national polls, Rudy is edging out hillary when pit against each other in a general election.

Hows Ronnie doing? Oh thats right, polls don't mean anything
 
Anyone old enough to remember Goldwater in ’64? He was a good looking candidate with a message, but the Democratic machine blew him away. He never knew what hit him.

The Stalinist machine backing Hillary, with unlimited money from Soros, is a bunch of tough, hardcore, nasty operatives. Because they don’t control talk radio, they are currently going after Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. If Ron Paul were to get the nomination, he would, IMO, get pounded so badly he would be lucky to carry two states.

Gore lost in 2000 because, while he had a good plan to steal the election, he didn’t think it was necessary to steal the reliably Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. He was wrong. Hillary won’t make the same mistake.

Hillary has 45% negative poll numbers. Any other candidate would be toast. Hillary also has unlimited Soros’ money behind her and a plan. If we fragment looking for the “perfect” candidate, we will kiss the country good bye. Supreme Court? Expect many those geezers to retire and be replaced with hard core Leftists. Gun Control? Watch the big push, especially if Dingy Harry gets his filibuster proof Senate. Immigration? Expect Mexico to export all the people they can. Hillary will give them citizenship. It goes down hill from there.
 
If we fragment looking for the “perfect” candidate
Click to expand...

Then, let us not fragment. Let us together find the candidate who most closely follows the constitution, even if we don't agree with all of his actions, and rally behind him.

My challenge to you.
 
Then, let us not fragment. Let us together find the candidate who most closely follows the constitution, even if we don't agree with all of his actions, and rally behind him.

My challenge to you.
Click to expand...


Let us together find the candidate that will not let us get blowed to hell by islamic terrorists. Everything after that is gravy.
 
Let us together find the candidate that will not let us get blowed to hell by islamic terrorists. Everything after that is gravy.
Click to expand...
That candidate does not exist. There is one candidate who's committed to reducing that activity to the lowest level possible, in my opinion, will that do?
 
Let us together find the candidate that will not let us get blowed to hell by islamic terrorists. Everything after that is gravy.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, anything domestically pales in connection with the International Situation. I agree whole heartedly and right now IMHO that rates as follows

1. Rudy: Balls but too ballsey
2. Hillary: Balls but questionable.
3. Fred: Show me something
4. Romney: Show me something
5. Mcain: Balls but too wacky
6. Obama: Too idealistic/inexperienced and dangerous on those grounds alone.
7. Edwards: Just a fluff and duff idiot
8. Richardson: Who is he anyway
9. Biden/Dodd: Smart/experienced but too soft
10. Paul/Kucinich: Fruitloops from each side of the spectrum.

WildcomeonfredshowuswhatyouaremadeofAlaska TM
 
Again, could someone please tell me why one of the "first tier" Republicans would be better to have in a general election against Hillary.
 
They are more charasmatic.

They are far better at public speaking.

They are more informed about foreign policy.

They don't blame the USA for everything.

They don't constantly whine about neo-cons.

They don't advocate abolishing the CIA and other government departments which provide valuable services to the American public, and which most Americans appreciate.

They don't have a freaky view of what is "constitutional".

They don't support tax-evaders (who were stupid enough to allow the feds inside their homes so that they could be easily arrested rather than being allowed to continue a silly fuss and threaten to shoot federal agents).

I could go on, but I don't have the energy. And no, I'm not going to debate each and every point. You asked for the reasons, and you got 'em. JMHO.

I'm glad that Paul is raising money. We'll see if he can convince the conservative republican base to nominate him. I seriously doubt it, but it ain't over until the fat lady sings.
 
Anyone old enough to remember Goldwater in ’64? He was a good looking candidate with a message, but the Democratic machine blew him away
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the democrats don't have the mafia to rig elections for them anymore. The unions are still blue, but nobody is going to break legs and extort cash for anyone these days.
 
They don't have a freaky view of what is "constitutional".
Click to expand...

Any examples of "freaky views" of what is constitutional held by Ron Paul?

I thought it was kind of freaky when he voted to ban partial birth abortions based on the commerce power of Congress. I'm convinced any of the other candidates would have a view of the commerce power that was more expansive than Ron Paul's, and other than that one vote, he's been pretty solid, in my opinion. Do you have other examples?
 
He thinks the FDA, the SEC, the TSB, the ATF, the FBI, the CIA and the IRS are all unconsitutional and should be done away with, and that's just a start. Tough sell to anyone who knows anything about anything, especially law enforcement and the stock market.

As China has shown, in order to allow free markets you have to have a good buerocracy in order to regulate things and punish malfeasance, otherwise people put lead paint on toys and poison in the dog food.
 
That candidate does not exist. There is one candidate who's committed to reducing that activity to the lowest level possible, in my opinion, will that do?
Click to expand...

Can you sit here with a straight face and tell me that given everything Paul has said about the CIA and governmental agencies in general, that he is going to be aggressive with respect to espionage and counter-terror activities.

Brother Paul believes that the constitution ties the hands of american forces until someone does something to us. Well I don't see that anywhere in there, nor do I believe it.
 
NO, RP's position on the CIA and FBI and such is that despite the billions and billions of dollars thrown at them, they still didnt stop the attacks. Because the agencys dont communicate. He's agaisnt the bumbling nature of the beureocracy of it all.
 
OK, the decision is to be fractured. Oh well, I will make one more attempt. Those of you who do not like the candidate strongest on the constitution, get together and decide on one of the others. Then we supporters of the candidate strongest on the constitution will see if we can stomach your choice.:D
 
Abe Lincoln was a lobbyist for the Illinois Central Railroad, a lifelong Whig, and protégé of Henry Clay. He had a 25 year political history in Illinois and was a congressman as well. He was well and truly wired into the Northeastern industrial establishment.
Click to expand...

Point taken, Pat. However, do you think in the 25 years of political history he NEVER failed? I also questioned his attempts for his accomplishments in is life. I didn't clarify my question. I'm not talking about his political career alone.

I'll give you another example. George Washington made many, many mistakes during his service in the military. Nevertheless, we all know he ended up being a great general. He got his butt handed to him by his adversaries, but eventually ended up on top through perserverence.

Like him or not, I think Paul just might be sticking around longer than we think. I'm not talking about this election alone. Only time will tell. Again, I'm probably not voting for him, but I must admit he's starting out on the right foot....
 
I don't care for Ron Paul, what concerns me is that his following won't endorse the parties nomination after his defeat and we'll get another Ross Perot affect....the man we can thank for Bill Clinton getting elected.
 
Why should that be a concern at all, Rembrandt? His following is tiny, according to the polls, and shouldn't be able to swing the election anyway.
 
I don't care for Ron Paul, what concerns me is that his following won't endorse the parties nomination after his defeat and we'll get another Ross Perot affect....the man we can thank for Bill Clinton getting elected.
Click to expand...

Come on, man. Rosie O'Paul's half a percent following can't swing anything. And most of the kooks are too afraid to leave their trailers at election time anyway. The CIA is watching, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top