Ron Paul: why he could win.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I am saying is that the Former President Ronald Reagan has not endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination unless a psychic was used.
 
Oh, I see. But you do realize no one said that, right?

And you are aware Ronald Reagan (while he was alive of course) did endorse RP as a candidate?

Also, I am curious, who do you think is the best GOP candidate?
 
Using a past endorsement from someone who is dead is a bit misleading since he can no longer retract that endorsement after hearing Ron Paul spout off his rhetoric at a Republican debate. I don't think Ronald Reagan would endorse Ron Paul for the Republican nomination in fact I think Reagan would in fact denounce Paul as a candidate after seeing his positions on Iraq, FBI, FDA, IRS, Homeland Security, just to name a few.
 
No reason to think so. They're all positions he held himself if you recall.

I like pointing that out to folks like yourself; If Reagan were running for office today he'd be ostracized as an out-of-the-mainstream weirdo. All the reverence for his leadership notwithstanding.

Now sit there and honestly say to me that you'd support someone who talks like this:

I've always believed that a lot of the trouble in the world would disappear if we were talking to each other instead of about each other.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government.

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace.

The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

In the weeks immediately after the (Beirut) bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. If we did that, it would say to the terrorists of the world that all it took to change Americans foreign policy was to murder some Americans. If we walked away, we'd also be giving up on the moral commitment to Israel that had originally sent our marines to Lebanon. We'd be abandoning all the progress made during almost two years of trying to mediate a settlement in the Middle East. We'd be saying that the sacrifice of those marines had been for nothing. We'd be inviting the Russians to supplant the United States as the most influential superpower in the Middle East. After more than a year of fighting and mounting chaos in Beirut, the biggest winner would be Syria, a Soviet client. Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there....
In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:


-The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.


-If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.


-Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)


-Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
Click to expand...

I know you wouldn't, because you spend all your free time denouncing the one guy in the race who talks like this.
 
If Porky Pig were running for thr nomination, he would stand more of a chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. :barf: :rolleyes:
 
Ron Paul is most definitely not a "middle of the road" candidate. He's probably the most radical candidate currently running in the race for president.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that, he's one radical sandwich short of a picnic.

Despite that (or perhaps because of it) Ron Paul has supporters in almost all political camps. Conservatives will vote for him. Libertarians will vote for him. Liberals will vote for him. Centrists will vote for him. Anarchists (it they'll vote at all) will vote for him. Probably the only bunch that wouldn't vote for Ron Paul would be Authoritarians.
Click to expand...

Ok, so he has the support of the loon base.


No other candidate has such a broad spectrum of support. No other candidate can unite persons from such diverse groups.
Click to expand...

Who has he united? He's taken the fringe from all parties.

This gives him an advantage over all the rest. Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul is a uniter...not a divider.
Click to expand...

Loons unite:rolleyes:


The other candidates will divide the vote sharply along partisan lines. Ron Paul has no such handicap.
Click to expand...

He's been unable to garner much is any support from his peers while in office.


I guess on the plus side he was able to win the nomination against Frank Zappa in 88:rolleyes:
 
Xnavy,

Ron Paul's positions havent changed any since Reagan was alive, so Reagan would have been well aware of how her felt.

Also, you didnt answer the question I asked about who you support for president. Who do you think should get the nomination?
 
Unregistered,
He's not gonna say. Probably some third-tier loser like Tancredo or Hunter who doesn't have a prayer unless he can bring down Paul.
 
I was just trying to get a feel for who the people opposed to RP support... so far, it seems to me they mainly support Giuliani, which would make since, as Giuliani's authoritarianism would diametrically opposed to Paul's libertarianism.
 
I was just trying to get a feel for who the people opposed to RP support... so far, it seems to me they mainly support Giuliani, which would make since, as Giuliani's authoritarianism would diametrically opposed to Paul's libertarianism.
Click to expand...

I can tell you for me it won't be Rudy or Ron. Right now I'm looking a Thompson or possibly Huckabee. I just don't get the whole cheerleader approach to supporting a candidate. IMO it just makes the RP supporters look desperate; trying to get someone elected that they know in the back their minds doesn't have a chance. So far this is the only candidate I see on a widespread basis with cheerleaders.
 
IMO it just makes the RP supporters look desperate; trying to get someone elected that they know in the back their minds doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...

Desperate? Oh, it's well beyond that. Some of the local ones have been showing up places wearing "V" costumes. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know what a V costume is. Is it kind of like the dress that Giuliani wears when he participates in transvestite beauty contests?

Manedwolf who are you supporting for Pres?
 
How many times do I have to say this, I haven't decided who I am going to vote for. I do know that I won't be voting for Ron Paul. I will vote for whoever gets the nomination because I can't stand by and not cast a vote against Hillary. I would like to see Huckabee or Thompson get the nod.

Rudy and Romney are not conservatives they lean left and are trying to portray themselves as conservatives. How can anyone think that 2 candidates who were elected in Liberal states like NY and MASS. could be anything but liberals. They were elected in liberal states and that is all I need to know about both of them. They will not get my vote during the primary. I will most likely vote for Huckabee or Thompson during my states primary provided it isn't already wrapped up by then.

I don't have to worry about Ron Paul or voting for him since the only place he is going is out of the race.
 
They dress like the character in "V for Vendetta", with the Guy Fawkes mask and hat and cape. Like children. Oh, yeah, and another bunch has taken to wearing fake FBI jackets that say "Tyranny Response Team" on the back.

Really mature individuals. Not at all in need of an intervention or serious medication.
 
You mean "name recognition", not "support". "Support" = committed voters, volunteers, donors, and straw poll voters.
Click to expand...

No, I mean likely Republican voters. Rasmussen shows Huckabee running second in Iowa.

In New Hampshire, Hukabee is polling 10% to Ron Paul's 4%.

but Dr. Paul has endorsements from Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Michael Badnarik, Michael Scheuer, Barry Goldwater jr, Chuck Baldwin, Jim Klymer, Kinky Friedman, David Letterman....and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan is dead. (I watched his funeral procession so I am pretty sure about this).

When did Pat Buchanan endorse Ron Paul? All I saw was his web admin. running a Ron Paul video. Did Buchanan make a formal endorsement?

Kinky Friedman? Who cares.

David Letterman? His endorsement of Paul was from 1988!

And speaking of donations, how's that coming along? I understand he picked up 1 million last quarter. How's he doing this quarter? 'Cuz Paul picked up over 5 million last quarter and is already edging 8 million this quarter.
Click to expand...

Yep, and Steve Forbes had unlimited funds. He didn't win the nomination either. Huckabee's fundraising is up 50% since the endorsement from Norris. An endorsement from Norris will help Huckabee to a great extent in the great center of the USA. How is a 10 year old endorsement from David lettermen, or from an odd ball like Kinky Friedman going to help Ron Paul?

Nice to know. Maybe soon he'll have actual attendees at his speaking engagements and he'll start performing on par with Paul in the straw polls.
Of course, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I doubt the Huckabee will coast along, polling at 4% (despite ample funding) as Ron Paul has in the current Iowa polls. The straw polls are fun, but essentially meaningless. The Iowa caucus results count, not the straw poll.

Every penny donated to Ron Paul is a wasted penny that could have gone to a potential winner like Huckabee.
 
I was just trying to get a feel for who the people opposed to RP support... so far, it seems to me they mainly support Giuliani, which would make since, as Giuliani's authoritarianism would diametrically opposed to Paul's libertarianism.
Click to expand...

That's an incorrect assumption. It seems to me that RP "opposers" mainly support not having another President Clinton for the rest of time.


Another question, why do all the RP supporters take anyone and anything who has a realistic view of the election as a personal insult? Anyone who says "statistically, Ron Paul has virtually no chance of wining" is somehow accused of "you just hate RP because he's a threat to your authoritarian power grabbing masters"

That's just absurd. It has nothing to do with hating Ron Paul. RP has less than 5%. Even a nutjob like Perot had more than 3 times as much support, and he still got trounced (and handed the election over to slick Willie).



Maybe there are just more of us out there who care more about how a President Clinton will affect our lives in real life, than we care about how not voting for RP will make us feel dishonorable in some way.

Methinks the same people who talk about valiantly supporting RP and handing the election to Clinton, are the same people who valiantly talk about losing their lives in a hail of bullets with the ATF in their mountain SHTF fortresses.

You go ahead and "die honorably", I'll keep living with no President Clinton, thanks.
 
It seems to me that RP "opposers" mainly support not having another President Clinton for the rest of time.
Click to expand...
That explains things then.
RP supporters are strongly FOR Ron Paul (Or, in my case, strongly for limited, constitutional, government and Paul is the only current candidate pushing that.)
"RP opposers" aren't FOR anyone in particular, they are just AGAINST Hillary.
The net effect of supporting "anyone but Hillary" is that government will continue expanding whether Hillary wins or loses.
 
but Dr. Paul has endorsements from Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Michael Badnarik, Michael Scheuer, Barry Goldwater jr, Chuck Baldwin, Jim Klymer, Kinky Friedman, David Letterman....and the list goes on
Click to expand...

don't believe it for a minute, and he only MAY be endorsed by the liberals on the list....wouldn't surprise me a bit if Friedman and Letterman endorsed him. No way Reagan or Buchanan endorsed him.:barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top