Ron Paul: why he could win.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...


Am I correct in summarizing your post to say: If you don't support Ron Paul you support the collapse of the nation?:confused:
 
No. I was extrapolating from G-CYMs statement about RP opposers being against Clinton.

You may support whomever you want. I just hope you have a better reason than they are not Hillary. In other words a positive reason to support them.
Now, regarding the collapse of the nation: The nation will survive, it is our constitution that is in jeopardy.
The effect of voting for someone that does not support the constitution is less support for the constitution. As I have said in previous posts, it does not have to be Paul. It's just that Paul is the only one ACTIVELY PROMOTING the constitution at this time.
Let me use an example outside of politics.
Some people support keeping marijuana illegal. A side affect of this is illegal marijuana farms in the national forests here in northern CA. These areas are dangerous for users of the forests, and these farms create environmental damage to the area.
Now, the keep drugs illegal crowd do not support these illegal farms, but their policies allow for these to exist.

Summarizing: Supporting that which creates the bad stuff is what gets you the bad stuff, even if you don't support the bad stuff.
 
Ah yes. LEGALIZE POT. That's one of the biggest issues the local Ron fans yell about. And probably why a lot latched onto it.

I don't think I've ever seen a promotion of Ron Paul that didn't drift into legalizing pot at some point.
 
Manedwolf,
You either did not understand, or deliberately ignored, my point. I did not advocate legalizing pot. I merely pointed out ONE of the many negative side effects that result from making it illegal. And if you don't like that example, how about what happened when alcohol was illegal. And note, prohibition was done constitutionally. It got so bad that the amendment had to be rescinded.
It does not matter what your good intentions are, you really should pay attention to the actual results, preferably with an open mind.
 
And this pot discussion is really a digression. I was merely using it to demonstrate my point that you don't have to support something just because it is the result of something you do support. But you really should recognize the cause and effect.
 
"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.
Click to expand...

Not so. We support plenty. I personally support Mike Huckabee, and will vote for him in the primaries. To me that will be a true win if he makes it.

BUT. In the eventuality that someone like Rudy, McCain, or Romney get them nomination, my cause is lost. From that point, I must cut my losses and go for the least damaging option, and that will be indeed to oppose Hillary.

I don't believe in screwing myself even faster by supporting a lost cause. I'm a realist. I'll hope for the best, but make preparations for the worst. RP fanatics seem to be throwing all of their hopes on a lost cause, and letting it take them down even when it's obvious it will only hurt everyone faster.

Go ahead and vote for RP in the primaries. Go with your heart. I'll be voting for Mike Huckabee. But once they both lose and it's Hillary or Rudy, don't think for a minute letting Hillary win is in any way the right thing to do.
 
If you don't vote for Ron Paul because you don't agree with him, that's one thing. And I won't waste my breath trying to convince you why he's the only candidate worthy of support. But if you don't vote for Ron Paul because you believe that he's a "lost cause" and that he can't win, well then, all I have to say to you is that you are part of the problem..stop whining about how he can't win and help him do so!!
 
If you don't vote for Ron Paul because you don't agree with him, that's one things. But if you don't vote for Ron Paul because you believe that he's a "lost cause" and that he can't win, well then, all I have to say to you is that you are part of the problem..stop whining about how he can't win and help him do so!!
Click to expand...

I won't vote for him:
1. I have a general distrust of politicians, I have a much deeper distrust of politicians who switch parties for convenience and because they know their party has no chance of winning.
2. He spent a long time in office and has never headed a major committee.
3. He has no history of getting any major legislation passed dealing with securing a pro gun position.
4. Numbers two and three tell me he didn't have the support of his peers. If they didn't support him; why should I?
5. He was/is a Libertarian there is too much within that party that I don't agree with, first and foremost their drug stance.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that anti-abortion fringe, the pro-gun fringe, the pro-family fringe, the limited-government fringe, the lower-taxes fringe, the anti-illegal-immigration fringe, the Constitutionalist fringe, and all those other "fringes" that make up 90% of the tapestry of conservative republicans in the nation.
 
1. I have a general distrust of politicians, I have a much deeper distrust of politicians who switch parties for convenience and because they know their party has no chance of winning.
2. He spent a long time in office and has never headed a major committee.
3. He has no history of getting any major legislation passed dealing with securing a pro gun position.
4. Numbers two and three tell me he didn't have the support of his peers. If they didn't support him; why should I?
5. He was/is a Libertarian there is too much within that party that I don't agree with, first and foremost their drug stance.
Click to expand...

You're misinformed. He never switched parties.

Starting in the 1970's Ron Paul held a seat in Congress as a Republican, then he resigned (as citizen legislators should do from time to time) and returned to private life. During that period, he did run for President as a Libertarian candidate in '88, but he kept his affiliation with the Republican party even during his candidacy. 9 years later, still a Republican, he ran for office in 1997. He has been in Congress since then.

So when was the party switch?

If most of Congress doesn't support him, that's all the MORE reason I should support him. They think he'll end their gravy train, and his refusal to accept his lavish Congressional pension tells them for sure he means it.

A Paul administration would not be busy trying to tell people that growing a pot plant is interstate commerce, and gungrabbers would have to find a new alternative to following on the legal trails blazed by drug warriors.
 
Ron Paul is the best conservative candidate.

He is right about the economy. He is right about forgein policy.

Proper governance has not changed with the times. He is closer to the founding fathers than any president in over one hundred years. He could undo in four years what our globalist presidents and congresses have done in 80 to 100 years. Of course, there have been other true conservative candidates, such as Michael Peroutka and Howard Phillips as well as others.

The dogma of the lesser of two evils has to be put aside if we are ever going to keep from losing any more freedoms and regain those lost. In reality we can never lose a right. We lose the ability to freely exercise that right.

More later.....
 
The guy is a nut job! I would like to see Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo get the nomination. They won't. I think the best hope is with Thompson.
 
Ron Paul is apparently an irritant. Especially so if you're into the same stuff you've had since you were born. For me that started with Nixon through Bush. What is fascinating to me is that people now believe that we must have standing armies in 138 countries to protect our national interests. South Korea has had since 1952 to build a decent army but why would they? Why would anybody who falls under the umbrella of American protection bother to spend their own tax dollars building an army when we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our own?

Besides- we don't have to station an army in a country to protect it. I remember during the decade of the 1990's I was involved in this little experiment at Fort Bragg called the 82nd Airborne Division whose purpose in life was a concept called "Force Projection". While a little more difficult than having them already there, it is a credible threat (meaning an ability to make theat an reality) that causes aggression to take pause.

I like the concept of a gold standard currency and such a concept would likely work as explained by Ron Paul. Keep the Federal Reserve notes and the Federal Reserve. All you have to do is make Gold and Silver a competing and legal currency and let people decide which they want to use. You can invest your retirement in gold, or you can invest it Federal reserve notes. You pick and let's see where people want to put their money.

While I like Ron Paul and will be casting my vote for him in Texas' primary (and sending him contributions again on the next big funding day on the 16th), I am happy to support Mike Huckabee as well and perhaps the most conservative candidate on the ticket alongside Paul and Tancredo (whom I also like). It seems as if the media has selected the most liberal of folks to be the tier 1 candidates and the true conservatives are relegated to also rans. I can understand support of Tancredo and Huckabee on this board and to a much lesser extent, Thompson (hey- he sounds like Regan if you don't look at his voting record), but for the life of me, I cannot figure out why anybody who would frequent this board would support Romney or Guillianni except that they have been labled as "the most electable" just like John Kerry was picked in '04. We can see what a great job that did the Democrats.
 
LOL Thompson. The most half-assed candidate I've seen in years, offering us more of the same we've had for the last 8...no thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top