Why are the Republicans so worried about Ron Paul?

U

Unregistered

Moderator
I am a little confused why so much attention is being paid to Ron Paul lately by people supporting the more mainstream candidates. Especially on internet forums, it seems there are many people trying to discredit him through various unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.

The recent thread associating Ron Paul with racists is one example, but there has been a tremendous amount of factual distortion about Ron Paul's views on various things.

Are Republicans really worried that a man who is polling at only 5% might really cause an upset in their primary? I don't understand the hositility. He's not going to win the nomination, and if he did, Hillary would crush him in a general election. Why are Republicans spending so much time worrying about this guy?
 
Boredom? If the debate last night was anything to go by the whole republican party is attempting to bore the opposition to death.
 
I think some Republicans are more irritated by Ron Paul than actually worried about him getting the nomination. That said, many are worried about him saying inconvenient but sensible things at televised debates, which tend to show up some of the others for the panderers they are! Paul is right that according to the US Constitution, only the Congress can declare war, and that bombing or invading another country is an act of war. Of course, this has been ignored by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. As it stands today, the Constitution appears to be viewed by many as just an outmoded relic, like the Geneva Convention on torture. Ron Paul is the only guy who seems to think the Constitution says what it means and that it should still be followed.
 
In my day to day life I flip between Morning Joe and CSPAN.I usually watch Special Report on Fox.Will flip to Blitzer or Matthews or Lou Dobbs to see who they have on.Can't stand Keith Olberman because all he wants to talk about is Bill O'Reilly.Anyhow,I watch a lot of news.

But,if it wasn't for this forum I probably would have completely overlooked RP,as the polls indicate everybody else has.

I think the RP posts are interesting but completely trivial.
 
Why are Republicans spending so much time worrying about this guy?
Click to expand...

Because he is telling the truth. What they have been doing only makes sense if what he says is not true. It is true though.. that's why they resort to personal attacks and straw-man arguments.

Why do people on internet forums try to discredit him? I think it's because they want to believe certain things and RP makes it hard to do that because what he is saying doesn't match up with what they want to believe. I'll give an example.. many people don't want to hear the things he says about 9/11 because they want to think that the US always does good and never does evil things. What he says is true, so they have to say that RP thinks "it was an inside job".
 
Why are Republicans spending so much time worrying about this guy?
Click to expand...

They arent. RP is a kook. I used to support him, sent dontations and liked what the said so much, that I invited some friends over to watch the debates with me and my wife. Thought it might be a good way to convert someone. This was the first debate. When Paul said we the US were responsible for 9/11. My jaw hit the floor, as did my guests. RP's belief in this was further solidified with the 9/11 truthers video on youtube.

The man is a tinfoil loon, and I dont care that he knows and respects the constitution, I do not want a wack a loon in the center seat. I will not support Ron Paul. Wont happen
 
I was watching the latest debate last night, and I got really annoyed by Paul.

In theory and policy, I think I see eye-to-eye with him, but damn-all if that man isn't the most annoying creature on the face of the earth!

He asks rhetorical questions or just lists "bad" things instead of offering constructive solutions to problems. Good grief, last night I was tempted to get out the high tensile tin foil to protect me from the IRS, Federal Reserve and globalist oil corporations brainwasher machines.

If he would take more of a Tancredo-like tone and drop his whiney voice when he comes to debates (and not end every statement on an "up" tone like a question!), he might do better, but right now he's nothing more than an alarmist IMO.
 
They don't like him pointing out their hypocrisy.
Also, they actually believe they can win in '08 (haha) and are afraid a third party campaign might cost them the white house.
 
He did say it, he implied it, and whats worst is that he actually thinks it and so do others. That sealed his fate. I dont care what words he used, that is what he meant, implied. The man is a kook
 
I expect that they don't want to end up with the ~6-10% of the Republican party that likes heavy isolationism going out of the party. They remember Perot.

In between now and the actual candidate selections, he could also end up splitting a lot of support of a nonstatist Republican and give the nomination to Rudy or Romney, which would not be much better than just letting the Democrat win.
 
To be considered a fringe extremist because he believes in the United States Constitution and wants to reign in the current government to within it's constitutional boundaries is a clear indication that we are not the people our Founders hoped we'd remain or become.
 
Paul = Perot

It is SOP for the Clinton machine to vigorously support a third party candidate in the opposition party. So far Paul has fulfilled her needs without cost. Spinelessrepublicans on the other hand will not tolerate one of their so-called own splitting the vote. Paul is on borrowed time.
 
I'm tired of this "Ron Paul is an isolationist" nonsense. He is a non-interventionist. There's a big difference between those two. North Korea is isolationist, almost every other country besides the US is non-interventionist. Why can't the US act like all other countries?

Edit: That was a rhetorical question. The US can't act like all other countries and be non-interventionist because they have an empire to maintain.
 
I believe it's a form of psychological coping with guilt. The Thompson, Guiliani, and McCain supporters KNOW darned good and well that Paul is right on nearly everything, and is the only conservative in the race (except maybe Hunter & Huckabee), and they envy his principles. They feel guilty for selling their souls to a candidate "who can win", so they try to discredit Paul to make themselves feel better about supporting mediocrity (or worse).
 
Why:

Paul = Perot
Click to expand...

So, I've made up my mind: I'm going to donate to Paul and vote for him in the primary. However, I will not defect with him for a third party candidacy; I'll still vote for the Republican in the likely event it's not him. My rationale? the mainstream Republicans are a bland lot, and I really don't care about the nuances of one getting the pro-life vote or the other one getting the pro-family vote. Whichever one is nominated will get my anti-Hillbama vote.:D But, by jumping on the RP bandwagon for the primary, I feel like I'm sending the Party the message to come back to it's roots.

Why else:

RP makes Republicans choose painfully between their patriotic support-the-troops gut feelings and their love of the Constitution. Losing sucks. I don't ever want to be told I was fighting an unjust war, or to have fought in a war we lose! In fact, my gut feeling would be damn LOAC, damn democracy building, and just sterilize Iraq and take the oil for our trouble. But fortunately, I'm ruled by reason and not gut feeling.:) RP is right about the war and the Constitution. I'd just rather WIN first and then promise to let Congress declare war next time.;)
 
He's right on several things that have to hurt if you are a big-government Republican. He is also an easy target when he is so wrong on other things - like when he says that 911 was not the same as being attacked by "a country" so it's not a war. It's called asymmetrical warfare for a reason, but Ron Paul is apparently thinking that since lining up 100 yards apart and patiently firing muskets at one another was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for all time. News bulletin for Ron Paul supporters: jihadists are not prone to respect "non-interventionists" or "isolationists" or whatever you want to call someone who waits to be attacked. They are the enemy and they are at war with us whether they wave one national flag, no flag, or several flags at their convenience, and whether we like it or not.
 
I am a little confused why so much attention is being paid to Ron Paul lately by people supporting the more mainstream candidates. Especially on internet forums, it seems there are many people trying to discredit him through various unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
Click to expand...

Hmm i was wondering about his supporters with their unsubstantiated claims and innuendo . it seems any post or thread that questions "the great paul " is a smear campaign from the " neocons " the " rinos " the whatever . I honestly dont know so please enlighten me with the usefull legeslation that paul has sponsered over his carrear , after all if its fair to ask of thompson , gullionni , obama , hildibeast , ect its fair to ask of paul . Just what has he sponsored that has passed , and if you feel the need to tell me about the bills he has sponsored that did not pass , please explain how he would be more effective as a president than a legislator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top