Ron Paul?


PDA






limbaughfan
December 27, 2006, 10:10 PM
What are the chances of him running for president in 2008?
I know he is progun,but what are some of his views on other issues?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GoRon
December 27, 2006, 10:18 PM
I doubt he is any more electable as a Republican than he was as a Libertarian.

Zedicus
December 27, 2006, 10:24 PM
If he tried to run, their would be far to many ready willing and able to sabotage any chances he might have.
(Anti-Gun, Neo-Con, Liberal etc)

he would have a better chance at trying for Governor.

limbaughfan
December 27, 2006, 10:45 PM
id like to see him run

Zundfolge
December 27, 2006, 11:03 PM
I doubt he is any more electable as a Republican than he was as a Libertarian.
I'd say even less ... too many Republicans would think he was some sort of raving liberal because of his stances on abortion, drug legalization and censorship.

Car Knocker
December 28, 2006, 12:11 AM
A snowflake in a fire would have a better chance.

limbaughfan
December 28, 2006, 12:16 AM
thats a shame a real shame

earplug
December 28, 2006, 12:19 AM
The problem, is he won't give away your taxes to others in payment for votes.
Democrats and Republicans are happy to give away other peoples money to buy votes.

Libertylover
December 28, 2006, 01:50 AM
Better chance at being elected governor? I'd like to take this chance to invite him to NH!

LAK
December 28, 2006, 08:51 AM
He would be shut out of the ring by the ringmasters - like Patrick Buchanan. If you don't get to debate the other two WWF stars on national TV you are not going to make it.

I would like to see him run for Texas governor. Come to think of it, I would like to see Suzanna Gratia Hupp run for governor as well. Either in the WH or governor seat in Texas would be a major step in the right direction.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

RealGun
December 28, 2006, 09:08 AM
id like to see him run - limbaughfan

Any poster who can't be bothered to use punctuation, capital letters, and sentence structure is added to my ignore list. I guess it is a generation thing. IM style is not appropriate here in my opinion, nor are zippy little one liners. I don't intend to be unfriendly here but I would be looking for whether any real substance was added...something worth reading. Without some reasonable composition, you invite me not to take your posts seriously or to bother reading them.

GoRon
December 28, 2006, 09:46 AM
IM style is not appropriate here in my opinion, nor are zippy little one liners

I agree about the IM style but not the one liner. He is a non starter for President.

I wasted a vote for him as President once already in the late 80's.

Running for Governor is a great idea, after a governorship he might be able to mount an effective Presidential run.

rhubarb
December 28, 2006, 10:29 AM
Ron Paul is a great American.

As such, he has little chance of succeeding in national American politics and only half a chance in Texas.

DigitalWarrior
December 28, 2006, 02:45 PM
I would love the chance to say, "Welcome to New Hampshire, Mr. Paul."!

mohican
December 28, 2006, 03:22 PM
It is very rare for someone to go from Rep to President. Eisenhower?

It is slightly less rare for a Senator to become president. (I think JFK was the last sitting senator to become president?)

Govenors have an easier run at the presidency for several reasons. Running a state is seen as running a country in miniature.

MechAg94
December 28, 2006, 04:16 PM
Governors generally have to actually accomplish something to be considered a success. They also have to work with legislators from each party, delegate authority, and hire/appoint people who can also accomplish something and then step aside and let them do so. Micromanagement is rarely successful.

Senators don't have to actually DO anything to get reelected. They just have to oppose everything to get their name in the news and send pork home. Not the same thing as effectively running a campaign for President. I read somewhere that Senators often micromanage and sink their own campaigns when trying to run for President.

Ron Paul would have to show he can run for Governor first. If he set himself up with the right message, he might be able to. Much of what he believes is right in line with most Texans IMHO. I am happy to say that he is my Representative.

Geronimo45
December 28, 2006, 04:31 PM
Party electors usually want somebody who is ELECTABLE. That means somebody who appeals to the other side as well. There are moderate GOPers who would thow a fit if he was selected and vote Dem. Then the Dems would say how he was going to steal the food from the little children's mouths, seniors would be eating dogfood, etc.

I'd love for him to be president, though. Seems to be very solid... but a lot of folks won't like him - some Christian groups, I expect.

limbaughfan
December 28, 2006, 04:41 PM
What is Ron Paul's Position on smoking bans?

Hutch
December 28, 2006, 04:45 PM
Mohican, Ike didn't hold ANY elective office prior to the Presidency, unless you count being president of Columbia University.

JFK was the last sitting Senator to make it. Governors and former governors seem to have a much easier time of it. Dubya, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR all come to mind. Prob'ly more.

Phetro
December 28, 2006, 06:41 PM
I wasted a vote for him as President once already in the late 80's.

When you vote, you vote for tyranny, unless you vote for someone that absolutely supports liberty and the Constitution as written, like Ron Paul. Thus, this was the one vote you ever cast that was not wasted, because it was borne of principle rather than capitulation to a corrupted system.

Zedicus
December 28, 2006, 07:25 PM
What is Ron Paul's Position on smoking bans?

His Position on 99% of things is that you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Zundfolge
December 28, 2006, 07:41 PM
limbaughfan, go here -> http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

mordechaianiliewicz
December 28, 2006, 07:53 PM
Ron Paul is the BEST Congressman ever.

My fiancee has been pressuring me to move to Texas after we graduate from college, and I would love to on just general principle. Too bad we wouldn't be in Paul's District. I would be very honored to vote for the man.

I would hope he would run for Governor. I would be very proud to vote for him as the Governor.

(By the way, I did seriously mean he is the best Congressman ever)

Glockamolie
December 28, 2006, 08:31 PM
I love seeing Ron Paul threads, as I always get to say my $.02: Dr. Paul was my Mother's doctor, and he delivered me in Freeport, Texas in 1972. I came into this world in good hands! :)

CornCod
December 28, 2006, 08:47 PM
I am not a libertarian, but I am a big fan of Ron Paul. He is an honest guy. Maybe one of the last honest men in American politics.

limbaughfan
December 28, 2006, 08:52 PM
I checked his voting record, it seems he voted aghinst some pro gun legislation

hoji
December 28, 2006, 09:05 PM
He voted against the "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" on very sound Constitutional grounds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html

He is one of the only true pro gun Congressman. This has been a major point of contention with the NRA for me.

Read the link, then, name a more pro gun Congressman.:scrutiny:

Zundfolge
December 28, 2006, 09:06 PM
He voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act because he believed it was unconstitutional for the Fed.Gov to interfere in such matters. Not because he believed these law suits were a good thing.

EDIT: Damn ... instaposted by hoji :p

Zedicus
December 28, 2006, 09:33 PM
Ron Paul is not just a Pro-Gun Politician, he is a "Constitutional Purist" who follows the US Constitution to the letter just as he should.

limbaughfan
December 28, 2006, 11:58 PM
yep

Autolycus
December 29, 2006, 04:47 AM
If ever he decides to run for President he has my vote.

cuchulainn
December 29, 2006, 06:23 AM
He's not going to run.

LAK
December 29, 2006, 06:33 AM
RE: pro gun voting

Just because the current "gun lobby" or others are pushing a bill and call it "pro gun" does not necessarily means it is constitutional or in the interests of those who own firearms. I could cite examples other than that noted by hoji. I would have voted against and actively opposed them as well.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

cuchulainn
December 29, 2006, 07:09 AM
The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is constitutional.

It involves proper use of the Interstate Commerce clause (yes, most uses in recent decades have been wrong) -- the feds are stopping people from abusing state courts to disrupt free commerce between the states.

Should tort reform be left up to the states -- I'd say yes in most cases. But when tort becomes a means to disrupt interstate commerce, no. That's a federal issue. This is consistent with the SCOTUS decision in the pro-gun decision United States v. Lopez, which limits federal insterstate commerce actions to regulating:


the channels of commerce,
the instrumentalities of commerce, and
action that substantially affects interstate commerce (at issue here).

Did SCOTUS get it wrong in United States v. Lopez? Why?

Should it be OK to use New York law to stop commerce between Alabama and Mississippi? That's what the anti-gun lawsuits are trying to do -- put an industry out of business, even in states where the business is welcome.

P.S. the link to the Lew Rockwell page doesn't address the constitutional issues much at all besides vague reference -- it's simply Paul's diatribe against increasing federal powers. I mostly agree with Paul on that, but he doesn't address the constitutional issues.

xd9fan
December 30, 2006, 06:22 AM
God if there EVER was a cause for cloning....

Deavis
December 30, 2006, 07:32 AM
action that substantially affects interstate commerce

I would agree with you except that in Raich they used that exact phrase to justify the entire WOD could be compromised by medicinal pot that is aquired with a state issued license in limited quantity. I'm sorry, that is not how I envision substancially affecting interstate commerce. I do not think that the interestate commerce clause was intended to be expanded in the way that it has been since Wickard.

Further, I don't see how the lawsuits in NY are affecting the gun trade in Alabama. Glock and all those companies can stop selling in NY and avoid all the issues until NY changes its laws. The laws of NY are not forbidding the sale of guns between Alabama and Mississippi. Maybe you can elaborate a bit since I'm not on the same page as you are?

cuchulainn
December 30, 2006, 01:11 PM
Further, I don't see how the lawsuits in NY are affecting the gun trade in Alabama. Because the gun companies are small to medium sized business that cannot absorb the costs of multiple lawsuits in multiple states -- even by settling. Big-time lawsuits are designed to put them out of business everywhere, not just in the states where the suits are brung.

The laws of NY are not forbidding the sale of guns between Alabama and Mississippi. They are when the New York and other states' court systems are being abused in ways that threaten to put companies out of business.

The anti-gun lawsuits are nothing short of predatory. They are designed -- specifically -- to severely damage gun companies' abilities to take part in interstate commerce.

They are a purposeful attack on interstate commerce.

I do not think that the interestate commerce clause was intended to be expanded in the way that it has been since Wickard.The commerce clause has been abused for decades. That's wrong. It should be stopped.

However, it was intended to allow the feds to step in when states or organizations were acting in bad-faith in deliberate attempts to harm interstate commerce. That's what we have with the anti-gun lawsuits.

telomerase
December 30, 2006, 02:45 PM
I wasted a vote for him as President once already in the late 80's.

If you had voted for either of his opponents your vote would have been worse than wasted!

cbsbyte
December 30, 2006, 03:11 PM
I still can't believe Ron Paul is associated with the Republican party after the current fisco. Hopefully he will change his mind and become an independent.

GoRon
December 30, 2006, 03:13 PM
I still can't believe Ron Paul still wants to be associated with the Republican party after the current fisco. Hopefully he will change his mind and become an independent.

He has more influence now (little as it is) than he did as a libertarian or than he would have as an independent.

cbsbyte
December 30, 2006, 03:26 PM
He has more influence now (little as it is) than he did as a libertarian or than he would have as an independent.

To bad since I can not vote for a Republican, even if they are at odds with the current Adminstration. Since they will have to toe the party line at some point, and I rarely agree with the current GOP party line.

telomerase
December 30, 2006, 04:38 PM
I still can't believe Ron Paul still wants to be associated with the Republican party

No one of good faith wants to be associated with either "major" party. But as long as there are straight-ticket voting and lazy people in TX, you won't see many independents elected.

Fleetwing1627
December 31, 2006, 10:31 PM
Didn't Ron Paul run in 2004 but withdraw from the race because he knew it would be a waste of money? Or perhaps that was 2000. He is a very intelligent man and knows that he can do more good in Congress and with his writing (he writes for lewrockwell.com fairly often).

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!