I like Ron Paul


PDA






ArmedBear
May 21, 2007, 01:37 PM
That's right.

I like where he stands, I like the man, I like his smile. I like everything about him.

When I have written that I don't think he can beat a Democrat in the Presidential election, that doesn't mean I don't like him. That's also my opinion, as of today, based on what I know, which sure isn't everything!

Here's the deal: when you put together a team, you have different people playing different roles. The best catcher in baseball history wouldn't be the best pitcher; the best home run hitter might be mediocre at best, when playing first base.

I don't know that Paul is the best candidate for President, if he can play THAT aspect of the game and win. Given some of the Presidents we've had, I don't think that winning the election necessarily makes you a great person, anyway. It's not an insult to doubt that someone fits into that role well, when there are millions of roles -- many of them morally better -- in life for people to play.

Ron Paul might take to the Presidential role quite well. Or not. I like that he's in Congress, and I like where he stands, though I can't see that he's had any real influence on legislative outcomes.

Opinions about that, on any side of the issue, are NOT "bashing." They're opinions.

If you enjoyed reading about "I like Ron Paul" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GoSlash27
May 22, 2007, 06:57 AM
Your opinion is duly noted :D Certainly nothing wrong with having one of those.
My opinion is that not only can he beat the Dems, he's the only Republican who can.

MrRezister
May 22, 2007, 07:59 AM
I guess we should vote for someone with better "name recognition", since that's the type of candidate that could conceivably beat a democrat, regardless of how completely we agree with that candidate's position. Is that the argument here? Ron Paul can't possibly win, so therefore we shouldn't vote for him (thus ensuring that he doesn't win)?

You made it clear that you're not sure Paul would make a good Prez, but you didn't make it clear why. If a candidate's stand on the important issues isn't a good enough measure of his electability, what is? His pants size? Haircut? Astrological sign? Shall we wait for some woman lying in a pond to toss cutlery at him before judging him worthy of wielding supreme executive power*?

Just wondering.


*Obligatory nerdy Monty Python reference, I'm allowed one a month.

High Planes Drifter
May 22, 2007, 08:39 AM
I like Ron Paul also.





This thread will wind up getting locked like the other Ron Paul threads have been lately.

tinygnat219
May 22, 2007, 08:51 AM
I actually gave some money to his campaign. I am starting to like him. Of course, I am looking at Bill Richardson too.

helpless
May 22, 2007, 09:11 AM
Donated a lot to his campaign last week thanks to you guys buying my decals!

He will beat the democratic nominee, all he needs to do is debate them and people will see whats up.

GoRon
May 22, 2007, 09:18 AM
This thread will wind up getting locked like the other Ron Paul threads have been lately.
There are 9 threads with Ron Paul in the title, two were closed.

How many Ron Paul threads do we need?

RealGun
May 22, 2007, 09:31 AM
I think one should identify significant voting blocks and how Paul is going to appeal to each of them. I think some stereotyping and speculation is useful in that regard. It is not a good idea to ignore ones instincts or just common sense.

Many of those blocks place no priority at all on many of the reasons Paul enjoys apparent support on THR. Ignore the Hollywood factor at your own peril. It is still a critical concern to pick someone you think can beat the other guy...pick your poison, while counting your blessings. If not, is there a real point to it all, other than self indulgence, and for what? If not planning to mobilize militias or have any call to do so, if things don't go your way, then you have to play the game to make any difference. That is what makes sense to me at least.

Cap all that with it being too early to tell who the viable candidates really are. That will be based upon who can draw contributions in competitive numbers. I don't see Paul doing that. He has not made it his business to be a politician outside of Texas. He like a number of other candidates will have some pulpit time during the primary run, and that will be the end of it.

It is statistically unlikely that the President will come directly from Congress. I look for a Governor who serves the religious right or someone like Fred Thompson to emerge as the GOP front runner. If Thompson runs, then Newt Gingrich runs, both with offsetting lover boy issues that shouldn't really matter, considering Bill Clinton's popularity. I might not like it, but that would be my prediction. Someone starkly different than Democrats is not going to win an election.

Actually, I think George Bush was a good choice and would hope to see someone similar. He sufficiently satisfied exactly the right voting blocks to get elected. Any meaningful changes will come from Congress, so I have a Senate race in SC to get most of my attention (Lindsay Graham needs to get humble).

GoRon
May 22, 2007, 09:53 AM
Bill Richardson just jumped into the race and he meats your criteria from the democrat side. He is certainly less controversial than Hillary Clinton and has substance unlike Obama.

It seems pretty likely Thompson is going to jump into the fray, I'm not so sure about Newt.

Like I have said in other threads, I also like Ron Paul, voted for him in '88 when I was part of the Libertarian (Clown Posse) Party. In his years in congress he has not distinguished himself as presidential material. His voting record alone once made well known to the public will bury him. It doesn't matter that ideologically he was right (well at least a good part of the time).

We will win in small steps and by changing momentum. Libertarians want it all and they want it NOW. That isn't how the system is set up, it is a meat grinder of compromise.

psyopspec
May 22, 2007, 10:15 AM
How many Ron Paul threads do we need?

How many threads on AWB I and II do we need? How many threads any one firearm model? How many on the Brady Campaign?

So long as it stays civil and has a different aspect than previous discussions, what's the problem?

I realize you may see these threads as "clogging" the L&P section, but please be aware there are those of us who are reading them with interest. If it's in the way of your enjoyment, then pick the next topic that catches your eye and move on in peace sir.

GoRon
May 22, 2007, 10:22 AM
I realize you may see these threads as "clogging" the L&P section, but please be aware there are those of us who are reading them with interest. If it's in the way of your enjoyment, then pick the next topic that catches your eye and move on in peace sir.

Actually my point was that there was no censoring of Ron Paul threads and that there are currently 7 active ones.

I don't recall bemoaning the fact that there were too many. Although they all are tending to say the same thing after a while.

High Planes Drifter
May 22, 2007, 10:30 AM
I don't recall bemoaning the fact that there were too many. Although they all are tending to say the same thing after a while.

No they werent. The one I started was asking for someone to provide a link to Ron Pauls' interview on CNN. Thats all it was, I wasnt discussing his views, his beliefs, and I wasnt starting a dabate. Granted, someone provided the link and there was really no need to keep it going, and had it been left alone the thread would have went the way of the Dodo bird on its own. But it didnt need to be shut down, and labelled as "beating a dead horse". As far as the "how many do you need" comment- currently there are 3 AR discussions, 5 AK discussions, 2 M1 Carbine threads going, and the usual/weekly, seemingly endless "SHTF" rifle - All going on over in the rifle country forum.

Edited to be more civil

Chui
May 22, 2007, 10:44 AM
I think he could be a successful president only if the people of the US return to studying the laws of the land and demanding responsibility from gov't. In this manner Congress would have to be careful dealing with him (but only if the public rallies behind him).

We're in some very dangerous times for the Republic as well as the planet and disasters WILL occur. We need a gov't leader who perceives the dangers yet fully respects the laws of our land. To me (and I surely don't know everything) Ron Paul is the only guy with the proper perspective for that job - at least on the GOP side of things.

There are a lot of big IFs in the above and I don't know if all or ANY of the 'ifs' will realize, but there it is...

gego
May 22, 2007, 11:14 AM
I have liked Ron Paul for a long time. I contributed to his Libertarian campaign back when he ran as a Libertarian. He was systematically excluded from the Presidential debate between the Democrat and Republican candidate so his message never got out. Maybe the time was not right then and maybe it is now.

One of the problems with a person like Ron Paul is that those in power and the general public have a tendency to ignore and marginalize a person with wisdom. Were Thomas Jefferson himself to come back from the grave and run for President, he would receive the same sort of response as Ron Paul. As a matter of fact Ron Paul is the equal of Thomas Jefferson, something that the American public has not been exposed to for many, many decades.

There is a concept that there is a remnant element within the population who do in fact have the ability to think and who will find Ron Paul. That is the spontaneous movement that is arising on the internet. As you might expect there is more intellect on the internet than in the general population. Ron Paul is being found, and his success depends upon both the remnant finding him and then the remnant influencing the mindless sheeple to follow them.

People are writing about him in blogs which you can see if you go to technorati.com and do a search for Ron Paul. This lets you see what is getting into peoples' minds. Of course the attack by Benito Guiliani in the second debate and the attempt by the Michigan GOP to have Ron Paul removed from future debates helped. The explosion of youtube videos is helping to spread the wisdom of Ron Paul.

This will not only be interesting to watch develop, but it will also be exciting if we can throw off the oppression that our government has become.

RealGun
May 22, 2007, 11:16 AM
But it didnt need to be shut down, and labelled as "beating a dead horse". - HighPlanesDrifter

The person who started the thread shouldn't take that personally. The objections should be toward hijacking of the thread, the latest post bearing no resemblance to the first and only marginally constructive at best. Some topics need to regroup and start over with some new focus, because a huge thread is too big and disjointed to follow.

Correia
May 22, 2007, 11:49 AM
Yes, the moderators are all part of a giant conspiracy against Ron Paul. We're committed to burying the truth! By closing a couple of the multitude of Ron Paul threads currently running, and those just being the redundant, bloated ones, where posters are apparently having a competition about who can do the best impersonation of a Patrick Henry slogan, we're obviously out to get you. BWA HA HA HA! (for my laugh is an evil laugh)

Why? Because we're NeoCon, Liberal, Statist, Sheeple, Republicrat, Demoncrat, Fascist, Anti-Liberty, Pro-Patriot act, gun grabbing, Freedom Haters who watch Fox/CNN, and are secretly rooting for Rudy Guilliani.

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!

Now quickly, escape to our Black Helicopters!

:rolleyes:

HiroProX
May 22, 2007, 11:51 AM
When presented with a choice between arsenic, cyanide, or coffee... the propensity to choose the arsenic or cyanide over the coffee because for some reason you don't think coffee will be popular, would be amusing if it didn't have such dangerous results.

BigG
May 22, 2007, 12:23 PM
When presented with a choice between arsenic, cyanide, or coffee... the propensity to choose the arsenic or cyanide over the coffee because for some reason you don't think coffee will be popular, would be amusing if it didn't have such dangerous results.

Excuse me - what planet did you fall off of?

BigG
May 22, 2007, 12:25 PM
Rationally thinking people vote for the candidate who at least shares some of their important values. You RP people seem to think its a crime to vote for anyone unless you share all values with your candidate. I have a two word sentence for you. GROW UP!

TrybalRage
May 22, 2007, 12:29 PM
Yes, the moderators are all part of a giant conspiracy against Ron Paul. We're committed to burying the truth! By closing a couple of the multitude of Ron Paul threads currently running, and those just being the redundant, bloated ones, where posters are apparently having a competition about who can do the best impersonation of a Patrick Henry slogan, we're obviously out to get you. BWA HA HA HA! (for my laugh is an evil laugh)

Why? Because we're NeoCon, Liberal, Statist, Sheeple, Republicrat, Demoncrat, Fascist, Anti-Liberty, Pro-Patriot act, gun grabbing, Freedom Haters who watch Fox/CNN, and are secretly rooting for Rudy Guilliani.

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!

Now quickly, escape to our Black Helicopters!

Finally! And the truth will set us free!!

GoRon
May 22, 2007, 12:34 PM
How come I never get to ride in the helicopter? :mad: :evil:

romma
May 22, 2007, 12:38 PM
Who is Ron Paul? I never hear anything about him on this sight.... ;)

mordechaianiliewicz
May 22, 2007, 12:45 PM
Frankly, I find it irrelevant whether RP can win the Presidency or not. The Republicans had an alliance of different factions going in their bids to win the Presidency.

In the debates, Paul pointed out the fact (not speculation), but fact that the Republican Base has shrunk. I used to be a member of the Republican Base. Then, we had war in Iraq, and Bush and Co. decided to forget about OBL.

Paul gets on stage, and discusses blowback, and the real reasons they hate us. He suggests actually going after the 9/11 terrorists, as opposed to having a massive base in a nation which had nothing to do with the attack, and being humble in our foreign policy.

Those polls you see where Paul wins, or comes dern close are people like me. Right now, the Republican Party needs people like me back, or it won't ever win the Presidency again.

Save the GOP. Elect Paul. Or, become the Whigs.

Biker
May 22, 2007, 12:46 PM
BigG...

Got news for ya - I'm as grown up as I care to be and fortunately, I still have a keen sense of right and wrong.
I'd take it kindly if you didn't insinuate that by adhereing to my morals, I'm less than grown up.

Biker

Titan6
May 22, 2007, 12:52 PM
Rationally thinking people vote for the candidate who at least shares some of their important values. You RP people seem to think its a crime to vote for anyone unless you share all values with your candidate.

Values yes. Policies no. I disagree with RP on a number of issues. I do not particularly have any feelings so far as like or dislike towards him. However he is well ahead of everyone else in the running for the issues that are important to me. Near all of the other candidates do not even fall in the acceptable coloumn.

I have a two word sentence for you. GROW UP!

If growing up is selling out my values I guess I will be little manling forever....

ArmedBear
May 22, 2007, 01:34 PM
You made it clear that you're not sure Paul would make a good Prez, but you didn't make it clear why.

His foreign policy, or lack thereof, shows dangerous naivete. (I believe the same thing about the LP, of which I used to be a member, and from which Paul's foreign policy is lifted.)

I disagree with his Iraq policy. "Bring the troops home now" does not show an appreciation for the consequences of doing so.

It should be noted that, while Ayn Rand opposed the war in Vietnam on similar grounds to Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq, she also opposed withdrawal because of the consequences of doing so. I'm not an Ayn worshipper, but it strikes me that in 2007, libertarianism, as exemplified in Paul's platform, has wandered quite far from its roots.

I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future. Not only is this history lesson a half-truth lifted straight from one of the world's best liars, Noam Chomsky, it does not serve us as we go forward. The Cold War is over. While it was going on, we made decisions as best we could. Some caused blowback; this doesn't mean that the opposite action wouldn't have been worse both strategically and morally (e.g. our stance towards Cuba or helping the Mujahadeen -- note that many in Afghanistan were allied with the US right away in 2002; we helped THEM in the 1980s, too.) One way or another, harping on Cold War decisions decades after the fact is not "instructive" as Chomsky would say. Paul's foreign policy as stated on his campaign website does not show informed leadership; it shows trendy academic groupthink.

Acting so as to avoid "blowback" at all costs is not an effective foreign policy. Either Paul is very bad at framing his "issues", or his primary goal is to try to avoid "blowback." It failed miserably for Carter -- "they" still hated us, and "they" no longer respected our military power. There is no reason to believe that a similar policy would work for anyone else, not John Kerry, and not Ron Paul, either.

Furthermore, while I like the sentiments of his platform regarding withdrawal from every international organization, trade group, agreement, etc., this is not how you play the game. John Bolton knows how to play the game: go to the UN, and look after American interests 100%. Paul claims he wants "diplomacy", but it appears that he means that in the way that the academic left means it. I don't want kumbaya-with-dictators "diplomacy." I want look-after-US-interests diplomacy. I fail to see how total disengagement would accomplish this, or would accomplish free trade.

"Blowback" will happen, though, if we pursue just about ANY policy, trade or military. Ditto for Islamic terror. See Europe for examples. We can't change history, either. There's little point in talking about it, except to make sure we don't repeat obvious mistakes. Wishing we could go back and do something different 25 or 50 years ago just isn't a viable approach. And if you have any life experience, you know that, no matter what you do, SOMEONE won't like it.

Paul talks about France wanting to tax all US goods in the EU because of some of our trade agreements. Yup, that's bad. Now think about what would happen if there were NO trade agreements. The tax would be in place, and it would be a good deal larger than what France now wants.

I adamantly oppose ceding control over US laws to the WTO, UN, et al. However, I think that playing the game to win will get us a lot farther than just not playing and pretending that free trade will just happen without any agreements. It didn't happen before; what's different? Like I said, I've seen what good diplomacy looks like at the UN, and its name is John Bolton.

How's that for a start?

Paul's domestic policy is pretty much right on the money. However, a US President, unlike someone similar in many other countries, is Commander-in-Chief and Head of State. Perhaps this is a great weakness of our Constitution, but it's a fact, nonetheless. I wish we COULD vote for someone like Paul to preside over internal matters, sign/veto bills, push legislation, etc., and someone else for Head of State, but we can't.

BigG
May 22, 2007, 01:49 PM
RE: blowback avoidance syndrome -

ArmedBear: I like how Ann Coulter put it, "Damn that Bush! He made people who hate our guts not like us!" OWTTE :neener:

XD Fan
May 22, 2007, 01:53 PM
Very well said, Armed Bear!

budney
May 22, 2007, 02:04 PM
I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future.

You left something critical out: the things we did to piss them off were things we had no business doing in the first place, like supporting dictators, toppling governments, etc.

It would be appeasement to say, "Anything we do that others don't like, we should stop doing."

Ron Paul says, "The things we did that they didn't like are things we had no business doing, and they SHOULD be mad about it, and we SHOULD stop it."

There's an important difference. If they really did "hate us for our freedom," you wouldn't catch RP trying to take away our freedom to appease them. Giuliani, on the other hand, could honestly say, "That's OK: I was planning on taking away their freedom anyway."

--Len.

MrRezister
May 22, 2007, 02:04 PM
"Blowback" will happen, though, if we pursue just about ANY policy, trade or military. (snip) And if you have any life experience, you know that, no matter what you do, SOMEONE won't like it.

Thanks for the response, Bear. I appreciate the time you put into that, and it cleared a lot of things up. Unfortunately, I think that the "someone won't like it" argument is sort of a carte blanche, is it not? If we're going to have enemies no matter what, then we might as well exert all our force on the bad guy du jour and wipe out whole countries at a time. Chavez has been getting on our nerves lately, how would he like a Tomahawk - I understand the remains leave the "smell of sulfur". Sure, it might tick off most of the international community, but it sends a message, right? "Don't mess with America!"

I understand that's extreme, but I feel like you're painting Paul as an Isolationist, and that's not what I'm hearing from him. His ideas on foriegn policy seem to be that America should keep her eyes and ears open, but keep her hands and feet to herself. I think there's ample room in American policy for both "non-intervention" and "good diplomacy". Ron Paul thinks so as well - here's a quote from his website:

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-War_fx.html

HiroProX
May 22, 2007, 02:05 PM
BigG,

Then you have abdicated your right to complain about gun control, etc.

The candidate with the best position in right in front of us.

Liberty at home or foreign military adventurism, pick one you cannot have both.

As for what planet I fell off of, it'd have to be one where actions have consequences, and adults accept responsibility for those actions and their consequences.

BigG
May 22, 2007, 02:12 PM
As for what planet I fell off of, it'd have to be one where actions have consequences, and adults accept responsibility for those actions and their consequences. As I suspected, obviously not Earth.

HiroProX
May 22, 2007, 02:18 PM
Nah, it'd be earth, we just have a severe shortage of adults in the world at present. :evil:

samtechlan
May 22, 2007, 02:20 PM
I've also contributed to Ron Paul. He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist when it is not in the national interest.

limbaughfan
May 22, 2007, 02:34 PM
BigG that was a great Ann Coulter quote, simply put Ann rocks.

Titan6
May 22, 2007, 02:41 PM
Err Bear Which is it?

I like where he stands, I like the man, I like his smile. I like everything about him.

OR

His foreign policy, or lack thereof, show dangerous naivete. (I believe the same thing about the LP, of which I used to be a member, and from which Paul's foreign policy is lifted.)

I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future. Not only is this history lesson a half-truth lifted straight from one of the world's best liars

OR

Do you like everything about naive, thieving, liars? :scrutiny:

At least you are no longer claiming to be a libertarian. Why don't we just go ahead and call it what it is? You are presenting the current foreign policy view point, which is more of the same. This is okay since this is what you believe.

Now this piece make me ask the whole why not question...

However, a US President, unlike someone similar in many other countries, is Commander-in-Chief and Head of State. Perhaps this is a great weakness of our Constitution, but it's a fact, nonetheless. I wish we COULD vote for someone like Paul to preside over internal matters, sign/veto bills, push legislation, etc., and someone else for Head of State, but we can't.

By head of state do you mean as presented to foreign leaders? In your copy of the constituion who is empowered to make treaties?

atblis
May 22, 2007, 02:44 PM
I look at it this way.

It's a mixing process. You vote for a few different people

Ron Paul has some things I like. Somethings I don't.

A politician who doesn't have any stances you don't like is a lying piece of crap. They're pretending to be in the middle in order appeal to the broadest audience. You have no idea what they actually are.

Fortunately, simply being President isn't a guarantee you'll get everything done you want.

Unfortunately most of the political issues and views we get presented with are vastly oversimplified for common consumption. I think the statement that Ron Paul has no foreign policy is what his opponents would like you to believe.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist when it is not in the national interest.
Exactly. I am sick of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to places that I could care less if they cease to exist.

Marshall
May 22, 2007, 02:59 PM
I like Ron too. Really. I like the fact he has balls to stand up and say what he thinks, whether I fully agree or not. I like his overall position as far as being a constructionist goes. Personally, I believe he picked the wrong tree to bark up and it's going to cost him.

I agree with Armed Bear in the fact that our next President will be a good communicator, or by all rights should be. I would like to see Newt officially put his hat in the ring. I don't see anyone on stage that can communicate as intelligently as he can. He would absolutly bury Hillary or Obama in debates. Unfortunately, he has a stigma that accompanies him but, I think the more that people see and hear from him, better.

Fred, I want to see him get into this full ahead. But timing is everything. Same with Newt. Don't want to peak to early. They both may be playing this right.

Rachen
May 22, 2007, 03:14 PM
:D
I swear total and firm allegiance to Ron Paul. I always sided with the most conservative parties in the US, and Ron Paul is the best of them. The more support he has, the more words we can get on air, the bigger we can carry the fight. Each piece of evidence now that shows that gun control does not work is a great UFC sized fist in the face of the antis.

Now Ron Paul is in the ring, he will make all the antis TAP OUT:D:D

GoRon
May 22, 2007, 03:26 PM
The football analogy works better than a one on one UFC type fight.

Ron Paul and other libertarians only have one play, the hail Mary pass. It only works once if at all.

The other team will run right over and through them eating up a few yards at a time, grinding out "progress".

Oh yes, hail Marys are fun, but you don't script it for every play.

Its always all or nothing with the libertarian types.

Then they wonder why they always get nothing.

MrRezister
May 22, 2007, 03:48 PM
Ron Paul and other libertarians only have one play,

You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing? Yeah, it's no wonder they can't get any serious support among American voters, right?

Boats
May 22, 2007, 04:15 PM
It's no wonder at all, just look at all of the dreamland pronouncements made here on behalf of RP or the LP over the years.

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem in my view. Libertarians will not be taken seriously until they win something. Libertarians can't win something because no one takes them seriously.

What's missing?

The Farm Teams.

The Libertarian Party has always been about gaining federal matching funds, not actually winning an office and devolving it or privatizing it. There's no federal trough to pig out in during the local dog catcher election.

As a result, there are about as many credible Libertarians out on the hustings as one can count upon his hand.

Real political parties presenting themselves as credible alternatives build from the ground up. They capture local seats somewhere and build a regional base of power with experienced candidates who know how to connect with voters and raise money. That developed talent, with a lot of luck and a lot of sweat, catches on as a national party if done well, especially if there is a signature issue to latch onto.

Then again, the LP is not a credible effort by any objective measure.

budney
May 22, 2007, 04:17 PM
Then again, the LP is not a credible effort by any objective measure.

It was created as a way to educate the public, not really as a way to get elected. The party has since lost its way, and decided that they ARE about getting elected, and that the way to do that is to stop being so libertarian.

--Len.

ArmedBear
May 22, 2007, 04:24 PM
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

He doesn't mention military action. That made more sense when we fought with muskets, not missiles. It doesn't make sense to me now. He doesn't mention what we should do when a nice chat doesn't work.

Maybe he would send in the bombers, but has some disagreements about when and where. If so, it seems he wants to give the impression of a huge contrast when there is a much smaller one, between his policy and his opponents'. If not, then what does he propose to do when things don't work out according to the promises of LP dogma?

At least you are no longer claiming to be a libertarian.

Actually, there are MANY, MANY people who call themselves libertarians who agree more with me than with the Libertarian Party platform, regarding foreign policy. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to give a small group of people the right to define a word. Furthermore, nobody agrees 100% with anyone else, every minute, if either person is using his/her brain.

Perhaps I should call myself an O'Rourkian? Of course, PJ seems good enough for Cato, and he's called a libertarian by people of many political stripes, even as a pejorative sometimes. So you don't get to define the word for me, either, Titan6. Perhaps you ought to just call yourself a Paulista, like much of the blogosphere would? Or do you prefer to think for yourself a bit? I suspect you'd want to decide for yourself, and I think you ought to be allowed to.

Do you read Tech Central Station? Those are also libertarians. Most don't identify with the LP's platform, except in a general way.

That's why I'm puzzled by your insistence on some fundamentalist doctrine, since you call yourself a reformed republican, not an LP member. Can the GOP decide you're not? You're probably the first non-LP-member I've ever read or heard, who thought he could decide that other people with a certain class of views that they couldn't be "in the club."

You are presenting the current foreign policy view point, which is more of the same.

Well, if the "current foreign policy view point" means "anything other than Ron Paul's platform," I guess you're right. Otherwise, it's a false dichotomy. You seem to be defining as this "current viewpoint" any opinion that acknowledges the value of or need for military intervention, ever. That's a very broad brush, so broad as to be a meaningless definition. There is so much variation of opinion within that general viewpoint that it can't even be listed. You're using a mutation of the silly moonbat meme: "anyone but doctrinaire Libertarians and far-left anti-war activists are a bunch of dirty, filthy neo-cons!"

Note Ron Paul's campaign web site. It DOES NOT MENTION the use of military force in the international arena, on his Foreign Policy page. I'm taking that at face value. If his stated platform can't be taken at face value, then I'm even more disturbed by it.

By head of state do you mean as presented to foreign leaders? In your copy of the constituion who is empowered to make treaties?

Here's a wonderful compare-and-contrast piece, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state

My Constitution says this about the President:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...

The Senate can approve or disapprove a treaty, but it's initiated, negotiated, and "sold" by the President and subordinates within the Executive Branch. The fact that the President doesn't have absolute power to approve treaties does not make his role any different.

ArmedBear
May 22, 2007, 04:45 PM
Ron Paul says, "The things we did that they didn't like are things we had no business doing, and they SHOULD be mad about it, and we SHOULD stop it."

And I say that's easily said, especially after the fact. I'm just plain not impressed by it, since the real decisions faced by a real President are not so simple, and never have the benefit of hindsight.

What DO we have any business doing, especially in the context of something like World War II and the resultant Cold War? These wars were chock-full of moral ambiguities, but we had to win anyway. If we had lost, the cause of liberty that all of us DO agree is important, even if we differ in fine points, would have been set back enormously. What about dealing with real threats?

This isn't the 18th Century. Missiles don't have to be marched to your borders like muskets do.

You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing?

I'm all for that. And I'm the one who is being called a "not-libertarian" here because I point out what I think are some gaping holes in Ron Paul's LP-platform/academic-left-wing-based foreign policy platform.

Do you like everything about naive, thieving, liars?

To paraphrase Jesus, nobody's perfect.:p

Seriously, though, I don't think someone has to have all the right ideas about everything to be likeable, or a good member of a political team. I don't think Paul is lying, or thieving. I think he is naive about foreign policy. I'd be pretty busy if I had to hate everyone who is naive about foreign policy. I'd even have to hate myself.:D

Prince Yamato
May 22, 2007, 04:54 PM
Rose O'Donnell supports Ron Paul... no, seriously, she quoted him.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/21/video-rosie-curses-fox-news-insults-elisabeth-calls-carter-christ-like/

Towards the very end.

Titan6
May 22, 2007, 04:58 PM
That's why I'm puzzled by your insistence on some fundamentalist doctrine, since you call yourself a reformed republican, not an LP member. Can the GOP decide you're not? You're probably the first non-LP-member I've ever read or heard, who thought he could decide that other people with a certain class of views that they couldn't be "in the club."

The issue is I don't claim to be anything that I am not. For a while you were.

Well, if the "current foreign policy view point" means "anything other than Ron Paul's platform," I guess you're right.

What have you presented that is different than current foreign policy and insist that it is the right course? You will find that 80% of America disagrees...

You're defining as this "current viewpoint" any opinion that acknowledges the value of or need for military intervention, ever.

That is simply not true. No where have I ever done anything of the kind.

There is so much variation of opinion within that general viewpoint that it can't even be listed. You're using a mutation of the silly moonbat meme: "anyone but doctrinaire Libertarians and far-left anti-war activists are a bunch of dirty, filthy neo-cons!"

I don't ever recall calling you a neocon. Although I may have, certainly you are very defensive of the NEOCON foreign policy. So show me some other solution... I would really like to see it. What is Fred's take on the war? What would the foriegn policy look like under a Thompson administration that is so differen than what we have?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...

The Senate can approve or disapprove a treaty, but it's initiated, negotiated, and "sold" by the President and subordinates within the Executive Branch. The fact that the President doesn't have absolute power to approve treaties does not make his role any different.

True, but since WWII the Senate has been turned into that of a rubber stamp for the president. What the president wants (or does not want), he gets and few stand in the way. Would it not be better if this were done "by and with the advice and consent of the senate" instead of the other way around?

The senate gives up it's power and we are left with an unchecked executive.

ArmedBear
May 22, 2007, 05:31 PM
The issue is I don't claim to be anything that I am not. For a while you were.

Where? Libertarian is a general term, and I've been forthcoming about any specific beliefs. And if I registered as a Republican, and joined the local committee, but said, "I don't want to ban early term abortion," would I not be a Republican because that's in the party platform? I'm not buying it.

What have you presented that is different than current foreign policy and insist that it is the right course? You will find that 80% of America disagrees...

1. I am not running for office. I don't have the ideal foreign policy plan, and I haven't seen you present one, either. If I think Ron Paul's is fatally flawed, I'll say so. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with your favorite political enemy du jour.
2. If you're going to point to polls, 99% of America isn't currently planning to vote for Ron Paul. This means, what, exactly?
3. I may not like particular decisions made by past or present administrations with regard to military force. However, that does not mean that I buy into the Paulyana policy, either. "Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." I agree. However, I don't think that the necessary outcome is "and everything will be okay." It wasn't okay under Jefferson, either. He sent the military to North Africa when the country was in its infancy.

certainly you are very defensive of the NEOCON foreign policy

Uh, you just did. I can't even tell you exactly what "neocon" means, but if "neocon" foreign policy is any foreign policy we've had for the past century, executed by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, then hell, throw around whatever meaningless terms you want. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or Ron Paul, doesn't mean he has thrown in with whatever philosophy you most despise at the moment. That's fundamentalist thinking: us or them, total depravity or total salvation, Jesus or Satan. I keep my libertarianism away from Calvinism.

But tell me, was Jefferson also a neocon?:rolleyes:

True, but since WWII the Senate has been turned into that of a rubber stamp for the president.

That shows how his role as Head of State is more important than it would seem, even, like it or not.

Mumwaldee
May 22, 2007, 05:32 PM
Get to the za choppah!

BigG
May 23, 2007, 09:05 AM
You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing? Yeah, it's no wonder they can't get any serious support among American voters, right?

Yes - you have to appeal to more than 0.0013% of the electorate to get elected. I would suspect you count yourself fortunate that you have placed yourself in such an exalted class. :uhoh:

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 09:19 AM
Yes - you have to appeal to more than 0.0013% of the electorate to get elected. I would suspect you count yourself fortunate that you have placed yourself in such an exalted class.

I prefer to think of it as "inhabiting the Freedom end of the bell curve", thanks.

But your favorite candidate is probably "more likely to win" (issues notwithstanding), so I guess you are inherently smarter than me.

Plus, insulting people for standing for personal liberty and refusing to be average, it's ... you know... that's cool too.

BigG
May 23, 2007, 09:44 AM
Good one, G
Quote:
Yes - you have to appeal to more than 0.0013% of the electorate to get elected. I would suspect you count yourself fortunate that you have placed yourself in such an exalted class.

I prefer to think of it as "inhabiting the Freedom end of the bell curve", thanks.

But your favorite candidate is probably "more likely to win" (issues notwithstanding), so I guess you are inherently smarter than me.

Plus, insulting people for standing for personal liberty and refusing to be average, it's ... you know... that's cool too.

It's not that at all. It's you coming off as so arrogant and intolerant that you seem to look down your nose at everybody else that is less intelligent in your exalted opinion of yourself. That is the comical part. I have probably as many credentials any you or anybody else at being conservative. I just don't play Don Quixote as well as you. :)

Chui
May 23, 2007, 09:57 AM
I'm thoroughly convinced that the GOP has been undermined and has been morphed into a fascist party while the Democrats have been undermined by the Pilgrim Society back in the '30s I believe and are Socialists. Dr. Paul - despite all of his supposed flaws - represents what this nation requires if we're to survive this "New World Order" assault on this nation. The next presidential term is critical and we will win or perish based upon the upcoming events related to (not just) the election. Many have been duped by both parties and many have oversimplistically jumped to third parties. I ask that each studies the Bill of Rights, Constitution and THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES. Why the debates? Because I've heard such silliness by the Courts (and by persons here) defending the subjugation of the people of the United States of America. You do not need a Supreme Court judge to determine the intent of the meaning of the COnstitution just READ THE AUTHORS! :banghead:

GOP Attacks On Ron Paul... I Told You So
By Devvy
5-21-7

In my April 2, 2007, column on our sinking economy, I wrote: "Unless Ron Paul gets the nomination, you won't be able to vote for him in 2008 and believe me, those who will work the hardest to kill his run will be the Republican power brokers who dance to the tune of the banking cartel. In other words, the Republican Party leadership will do everything in their power to see that Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination......."

I told you so. The two Republican debates (MSNBC and FOX [Faux] News) and the fallout proves my point exactly. It is truly remarkable to see the vicious attacks against Congressman Ron Paul by his own party. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an apparent relative of Elmer Fudd, stated the day after the FOX {Faux} debate that Ron Paul not only shouldn't be allowed to participate in future debates, but he shouldn't be allowed in the GOP! This from a flunky who offered up the usual treat the symptoms regarding taxation during the debate instead of the truth about the income tax and the central bank. High profile GOP religious leaders like James Dobson don't even mention Ron Paul in their commentaries; most likely Dobson has a problem with Ron Paul's support of civil unions for sexual deviants.

There have been so many excellent columns written about what happened during the FOX [Faux] debate, it's difficult to find just the right one to recommend for those who didn't see it and the phony outrage by a morally bankrupt liar like Giuliani. Rudy, like Hillary the Hun and Mitt Romney are what I call flip floppers; they resemble fish flopping around on the beach. This huckster can say anything he wants to any audience to get their vote, but Giuliani has been consistent as a serial adulterer, a cross dresser, he marches every year in the sodomite parade in NY, he would love to see the Second Amendment nullified and there is no limit in his book for killing unborn babies. These are facts long and well documented and that's just the tip of his Waterloo; for his criminal career, see here. How any real conservative could vote for Giuliani is beyond comprehension.

Lew Rockwell's column on Giuliani's attack on Ron Paul is superb. Ron Paul simply stated the truth about America's foreign policy and what tens of millions of Americans have been saying for years: It is not the role of these united States of America to bully other nations, invade them (Bush Gulf War I, Clinton Bosnia, Bush II the Middle East), crush their governments and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We've all heard the old saying that if you keep poking a rattle snake with a stick, sooner or later it will strike back. The attacks against Ron Paul have been savage with the instigators being factually challenged mental midgets like Shawn Hannity. The rest of the attack dogs have lied with such panache, Bill Clinton must be green with envy. This from Lew Rockewell's column:

"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

"Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Giuliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" * a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question."

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas, has a huge support base which is growing all the time. As someone who belongs to no political party, I watch this attempted barbecue of a good, decent man and wonder what the GOP faithful are going to do about it? There's no question that the Republican Party has abandoned most of its original ideals and America in favor of just about anything goes and globalism. If you read the 2004 National Platform (see link at bottom of this column), it is nauseating. Oh, no doubt it's a gem of well crafted, slick worth smithing, but in reality it means nothing. The smaller government, less spending, tax cuts is all hooey if you've done the research I have over the past 17 years and watched both the Democrat and Republican parties march us into financial annihilation and moral bankruptcy. When a true constitutional candidate exercises his right to run for the presidency and tell the American people the truth, here comes the well oiled, corrupt machine - the Republican National party leadership. Their intent is to slay this truth teller. It would appear to me, at least, that there are two Republican Parties: one is the new world order party being ruled over by George Bush and then there's the morally and fiscally conservative constituency who flat out don't like what's going on and have had their fill of all these liars.

Perhaps Ron Paul's run for the presidency will be a major wake up call for all those snoozing party faithful out there who just might begin asking themselves some hard questions about their party and why is it their party leadership, aided and abetted by liars for hire in the dominant media, want to shove an immoral sewer rat like Rudy Julie-Annie down their throats as the only choice? And, before you send me e-mail, yes, I do have a problem with Ron Paul as a free trader and for his support of "civil unions" for sexual deviants. But, we must remember the limitations and restrictions placed upon a president by the Constitution. Ron Paul will never assume the role of a dictator and he knows any trade agreements must be ratified by a lawfully seated senate, which we do not have. I am pleased that Americans are taking up that critical issue (Seventeenth Amendment) with their state houses; here's one example:

GA Senators embrace amnesty -- betray citizens

"Dear Senators Rogers and Schaefer,

"This betrayal of the citizens of GA, with their support of S.1348, merits the recall of Isakson and Chambliss. As I stated in the past, the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution was fraudulently ratified. Under the U.S. Constitution, Senators are to be selected by the GA General Assembly to represent the State of GA in Washington, DC. These two senators, Isakson and Chambliss, have, for too long, been interested in serving the agenda of Big Business rather than the citizens of the great State of GA.

Please, do what it takes to have Isakson and Chambliss recalled and two others selected by the GA General Assembly appointed to fill their position. In any resultant court case, the fraud of the 17th Amendment will be exposed. [Please, see the attachment * Devvy Kidd's article on the 17th Amendment.] Thank you for your attention to this important matter (important, not only to GA, but also to our Republic). Sincerely, Joe {last name withheld for privacy), Marietta, GA/Vietnam-Era Veteran and overtaxed citizen now at home in the Constitution Party."

Which brings me around to the illegal alien invasion and this phony immigration reform bill that will be voted on today; the first round. Ron Paul is against it; see his column here. This issue has dominated talk radio and the Internet in an effort to stop this legislation that is no more a reform bill than was Reagan's failed 1986 immigration reform law that opened the flood gates. Those of us who have been on this issue know that this invasion has been allowed to continue because it is directly linked to the integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico under the so-called North American Union. Here are a few new things brought to my attention by a great lady who is an assistant to a state senator; I am privileged to know both of them.

How many Congress critters have said they never heard of the NAU/SPP to this day? This .pdf file is part of this phony reform bill; read this text sent to me by Karen. This frosted my windows when I read it equally as when I read that members from La Raza, a seditious, militant, America hating organization literally sat in on the negotiations for this legislation with veto power! She also sent this along:

"I wanted to give you some more clarification on the bill number. Here's a part of a message I got from Eagle Forum last night. "S. 1348 is not the 'compromise' bill that was announced yesterday. S. 1348 is a copy of the same bill the Senate passed a year ago (May 25, 2006). Then it was S. 2611 in the 109th Congress. Harry Reid reintroduced last year's bill on May 9, 2007 as the vehicle for Senate action. It received a new number, S. 1348 in the 110th Congress. Then on May 14 Reid filed a motion to proceed (cloture) on S. 1348. Reid's plan is to strike the text of S. 1348 and substitute the text of the negotiated compromise that was released yesterday, May 17. I have not seen the full text of the new bill. It is not generally available. In fact I think they are still putting it together and it won't be available until Monday at the earliest."


http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd272.htm

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 10:46 AM
It's not that at all. It's you coming off as so arrogant and intolerant that you seem to look down your nose at everybody else that is less intelligent in your exalted opinion of yourself. That is the comical part. I have probably as many credentials any you or anybody else at being conservative. I just don't play Don Quixote as well as you.

You know what?
You're right.
I've acted rather jerky, and I apologize.
Here's my deal - I don't have conservative "credentials". (I'm not really sure what that means, but give me time I'm young yet.) I've only been voting for the last 6 years, and before that, I honestly wasn't paying all that much attention to politics in general. Frankly, I thought politics and politicians were pretty boring and useless.

When I finally started paying attention to what was going on, I found out that I was basically right. Most politicians are in fact boring and useless. So when I started digging into this Paul character and found out that he consistently votes on principle, says what he means, and believes the government should be limited to those things it can do without screwing up citizen's lives - well I kinda got a little excited. It's a rare occurence, for me anyway.

I would have expected him to get almost universal support here at THR, but instead I've been told that he's "unelectable". You yourself have said that politics is "all about TV" these days, which I find depressing, because I was beginning to hope that politics might be about principles, issues - little things like that.

Based upon the issues that I think are important, I really believe that Ron Paul could be the best President the USA has had in a long time. Thus I will vote for him at every opportunity. It really bugs me to hear that so many on these boards would rather vote for someone based upon their "ability to win" rather than upon where they stand on the issues. It's the difference between fighting to win and fighting "not to lose". It sounds like a minor technicality, but fighters know the difference. I'm fighting to win this one.

Maybe I'm being unrealistic. Maybe Ron Paul isn't really all that great. But so far I haven't heard any solid arguments that would change my mind about him. My mind is open to new evidence. Until I find or am shown that evidence, I'm voting for Ron Paul all the way, because the other candidates don't accurately represent the type of person I want in the White House. I don't want to vote for the person with the highest name recognition. I don't want to vote for the person most likely to beat Hillary. I want to vote for the person who believes the things I believe and wants what I want.

If that makes me arrogant and delusional, then I can live with it. I'll make my stand, even if it's completely meaningless to everyone else.

BigG
May 23, 2007, 11:29 AM
Based upon the issues that I think are important, I really believe that Ron Paul could be the best President the USA has had in a long time. Thus I will vote for him at every opportunity. It really bugs me to hear that so many on these boards would rather vote for someone based upon their "ability to win" rather than upon where they stand on the issues. It's the difference between fighting to win and fighting "not to lose". It sounds like a minor technicality, but fighters know the difference. I'm fighting to win this one.

Sure, I can respect your position, but I believe you misrepresent mine. I do not support the GOP because they have an ability to win but because they best represent my position. Politics is the art of compromise not an exercise in ideological purity. The GOP represents my views the best. The Dems the least. The libs somewhat, but poison their appeal with the fringe stuff.

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 11:48 AM
Politics is the art of compromise not an exercise in ideological purity. The GOP represents my views the best. The Dems the least. The libs somewhat, but poison their appeal with the fringe stuff.

Fair enough, but first: I don't see alot of "fringe stuff" coming from Paul. I might be wrong, as ever, but I don't see it yet.

Second, is "the art of compromise" a code meaning that we're losing slowly? It seems like everyone has decided that losing freedoms is ok, as long as we're doing it in small steps. Is there a point at which we should start pushing back? That's what a vote for Ron Paul represents to me - fighting back. Again, maybe I'm a wild idealist for thinking that, but I'm ready for a change, let's shake things up.

Just a little?

Please?

BigG
May 23, 2007, 12:05 PM
Second, is "the art of compromise" a code meaning that we're losing slowly? It seems like everyone has decided that losing freedoms is ok, as long as we're doing it in small steps. Is there a point at which we should start pushing back? That's what a vote for Ron Paul represents to me - fighting back. Again, maybe I'm a wild idealist for thinking that, but I'm ready for a change, let's shake things up.

Just a little?

Please?

Hey, I can only speak for number 1.

First, the art of compromise is from time immemorial. Even divine right kings found they needed to check with people before they made their decrees, so no, it does not mean "losing slowly." It means "using your head."

Should we start pushing back? That time is long past. Probably around the time of Woodrow Wilson it would have been proper. But there have been too many weak sisters, afraid of what others thought and now, as Jeff Cooper might put it - "our red blood has turned to weak iced tea."

There is no redemption short of shooting, and no leader anyone will follow. Push, shake, or do what you like. Everybody else does. YMMV

physics
May 23, 2007, 12:14 PM
You know, it's kinda funny. Since around 17, I've completely despised the way our government is run. Corruption, greed and power is what has controlled this country for awhile now. I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat or Libertarian. I am anti-politician, 100%. Or at least I used to be. After hearing about Dr. Paul's positions on many things (not all though) I stand in awe. For the first time in my life (that I can remember) we have a candidate that is honest, incorruptable (spelling I know), not greedy, and definitely NOT power-hungry. If this is not electable, then the problem does not lie with the government, but with the people, who vote for greed, corruption and power grabbing politicians. Frankly, I don't think there is any doubt around here about where most of the politicians fall in this categorization.
What I'm trying to say is this: I don't just vote for Ron Paul because of his positions, I vote for Ron Paul because of what he represents. Truth, integrity, NOT SELLING OUT. I don't even care what his position on abortion or gay marriage is (I'm both pro-choice and in favor of civil unions), because I think Ron Paul can make this country united again.

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 12:32 PM
I think Ron Paul can make this country united again.

Don't worry, a realist will be along shortly to remind you that any given politician can't really make that big a difference, or that Paul is really no different from the rest.

So quit yer yappin' about "integrity" and "honesty" and "issues". Such talk goes against the grain and might even be anti-American. So just shut up and vote for whoever can win against Hillary.

BigG
May 23, 2007, 12:33 PM
If this is not electable, then the problem does not lie with the government, but with the people, who vote for greed, corruption and power grabbing politicians.

Without insult, your view is that of a typical utopian who thinks that people can be "fixed," "corrected," "taught," "educated" - whatever. So did Karl Marx and a lot of other idealists. There is lots of blood along that path, believe me. Human nature is what it is, not good or bad, just what it is. You can't change it.

RealGun
May 23, 2007, 12:40 PM
I think Ron Paul can make this country united again

Claims can be made for Ron Paul, but "uniter" could not be one of them unless a pretty extreme abstraction.

Nevertheless, I liked your post.

mordechaianiliewicz
May 23, 2007, 12:57 PM
Quick check here.

What is the average age of a Paul supporter?

What is the average age of someone supporting another guy?


I've discovered that Paul is to the GOP now, what Barry Goldwater was in the '60s.

AuH2O didn't win. Didn't come close in the electoral college, and fell far short in popular votes. But, he energized a failing, lackluster party. He brought the spirit of less government back, and of personal responsibility. Also, he did the most important thing of all, he united a fractured Republican Party.

His young supporters helped to get Reagan in, and had alot to do with the Republican revolution in '94. But, along the way, the ex-Marxist Neo-Cons hijacked the party (which I believe was ripe for the picking simply because of military-industrial collusion all along, and which hadn't adjusted to a post Cold War reality).

Now, Paul is the first of what will be many people who want us to return to the constitution. It is the younger conservatives who fit that bill.

We were kids when the Berlin Wall fell, when the Soviet Union collapsed. We haven't lived under the specter of War with the Soviets. And because of this, it is difficult to convince us that cave dwelling Arabs are a big threat to us. Most older Conservatives have only swallowed this crap because they were so used to an evil empire, they could more easily accept the next excuse to keep feeding tax payer dependent corporations.

Meanwhile, our Southern Border is being invaded, the jobs we were gonna use to get into the middle class and live the American Dream if possible are going to guest workers on H1-B visas, and the blue collar amongst us are about to be sold out to foreigners from South of the Border.

Our politicians support invasion of foreign nations that didn't harm us, and suggest stealing our civil liberties at home (Military Commissions Act, and Patriot Act).

The younger Conservatives are the ones turning those polls in favor of Ron Paul. We'd left the party, now, he's our only reason to stay.

Oh, and by the way, I'd vote for him if I were you, you might not like his foreign policy, but you'll like Rudy Guilliani's domestic policy even less.

Jeff
May 23, 2007, 01:03 PM
Before long, I think Paul will be appealing to all of the following groups of voters:

-Libertarians (almost all of them)
-Paleo-conservatives (almost all of them)
-Constitutionalists (almost all of them)
-Conservative democrats (many of them)
-Independents who are sick of the recent trend of choosing Progressive Socialists simply because the Neo-cons are too nauseating a class of candidates. (a very large group, btw)
-Perhaps a few apolitical types who are starting to wake up and like what they see in Paul.
-Moderate republicans who are anti-Iraq war. (large group)

If he hangs tough and convinces people he is here to stay, we will gain momentum fast. Did I miss any?



Paul 08

physics
May 23, 2007, 01:15 PM
Without insult, your view is that of a typical utopian who thinks that people can be "fixed," "corrected," "taught," "educated" - whatever. So did Karl Marx and a lot of other idealists. There is lots of blood along that path, believe me. Human nature is what it is, not good or bad, just what it is. You can't change it.
:D None taken, that's what forums are for. I try to not say anything I'm not willing to defend. However, I'm not interested in changing human nature, that obviously wouldn't work, as you pointed out, nor would it be desirable. I like having different opinions, it gives me something to think about, if I want everyone to have the same opinion, I'll just talk to myself. It does make me sad to see my countrymen supporting corrupt politicians though. I don't want to see another Bush in office.



I think Ron Paul can make this country united again
Claims can be made for Ron Paul, but "uniter" could not be one of them unless a pretty extreme abstraction.

Yeah, oops, you're right about that. My bad sorry

ArmedBear
May 23, 2007, 01:20 PM
I've discovered that Paul is to the GOP now, what Barry Goldwater was in the '60s.

Let's hope not. Goldwater was (unfortunately, since I liked him) a precursor to 16 more years of exponentially growing statism.

He may have inspired Reagan, but it was Carter who sold the country on Reagan's platform. See, I DO remember the world sometime before yesterday.

Carter's pathetic domestic policy started the trend. Carter's pathetic foreign policy sealed the deal. There were many factors, but it was a bunch of pissant Persians (not cave-dwelling Arabs, but close enough for 99% of the electorate) who gave Reagan a landslide victory.

BTW the rest of the world is starting to pay a lot more attention to the "cave-dwelling Arabs," too. http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/21/post_13.php


Oh, and by the way, I'd vote for him if I were you, you might not like his foreign policy, but you'll like Rudy Guilliani's domestic policy even less.

I try not to base my votes on false dichotomies.

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 01:21 PM
Jeff said:
If he hangs tough and convinces people he is here to stay, we will gain momentum fast. Did I miss any?

Haven't you gotten the memo? It doesn't matter where Paul stands on the issues, big or small. He simply can't win. Therefore, all the smart people in the groups you listed will naturally refuse to support him. Get with the program, you never support someone who can't win!

BigG
May 23, 2007, 01:27 PM
Hey I hope he makes it thru. It's still a long time till the elections. We'll see. :)

ArmedBear
May 23, 2007, 01:34 PM
"Support" and "throw all my eggs in one basket at an early stage of the game" are not the same.

Add in Gallup's numbers.

Add in the fact that Paul's "supporters", who probably include people on this board, are pissing off many politically influential sites on the Internet by poll spamming.

Reality check time.

I have no personal friends running for office. Therefore, I am not supporting someone out of some emotional attachment to him/her. If you are, great. But don't mistake friendship for political viability.

Keep your eyes and ears open. Everyone else is.

And as I said, Ron's Paulyanna foreign policy is dead wrong IMO. That means I can't support him for half of what his job is, even if I do support him for the other half. So I'm keeping an open mind about candidates. That doesn't mean I include Guiliani in my "consider" list.

GoRon
May 23, 2007, 01:51 PM
Paulyanna foreign policy

Oh thats good, I'm gonna remember that one, lol.

R127
May 23, 2007, 02:04 PM
because I think Ron Paul can make this country united again.


I don't think it's a matter of making this country united again but more a matter of keeping this country united. The course we are headed on right now with the liberals and neo-cons at the helm will and is resulting in the creation of an authoritarian surveilance state. Eventually all such bureaucratic monstrosities collapse under their own weight, as will the unholy leviathan the libs and neo-cons have built. Along the way it promises to be a bloody, tortuous affair and ultimately it will result in the shattering of the union.

Continuing to play good cop/bad cop with the libs and neo-cons will not end this. The only thing that will is getting reliable Constitution-friendly politicians into office. Paul is one of them and making him president is a good first step towards clearing out the den of vipers.

One way in which Paul really can make a difference as president is by axing decades of unconstitutional executive orders. Given Paul's views on the abuse of executive orders it is logical to assume he would pursue this course of action.

Prince Yamato
May 23, 2007, 02:12 PM
The younger Conservatives are the ones turning those polls in favor of Ron Paul. We'd left the party, now, he's our only reason to stay.

I'm in my mid twenties and a Republican and I don't support Ron Paul. Neither do quite a number of Republicans. I think Ron Paul is (in terms of political position) our Dennis Kucinich. He's got his supporters and by damn, they're loyal, but some of his policies are just plain wacky, he comes across as unelectable, and he doesn't speak for the majority of his party. In addition to being a victim of himself and his poor public speaking abilities (or at least delivery of idea), I think he's going to be a victim of over-exposure in conservative media. I'm personally sick of the Ron Paul threads at THR. I half expect the reponse in Handguns to "What 1911 should I get" to be, 'Ron Paul' . I'd be shocked if the mods aren't sick of deleting redundant ones as well. I'm still holding out for Thompson. Whoever runs, I'm still voting straight Republican.

Chui
May 23, 2007, 10:03 PM
Prince, what policies are "just plain wacky"?

Your current president cannot speak a lick (to use his vernacular) and you probably voted for him twice. As did a lot of persons.

"Holding out for Thompson" is interesting. We have a guy supporting exporting high tech jobs out of the US (or at least having Americans being replaced by foreign workers who will invariably work for less) and the Patriot Act.

Do you study the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Constitutional Debates, English Common Law?

Jeff
May 23, 2007, 10:03 PM
Prince,

You're sick of Ron Paul? At least he's running for Pres. :cool:

Fifth Column
May 23, 2007, 10:20 PM
As far as I can tell Paul is quite conservative, even more so than most of the top candidates on the major issues. The only stance that he differs from the rest of the GOP candidates is foreign policy, namely Iraq and nation building. Don't forget that he voted in favor of fighting Afghanistan.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_052307.htm
Here are some new scientific poll results from Iowa.

1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, and Tommy Thompson for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Mitt Romney 20%
Rudy Giuliani 18%
John McCain 16%
Fred Thompson 10%
Tommy Thompson 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mike Huckabee 3%
Sam Brownback 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Ron Paul 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Jim Gilmore 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 12%

2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 5%
No 79%
Undecided 16%

5. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 54%
No 37%
Undecided 9%

8. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)
Yes 81%
No 5%
Undecided 14%

Of course he is only at 2% in Iowa but it should definitely be noted that the majority of Republicans and Democrats want us out of Iraq ASAP. When his message gets out more I expect to see his numbers rising. The rest of the Republican candidates want to give us more of the same foreign policy and Paul is the only one offering an alternative.

TrybalRage
May 23, 2007, 10:24 PM
Prince, I'm 27. I pretty much feel the exact opposite of you in regards to Paul, word for word.

Friends of mine who never would have thought of themselves as Republicans are getting behind Paul.

If he does not get the nomination, I am changing my registration to L, and happily wave goodbye to the country going to hell in the proverbial handbasket because we will have asked for it. Every other candidate, this board's favorite Thompson included, are all the same person wearing different skin. If you think I'm wrong you are sadly mistaken.

pcosmar
May 23, 2007, 10:49 PM
Well I am almost 50( Bday later this summer) and I was in the Army under Jimmy Carter. I was not impressed. Though he inherited the hostage crisis from a bad policy in 53. I only became aware of that recently through research.
I supported Bush as the lesser evil. I hoped to believe his promise of smaller government.
I have watched the downward decline of our country.
Ron Paul offers hope. The rest only more of the same.

JerryM
May 24, 2007, 12:11 AM
Although Ron Paul does not have a chance to win, this is one time I might make an exception and vote for a third party candidate if his positions are acceptable to me.

There are three issues that are non-negotiable to me. No one in the Dem would be acceptable, and the front runners in the Rep party are not acceptable on those issues. I have always known that to vote third party is to waste your vote in large measure. However, if it makes little difference which party gets in power then so what?

So I may make an exception and vote third party if any candidate is acceptable in the non-negotiable issues. However, if not then I will sit out the Presidential race.

Edit: On another thread I learned that Ron Paul is 71. That is too old to be President in the first term. So that lets him out. As for Fred, I would have to have a good look at him. His remarks regarding women and him being easily caught do not sit well with me. He may be a womanizer. That is not acceptable. I may just sit this one out.

Jerry

Jeff
May 24, 2007, 01:12 AM
Fifth Column,

Judging by the survey results, it proves that many American Republicans are idiots. Sorry, but there is no tasteful way to say it.

They only support Paul with a 2% showing, yet are in the majority when it comes to disapproval of the Bush regime and the Iraq war; while all the GOP frontrunners are Bush clone Neo-cons.

Interesting.

Jeff
May 24, 2007, 01:15 AM
JerryM,

71 is not too old. Especially when one is not overweight.

Fred Thompson is both overweight and, unfortunately, stricken with a type of blood cancer.

He is somehow healthier and stronger than Ron Paul?

Prince Yamato
May 24, 2007, 01:56 AM
happily wave goodbye to the country going to hell in the proverbial handbasket because we will have asked for it


Yes, we're at fault. The country is forever ruined. Why vote. The pessimism on this board is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. I don't agree 100% with the direction the country is going, but I hardly think we're doomed. I'm picking on you as an minor example. But honestly some our peers on this board need a freakin' Zoloft.

Judging by the survey results, it proves that many American Republicans are idiots. Sorry, but there is no tasteful way to say it.


Yes there is. You say, "I disagree with your politics". I love how most of the libertarians on this board think that if you aren't 100% for Ron Paul or someone like him, you're an ignoramus.

what policies are "just plain wacky"?

His foreign policy is wacky.

Your current president cannot speak a lick (to use his vernacular) and you probably voted for him twice. As did a lot of persons.

Yep. And if he ran a third term I'd vote for him again. You know that 35% approval rating. I'm part of it. And no, I'm not ashamed. I like the guy. He's a poor public speaker, but I know his stance on the issues and I agree with many of his positions.

Jeff
May 24, 2007, 02:01 AM
Judging by the survey results, it proves that many American Republicans are idiots. Sorry, but there is no tasteful way to say it.

Yes there is. You say, "I disagree with your politics". I love how most of the libertarians on this board think that if you aren't 100% for Ron Paul or someone like him, you're an ignoramus.


Prince,

Read the survey results. What other possible conclusion can you draw from it?

And I have made no comment regarding Ron Paul detractors, only comments regarding the majority of individuals who participated in that poll. Don't put words in my mouth.

mordechaianiliewicz
May 24, 2007, 02:07 AM
#1.) Keep in mind this "scientific poll" was of 600 R, and 600 D. I wouldn't trust the results of either without knowing where the voters were from. Edwards being #1 was a little fishy. I'd want to know just how random the voter sampling really was.

#2.) Ron Paul is still a relative unknown commodity, doing most of his political business via the internet, because that is what he can afford. As the debates continue, he will become more popular as more people research him.

#3.) The GOP will bomb this issue. They are supposing that Paul's "fanatical" supporters are responsible for the numbers. No, it's hearing him talk about foreign policy that get him the numbers. Nevertheless, they are addicted to getting that dwindling % who approve of Bush that they don't understand Paul's stance is the only option to win either the nomination, or the general election.

#4.) Don't get me wrong. RP is still a long shot. But if he could get the nomination, the best thing that could happen would be for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination, and say that concerning Iran, "All options are on the table." Staunch Democrats would vote against her. Unfortunately, no other Democrat running would say that.

pcosmar
May 24, 2007, 05:17 AM
71 is too old??? I can't even hope to retire till I'm 70, if then.
I just rewired my property, the Electrician who did most of the work is 82.
A friend in Key West was a meat-cutter, he was forced to retire at 92, still very active. My Mom is 81 and works at a thrift store, when not working she is running around with her best friend(94), or the Red Hat society.
There is no such thing as TOO old.

LAK
May 24, 2007, 05:33 AM
This has some good Ron Paul campaign links...

http://www.searchronpaul.com/

Speaking of polls; check out this one by ABC. Noteworthy is that ABC ommitted Ron Paul's results in this poll until complaints were made. Take a look why .....

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/beseenbeheard/popup?id=3135373&POLL288=4000000

Go Ron Paul!

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

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

ServiceSoon
October 29, 2007, 07:57 PM
I like Ron Paul too! He is truely a second amendment champion.

Big45
October 29, 2007, 08:02 PM
Political back open?

GTSteve03
October 29, 2007, 08:05 PM
Political back open?
Nope.

No matter how much I like Ron Paul (see my sig and know I've already donated to his campaign 3 times) this is no longer on topic for THR.

Try APS instead. (armedpolitesociety.com)

yesit'sloaded
October 29, 2007, 08:11 PM
I think we just might have gotten around the no politics rule because Ron Paul is not the subject of the thread so much as his stance on the 2ndA is. Which is related to the Legal section because politicians make the laws around here.

v35
October 29, 2007, 08:11 PM
Wanted to get this in before the thread gets locked.
The thinking man, one who studies the history of this country and the issues that face it today, will support Ron Paul for President.

Which is to say, there's no way he'll ever get elected.

Larry Ashcraft
October 29, 2007, 08:45 PM
Political back open?
No.

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