Why Paul would trounce Hillary:

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was artfully constructed but built soley on conjecture and wishful thinking. Bush's policies are suffering the disaproval of the great majority of America. Your scenario is completely blown out of the water by the results of the 2006 elections which proved that America, in aggregate, does not want to put neo-cons in office. Another neo-con presidential candidate has zero chance of winning.

I did get a big chuckle out of your argument that large numbers of republicans would simply stay home rather than vote for Paul since most of Paul's detractors here seem to be echoing the tired old "lesser of two evils" argument. Pretty ridiculous unless you honestly believe that Paul is worse than Hillary, isn't it?

The republican party is going to have a very hard time putting anybody in the Whitehouse but it is simply impossible to give another neo-con the presidency.
 
I agree with R127.

I voted for Bush the first time because the other guy was Gore.
I voted for Bush the second time because the other guy was Kerry.

I don't know why anyone is so against having Paul as the R candidate. I mean, he'd be up against Obama or Clinton.

Now, I don't personally think that Dr. Paul is a muppet, but people who support unrestricted American hegemony would think so... so at the most basic level, it's the same choice as the last two elections: our muppet is better than your muppet. We still have the lesser of two evils argument, which is what everyone is most interested in preserving, right?
 
Your scenario is completely blown out of the water by the results of the 2006 elections which proved that America, in aggregate, does not want to put neo-cons in office.
Click to expand...

Total conjecture, when even the left saw this as a repudiation of corruption and inaction among Republicans in Congress, not of any platform in particular.

I did get a big chuckle out of your argument that large numbers of republicans would simply stay home rather than vote for Paul
Click to expand...

And I can only mock your belief that suddenly large number of Republicans have turned generally anti-war. Nothing out there supports that.

Republicans stayed home in 2006. The numbers show it pretty clearly.

Pretty ridiculous unless you honestly believe that Paul is worse than Hillary, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You're arguing with the wrong guy.

I think that there are a good number of voters on the right side of the political spectrum who wouldn't bother to vote for Paul over Hillary. There are even a number of libertarians who wouldn't vote for Paul, since he wants immediate troop withdrawal among other things.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344

Your feelings about this don't matter. Nobody will account for your feelings or mine when they cast their votes, or when they stay home in November.

I'm just responding to the original post, which makes ME laugh. I wish I though it was true, but I just don't.

Ron Paul, who is popular only among a specific group on the right, vs. Hillary Clinton, who will carry the left 90%+ if she wins the primary.

Unless you think that there will be a good number of Democrats crossing over to vote for Ron Paul, the numbers just don't work out.

And Beatnik, I'm not so opposed to having Paul as the candidate. I donated to his campaign. I am talking about what I think his real chances are of beating Hillary.

Again, your feelings about it, or mine, have nothing to do with that.

Why is delusion a prerequisite for supporting a candidate?

What's wrong with looking at things the way they appear to be, in reality?

Is it not possible to support someone, or a philosophy, or a platform, without having to be deluded?
 
That's my point. There isn't any other republican candidate that has the slightest chance of winning because right now the country is leaning left. If the republican candidate cannot get independent and Democrat voters onboard then we will not have a republican president. A neo-con can't pull those votes. If every voting Democrat votes democratic and every voting republican votes republican we get a replay of 2006.

I don't know about anti-war but the entire concept of a pro-war conservative is utterly bizarre. Few people who have ever seen war close up and kept their sanity really think wars are a good idea. Sometimes wars are necessary, which is the real conservative issue here. Many people, many conservatives, have come to view the Iraq war as unnecessary and unproductive. There was a time, shortly after Saddam was toppled, that we were doing the right thing. Now what we're up to doesn't make sense for America, for the soldiers, or for the disparate peoples of Iraq. "Anti-war" implies some kind of pacifism which few people on any side really support. Anti-Iraq-war is a whole nother matter. The Iraq war, along with immigration, is among the top issues in this upcoming presidential election. A pro-war chickenhawk just isn't going to resonate with most Americans.

Interesting to note that Paul is a veteran, a former flight surgeon, yet is not pro-war. He served in South Korea, Iran and Ethiopia. That just might have given him some perspective on the issue.
 
I've tried to keep track of Dr. Paul for a long time and have either read or heard a lot of his speeches. We complain when someone misquotes - or worse - quotes out of context a passage about gun rights, yet many of us blithely (and blindly) continue to do the same things to Dr. Paul. Instead of reading or listening to what he says a certain group seems to prefer to quote those who have already misquoted him.
It would take until well past the 2008 elections to go back in the THR files and document all the posts calling for a President who would uphold the Constitution. How many of us complained about Bubba through his eight years and now Bush II seems intent on re-writing his copy of the Constitution with Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements. Obviously, the problem isn't caused by the political party they belong to but by something else. I think we can probably trace it to their lack of respect for the Constitution they raised their hand and swore to "preserve, protect and defend.."
But now we have a candidate who has a long history of respect for our Constitution and we hear howls of anguish over his positions on international issues: 'He'll cut and run from Iraq, he'll throw the borders open to illegal immigration, he has no experience dealing with foreign governments,' etc., etc., ad infinitum. Yet those same people swear by some candidate who says he'll change his spots and give them all the things they want in a President (didn't one candidate once promise a chicken in every pot?).
Something is happening. Something different from anything we've experienced before (at least in my lifetime.) People from all parties are beginning to hope that there just might be a speedbump of freedom on our road to socialist "utopia". Democrats, Republicans, Constitutionalists, Anarchists are all taking a hard look at Dr. Paul. Not all are convinced. Some still swear by Julie McRomniani or Fred Or Duncan or... But those candidates don't have any more experience in international matters than Dr. Paul unless you count McCain's experience in Hanoi.
So none of them are perfect, they all have flaws. But there is only one that doesn't lie to get votes and he just happens to be the same one that has never backed down on his support for the Constitution. He does seem to have a problem speaking in front of a camera from time to time, but he knows how to pronounce "nuclear" so maybe there's hope for him yet.
 
And Beatnik, I'm not so opposed to having Paul as the candidate. I donated to his campaign. I am talking about what I think his real chances are of beating Hillary.
Click to expand...

I know your position, just trying to inject a little tongue-in-cheek. ;)

I don't know about anti-war but the entire concept of a pro-war conservative is utterly bizarre.
Click to expand...

I consider myself a conservative, and I'm pro-war.
When necessary, we should fight wars.
When necessary, we should kill civilians, obliterate infrastructure, wipe entire cities off the map, and destroy civilizations.

What I get from Paul is that he understands that this is what war is. I also think he simply has a different view of what "necessary" is.
War isn't the first option, and it's not even the second. It's the last, and the worst.
 
Hillary Clinton was out jogging one morning along the parkway when she tripped, fell over the bridge railing and landed in the creek below.

Before the Secret Service guys could get to her, 3 kids who were fishing pulled her out of the water. She was so grateful she offered the kids whatever they wanted.

The first kid said, "I want to go to Disneyland."

Hillary said, "No problem, I'll take you there on my special Senator's airplane."

The second kid said, "I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan's."

Hillary said, "I'll get them for you and even have Michael sign them!!"

The third kid said, "I want a motorized wheelchair with a built in TV and stereo headset!"

Hillary was a little perplexed by this and said, "But you don't look like you're handicapped."

The kid said, "I will be after my dad finds out I saved your ass from drowning."
 
If you vote for a neocon...


...your vote will put Hillary one vote closer to winning.
Click to expand...

See, that is a blade that cuts both ways.

What kills me is that most of you naysayers admit he is the best candidate then turn right around and say you won't vote for him cuz he is gonna lose.

Let me clue you all in on a little secret.

If Ron Paul does not win, WE ALL LOSE.:banghead:
 
pacodelahoya said:
What kills me is that most of you naysayers admit he is the best candidate then turn right around and say you won't vote for him cuz he is gonna lose.
Click to expand...

It's just a slight rewording of the traditional Republican claim that they want smaller government, followed up by the usual actions that put lie to it.



R127 said:
I did get a big chuckle out of your argument that large numbers of republicans would simply stay home rather than vote for Paul since most of Paul's detractors here seem to be echoing the tired old "lesser of two evils" argument. Pretty ridiculous unless you honestly believe that Paul is worse than Hillary, isn't it?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that they don't believe Paul is worse than Clinton?
 
I'll just throw this out there and let it sit there and stink:

Ron Paul does have a MSM problem right now. I will leave it to the reader to speculate why.
This will not last. By the end of summer, he will have overcome that hurdle and nothing will be standing between him and the WH.

Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul.
You will know who they are when the time comes ;)
 
Lone Gunman said:
I think it will be repealed in the house and senate, and if that happens, it will end the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. When you consider that both of the leading Democrat candidates consider the Second Amendment a collective right, this is the type of case that makes a great wedge issue for Republicans in the election. I don't think you'll see that case go away until a decision is reached now.

GoSlash27 said:
Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...

Wow! Where can I sign up for that job and what do they pay to make posts on a forum with 10,000 active members? I'm surprised we rate that kind of attention.

I'll just throw this out there and let it sit there and stink
Click to expand...

Aptly phrased considering the two statements that followed it.
 
Ron Paul does have a MSM problem right now. I will leave it to the reader to speculate why.
This will not last. By the end of summer, he will have overcome that hurdle and nothing will be standing between him and the WH.
Click to expand...
Just how is he going to overcome that? When Thompson announces Rudy is going to have trouble getting press.

Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...
rofl.gif
 
When you consider that both of the leading Democrat candidates consider the Second Amendment a collective right, this is the type of case that makes a great wedge issue for Republicans in the election.
Click to expand...

Think about that some more. Unless the Democrats repeal the DC gun ban, then this lawsuit will go to the Supreme Court. Right now the SC is more conservative (hopefully) than it has been in a long time. So if the lawsuit goes to the SC, there is a good chance the 2nd amendment will be declared an individual right.

This is exactly what the Democrats don't want. They want the 2nd to be interpretted as a collective right, or at least let the issue go unresolved until the make up of the court is more favorable to them. Right now is not the time the Democrats want to test the 2nd amendment, due to the current make up of the court.

So, if they repeal the DC gun ban, all they lose is DC, because the lawsuit will end. If they don't repeal it, and it goes to the SC, they will lose the whole country.

What is flawed with that logic?
 
Lone Gunman said:
So, if they repeal the DC gun ban, all they lose is DC, because the lawsuit will end. If they don't repeal it, and it goes to the SC, they will lose the whole country.

What is flawed with that logic?
Click to expand...

The flaw is that the NRA gave them exactly that deal this past Spring after the Parker decision - they even sweetened the pot by including voting rights for D.C. residents; something the Dems have wanted for a long time. Despite that, the Dems killed it because of the gun rights issue.

I agree with your assessment of what would be smart; but clearly the Dems are committed to this gun ban and aren't going to back away from it. Heck, one of their major candidates just reiterated his plans to ban guns THIS month.

I couldn't tell you why the Dems want to commit political seppeku in order to harass peaceable citizens and gain the support of a tiny minority that can't produce votes; but clearly they do.
 
What is flawed with that logic?
Click to expand...

There's the fact that they're not really that committed to gun control. (Or anything else, in my estimation.)

Gun control is just one issue under the Democrat tent. I don't believe for a second that there are politicians out there who have principles that include gun control. It's just a method of getting votes.

If they really believed in it, we would have seen much more fallout after the VT shootings.

They know it's mostly a dead political issue. It's kind of like Bush with Social Security reform. If he really believed in it, he'd still be talking about it.
 
Here's the deal guys, Ron Paul could win a lot of the people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat, independents and Democrats. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who could do that. All republicans would vote for Ron Paul if the choice was between him a Hillary. Ron Paul may be the only republican candidate who can win. Voting for Ron Paul in the primaries would not help the Democrats.
 
What makes you think that they don't believe Paul is worse than Clinton?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Anybody remember who Barack Obama ran against for his senate campaign? Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes isn't a Ron Paul - but holds many similar opinions. A candidate Falwell and Pat Robertson would really like.

Some Republicans decided they'd rather not vote at all than vote for a 'nut' like Keyes. I'm sure the same would happen to Ron Paul. He's been painted as an America-hating nutjob who thinks we deserved 9/11. A lot of people aren't going to look past that image - they'll take it for granted.

Not all Republicans have libertarian leanings. Some of 'em just want low taxes. Since the war's a pretty polarizing thing twixt Republicans and Democrats, an anti-war Republican will be seen as a red commie infiltrator of sorts to the uninformed majority.

As for the DailyKos - it's hardly a reflection of mainstream Democrat thought. People who care enough to get involved in places like that are rarely mainstream. They're generally 'extremists' and pretty deep into the philosophy of it all. Liberals run the gamut from anarchists to Stalinists... and Ron Paul would attract the anarchistic vote a lot more than Hillary could.
 
Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...


You gotta be kidding... I am going to see if I missed something in my mailbox.
 
Dr Paul

Vito, that's what makes him so appealing to patriotic Americans. Those other jokers and liars are on the fringe. Go read the bill of rights and the constitution please.Then read the communist manifesto. None of them mention the constitution or follow it. We have gotten so far away from what's right our nation's fabric is on the brink. This is not about what the mob rule " democracy" wants , it is about preserving our REPUBLIC governed by that ole piece of paper.

If tyranny comes, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison
Our present govt is a foreign enemy on domestic soil.
 
To those who deride Paul's chances of winning and assure people that a vote for him is a vote wasted (or a vote for Hillary--same thing), I ask why?

What purpose does that negativity serve? Why tell us to be content with the same-old, same-old instead of trying to exercise our democratic liberties to make a substantive change? The simple fact is, the candidate with the most votes wins. If everyone were to buy into your naysaying, ignore their conscience, and vote for the "lesser of two evils", then of course Paul won't win. Great changes aren't usually made by men willing to take the easy path but by people who are told "that's impossible" and have the courage and fortitude to make it work anyway.

I'll be voting for the candidate that supports traditional conservative ideals and respects the founding legal documents and philosophies that (once) made our country great. I won't vote for some raging socialist or Neo-Con petty tyrant who wipes his butt with the Constitution.
 
"Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul."

Please take this free advice in the spirit in which it is given. If you think I'm being paid, get professional help. How in the world can you think anybody is being paid to troll a gunboard over a candidate who is down in the 1% range?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Hillary close to decision on Run for White House
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
six 4 sure
S
M
  • Locked
Poll: Clinton to run in 2008, but won't win
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Ezekiel
E
T
  • Locked
Are the Democrats Destined to Lose?
Replies
1
Views
388
Preacherman
P
M
  • Locked
New York Times Magazine: Mega Ron Paul Story
Replies
15
Views
1K
geekWithA.45
G
T
  • Locked
Ron Paul: More guns would deter shootings
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Chui
C
Back
Top