Why Paul would trounce Hillary:

[JohnBT]

"I'm a member of the RP facebook group. Many of the other members surprise me. Democrats, independents, people who have never voted, etc. There are very few who are traditional conservatives. Ron Paul has a pretty wide base."


If I'm reading this right, "Paul’s Facebook group has over 15000 members"

15,000 out of the MILLIONS & MILLIONS of registered voters in this country. If it's a wide base, it's the wide base of a very, very, very small building.

John

 

[araiford]

RCP

Looks like the polls also show that the 1st tier Dem candidates would trounce the 1st tier Rep candidates.

 

[helpless]

Still no one has called to poll me.

 

[Caimlas]

Ron Paul would not beat Hillary, for several very simple reasons.

While it's interesting to look and see that 33% of DailyKos readers prefer RP over HC, that is precisely why Ron Paul would lose. The issues which got Ron Paul those votes are the same issues on which Hillary stands closer to the Republicans (at least according to what she's currently saying): the war in Iraq, immigration, and the security of our border.

Those are some pretty big issues for many Republicans and conservatives alike. While Hillary's stance - and the stance of most of the Republicans - is by no means ideal (or even exactly what conservatives want) it is a far sight better than what Ron Paul is in support of (basically, completely open borders and retreat now). And given the significance that most conservatives put on fighting the war properly to completion and securing our borders - they're the primary issues for most conservatives/Republicans right now, I think - I don't see how RP could trump anyone with a stronger foreign policy.

On the other hand, this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about. I disagree with Paul, and I'd prefer another "neo-con" like Romney or McCain (or shoot, maybe even Thompson - jury is still out on him for me) to his likes simply because Ron Paul so ideologically dogmatic and contrary to common sense.

However, if it comes to Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton (it won't), I'd be voting for Ron Paul without a second of consideration. I'll take the idiot who will be stopped at every step he makes by the power hungry fools in Congress over the amoral megalomaniac egotist who will very likely have a congressional majority and have it in for anyone who isn't behind her 100% (meaning she'll go after us gun owners and leverage the Bush Legacy of Big Government against any and everyone she pleases).

 

[Caimlas]

So there's nothing to lose by voting Paul in the primary. As the only cadidate who supports the Constitution it is very wise to support him in the primary.

But, he doesn't. He selectively supports it. For instance, there are a couple key parts he disagrees with wholeheartedly (which is a bit worse considering the nature of those parts than, say, lackluster showing in certain parts by someone like Fred Thompson):

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

If you can't or won't secure your own defense, your civil liberties are pretty damn meaningless. And that's just a brief example of the things which RP doesn't support within the constitution due to his Libertarian/anarchist ideology. Now, if he could convince me that he's given up the anarchist parts of his dogma...

 

[Biker]

Okay Caimlas, show me where Paul doesn't support the defense of this nation, if you would.

Biker

 

[ArmedBear]

Wait...

Ron Paul does NOT want completely open borders. Where did anyone get the idea that he did?

He opposes NAFTA, the NAFTA superhighway, CAFTA, because they undermine US sovereignty and border security.

He says we must "Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

More:

• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

 

[pcosmar]

Caimlas,
Ron Paul has called for securing the borders, but you are saying he advocates open borders. Can you show me some proof.
You also mentioned repelling invasion, Ron Paul has repeatedly called for a strong defense posture. He opposes invasion of the US or BY the US.
Just how do the troops in Korea, Germany and Japan repel an invasion of the US?

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be addresses unless and until we gain physical control of our borders and coastlines,” Paul stated. The number one priority for Congress should be securing our borders—no immigration reform is possible until then. Once we have control over who is entering the country, we can begin to reform the legal immigration process.”

Quotes by Ron Paul.

 

[pcosmar]

Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Yet while we maintain more than 200,000 US troops in more than 120 countries- many of whom are involved in guarding foreign borders- our own border patrol stands unprepared to prevent terrorists from bringing terrible weapons into our country. Surely those soldiers and resources would be better used protecting our own shores. The recent bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed several Americans, indicates that Al-Qaeda is still alive and well. We therefore ignore our unguarded borders at our own peril.

These are more Quotes by Ron Paul, NOT what somebody said he said.

 

[helpless]

Caimlas,

But, he doesn't. He selectively supports it. For instance, there are a couple key parts he disagrees with wholeheartedly (which is a bit worse considering the nature of those parts than, say, lackluster showing in certain parts by someone like Fred Thompson):

Completely ridiculous statement. Even with everything you posted after it.

Ridiculous.

 

[vito]

Ron Paul would have as much chance to win as Barry Goldwater did in 1964. He was a true conservative before this country was ready for one. He was a respected U.S. Senator and he was still trounced overwhelmingly by a much disliked Texas wheeler-dealer by the name of Lyndon Johnson. And in 1972, Richard Nixon was certainly not a beloved president, but he destroyed George McGovern because he was so far to to left that America would not support him. Ron Paul reminds me of these two extremes. I think Fred Thompson is the man for us in 2008. He is a conservative with a recognized name and face. He is articulate and believable, and not so right wing that the moderate voter will be frightened off. I am not sure why he has not yet announced, but I think these is little doubt that he will do so. I think he could beat Hilary or Barack hands down. The people will feel they can trust this man to defend America, to support family values, to respect the Constitution (including our sacred 2A) and try his best to reduce the growth of the Federal government. I can think of no quicker way for gun rights supporters to lose everything then if they throw their support to Ron Paul in a futile effort to show their dislike for George Bush. And for what its worth, as a retired Army officer, a father of five and grandfather of 7, I think all in all George Bush has been a pretty damn good president. He sure beats old Bill Clinton. If only he saw the light on illegal immigration......

 

[oldfart]

Caimlas, I think you've fallen into the trap of attributing his ideas to those of the Libertarian Party. It's true he once ran for President on the Libertarian ticket but he was a Republican before that and he returned to the Republican party afterward. While the Libertarians do believe in open borders, Ron Paul doesn't. But even if he did, once the welfare laws are changed to disallow illegal aliens to live off the American taxpayer, there would be no reason to come here unless there were a job waiting. The last time I checked, we weren't discouraging immigrants who wanted to work at an honest job.
There seem to be a lot of people who, rather than listen to or read what RP says, prefer to quote those who have already misquoted him. It's an easy way to get a sound-bite but carries the danger of propagating mistruths.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I’ll give it a shot. I have been working on my debating skills.

But, he doesn't. He selectively supports it. For instance, there are a couple key parts he disagrees with wholeheartedly (which is a bit worse considering the nature of those parts than, say, lackluster showing in certain parts by someone like Fred Thompson):

Preamble:
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Insuring domestic tranquility and insuring global tranquility are two different issues. I believe that RP is a firm supporter of insuring domestic tranquility; global tranquility is not the duty of the USA and is unfortunately something that can never be achieved, especially by utilizing force. Please give an example of why you think RP is not insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense.

Section 4:
Quote:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Are you referring to the invasion of millions and millions of illegal immigrants? Everybody knows that RP comes down hard on illegal immigrants and is against birthright citizenship.

Section 8:
Quote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Again, you must be referring to the illegal immigration invasion because I am not aware of any other type of invasion that deserves more attention than the one occurring is the USA right now. If you care to give an actual example I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Section 9:
Quote:The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I am not exactly sure why you choose this section. Are you referring to the perpetual war on terror and thus justifying the suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus to American citizens? The war on terror will never end. There will always be evil in the world that will seek to do others harm. This means we will be in a constant state of emergency. I don’t want to live in a constant state of emergency. I want to be free and I think you want to be free also.

If you can't or won't secure your own defense, your civil liberties are pretty damn meaningless. And that's just a brief example of the things which RP doesn't support within the constitution due to his Libertarian/anarchist ideology. Now, if he could convince me that he's given up the anarchist parts of his dogma...

I am more afraid that the government will grow so large that our civil rights will disappear and we will no longer be a free society, than I am afraid of what a terrorist member is planning to do across an ocean in a tent while feeding his camel. Admittedly, it is easy to show the terrorist threat is real and happening now, but I think history has shown us that the majority of the time governments end up stealing our freedoms more than any other threat. My logic or this logic is supported by a quote by Thomas Jefferson that can be found below….

 

[DomMega]

If you think Ron Paul could beat anyone, especially Clinton or Obama, you must travel in a very small circle of libertarian kooks or be delusional. He has clearly established himself as a conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, and possibly anti-American wierdo. He has absolutely no chance to win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election. If you don't want to see a President Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, get behind one of the Republicans who at least has a chance to beat them. And right now that means someone like Fred Thompson (whom I support), Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani. I am a fervent 2A supporter, and I would unhesitatingly support even Rudy Guliani over any of the leading Democrats because I am a realist who lives in the real world. Those of you with your tin hats can continue to rant and rave about Ron Paul and remain totally irrelevant to the political outcomes in 2008.

Dr. Paul is the only one in the debates clearly making any sense. However his possible undoing will be the fact that he speaks the truth and makes sense. The American people are for more use to swallowing massive amounts of B.S. at face value than instead to hear the truth. The truth is a frightening thing and when someone points out some of the more unsettling truths about the country they live in, well, its going to be hard to swallow. I've always said, the truth is hard to swallow when you already have a belly full of lies. It is unfortunate that I don't believe Dr. Paul will be able to win this election, albeit he would be the best president of ALL the candidates. His ideals of not policing the world fall congruently with that of Switzerland which as well all know is one of the safest countries in the world, one reason being because of their devoted neutrality. They don't have terrorist bombings or even a major crime rate and now that someone is finally willing to make that a reality in the U.S they're being shot down for it. We NEED smaller government! We NEED to close our borders! And we NEED to stop policing the world! We're hated pretty in much of the world already, perhaps if we stop sticking our nose in things the rest of the world will see whats its like NOT to have the U.S. intervene when the s*** hits the fan, you know what I mean?

Ron Paul has had my vote from day 1 and nothing is going to change that. Your argument is pretty pointless and the name-calling is incredulous. Perhaps you should learn what those words actually mean and get back to us.

 

[Caimlas]

Ron Paul proponents:

Ron Paul operates off of the flawed and contrary-to-facts position that we have not been invaded by Islamists, and that Islamists are simply a symptom of our own "imperialist" behaviors abroad. This is directly contrary to reality as evidenced by aggressive Islamic Jihad behavior anywhere that Muslims have even a substantial minority of the population (France, Britain, Italy, India, Malaysia, etc....).

If a foreign entity attacks your country, you don't just beef up your security. You don't just retreat and hold the walls against further attacks. Yes, you those things to a certain degree, but you also actively go out and you kill, destroy, and replace the enemies who are attacking you at your earliest ability, if indeed you intend to survive.

You can not repel invaders simply by standing in a line on the border because over time, their forces will grow. Your forces will likely also grow in response, but eventually there will be a clash - and it will be larger and more disastrous for the defending party than had the defending party acted proactively in their defense.

What would you do if your neighbor said, "I'm going to come and kill you" and there was no "law enforcement" to speak of? You'd kill the bastard then and there, you would not wait for him to come out visibly and start attacking you. (Sorry, not the best analogy.)
If you're not supporting such an initiative of self-defense, then you are effectively

 

[R127]

That is just wacky. 9/11 was not an invasion. Every country you listed as having Muslim problems has two interesting bits of trivia you left out. They have meddled heavily in Middle Eastern affairs and/or have allowed unchecked immigration through porous national borders. Malaysia may be the one exception as I am less familiar with their history but I believe they have had a noticeable Muslim population for many hundreds of years.

As far as the tired old "Ron Paul is a pacifist!" nonsense goes, here is Paul's actual real life practical response to the events of 9/11 as entered as a matter of record 1 month after the attack when the other knuckleheads were still somehow convinced that DHS and the Patriot Act would somehow make us safer. Invading Iraq was still a very long ways off.

October 15, 2001

Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures


Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.

Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:

Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Here's the link.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm

You can no longer use ignorance as a valid excuse for misrepresenting Paul's position on national security in response to the terrorist threat.

 

[pcosmar]

Caimlas, can you explain exactly to me how overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a democratically elected and well loved leader, and setting up the Shaw(a hated and cruel dictator) was in the interest of our defense. How do this add to our security?
That was 1953, there were no radical Muslims attacking us yet. In fact it is a cause.

 

[Caimlas]

oldfart - I'm sorry, but you're mistaken on what I'm attributing to Ron Paul. I don't recall (and can not find) what it was, exactly that he's said (written), but I seem to recall having read it on mises.org. I most likely am mis-paraphrasing it, but the overall impression is one of weak and cowardly ignorance of what must be done to secure and keep our country secure.

Insuring domestic tranquility and insuring global tranquility are two different issues. I believe that RP is a firm supporter of insuring domestic tranquility; global tranquility is not the duty of the USA and is unfortunately something that can never be achieved, especially by utilizing force. Please give an example of why you think RP is not insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense.

I'm not saying that the US should be the World Police. I do agree quite readily with much of what RP says about withdrawing troops from certain theaters; we should not engage in imperialist endeavors. However, shared disagreement with the current policy and approach is not the same with Ron Paul's stance on retreat.

This article by Ron Paul supports this. However, Ron Paul is overlooking something very critical in his assessment of the current situation and his acceptance of the "retreat at any cost" approach to the Muslim problem. It is also not the approach taken by Thomas Jefferson, who he quotes quite out of context in that article - using what Jefferson said as a prelude to the Barbary War (America's first encounter with Jihadist Muslims). I seem to recall that one of the primary reasons for Jefferson considering the Presidency his first time around was largely due to the inaction and appeasement of the Muslim pirates, and wanting to do something about it.

So Ron Paul is either not intellectually honest, or he is ignorant of American history - particularly with regard to our interactions with warfare and Muslims. Which makes him twice disqualified for making a statement on our policy involving a war with Muslims. Why does his opinion on such matters carry any weight with so many people here?

Getting back to the issue of "international tranquility": how, do you suppose, a country can remain domestically tranquil when there are forces outside the country attempting to subvert and destroy our interests, inhibiting and controlling free commerce, and similar behavior which impacts us economically? That impacts us quite a bit, domestically. Acting to preserve such things is not incompatible with a "non-interventionist" perspective.

Are you referring to the invasion of millions and millions of illegal immigrants? Everybody knows that RP comes down hard on illegal immigrants and is against birthright citizenship.

In part, yes. But not in whole: invasion comes in many forms. What we are encountering right now with respect to the Muslims is the pre-invasion softening. The fight has more than begun, but we're yet to formally acknowledge what it is we're fighting.

Finally: let me again say that I am not in support of the "perpetual war on terror" , as one person put it. I am strongly in favor of kicking ass and not giving a damn about names - and then go home. We are not doing that. What the United States military is currently doing is nothing more than providing a platform for perpetually increasing state control, and that is very, very disagreeable. But simply leaving the enemy unimpeded won't fix the problem, either.

 

[Caimlas]

Caimlas, can you explain exactly to me how overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a democratically elected and well loved leader, and setting up the Shaw(a hated and cruel dictator) was in the interest of our defense. How do this add to our security?
That was 1953, there were no radical Muslims attacking us yet. In fact it is a cause.

No, it wasn't the cause; it's an excuse. The only reason we have not experienced such attacks until recently is for several reasons, none of which are what you suppose:

1) we are on the other side of the world, separated by other countries and oceans. Getting here was a big problem for them until the advent of modern commercial flights.
2) They were - again, until recently - unable to muster much of an attack against us due to the contrast in ability to exercise force, and contentious conflicts which distracted the interests of almost everyone in the world towards or against one force or another (WWI and II and the Cold War, primarily). (Just the same, the Muslims did take one side or the other in all such events that they had the ability to be involved in.)

On the intervention itself: 1) from a general policy perspective, it was a very bad idea to intervene. 2) However, it is possible that Iran's conflict with Iraq delayed the consolidation of Islamic interest - which is a good thing. I am not intimately aware of the overthrow of the Iranian government and the surrounding politics. What I do know is that neither Al Quada nor Osama bin Laden came out of Iran or Iraq, but from Egypt and Saudi Arabia in large part - though they certainly had and have representatives throughout the entire body of the world's Muslim population. This leads me to believe that the Iran/Iraq conflict*, and our overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minster, had nothing at all to do with what we're currently fighting, except that it is used (along with the Palestinian problem and pretty much anything else they can muster) as political chaff to distract us from the real problem.

Again, with respect to Muslim problems throughout the world: it is no mere coincidence that Muslims are involved in almost every case, and that more often than not the Muslims are a recent, violent addition to the local populace. Take, for instance, Australia, which is also encountering problems with immigrant Muslims, both legal and illegal.

*(I am aware that it was a sideline affair of the Cold War and our struggle against Russia - are you telling me that the Cold War was not a conflict which needed to be fought at the time? I realize that problems can look smaller or larger in hindsight, depending on how you want them to look, but....)

 

[seektruth]

(ArmedBear)For those who are too dense to understand the difference between seeing something and wanting something

I see. You think people are dense if they don't agree with your opinion. Well crap, I guess since you know it all, and you say Ron can't win, we should all just go ahead and give up. Everybody, go ahead and turn in your guns.

 

[nemoaz]

Silly proposition. The reason that Rosie O' Paul can't beat Hillary is because Rosie O'Paul has 0-1% popularity. Rosie can't beat anyone, except maybe Jim Gilmore, whoever that it is. All I know is he is the other candidate that never registers any support in any of the polls.

Actually, a Rosie O'Paul candidacy (all other candidates were killed?) is the only way I can think of that I would not vote for the Republican over Hitlery. I wouldn't vote for Hitlery--just couldn't do it. I just wouldn't vote, though in my heart of hearts I would have to admit that she would be more qualified to be a world leader than Rosie O'Paul.

 

[gego]

Those who think that Ron Paul would have the same difficulty as Goldwater winning the Presidency I don't think are taking into account different generations and different times. Goldwater was running when there was a pronounced swing from Conservatism to Liberalism. We are in more difficult times now and there is an underlying swing from Liberalism to Conservatism. Goldwater was swimming against the tide, while Ron Paul is swimming with the tide. I suspect that right now Ron Paul does not have the name recognition that Guiliani, McCain, Romney and Fred Thompson have, but as his message gets out that he will command significantly better poll numbers.

I don't know if it will be in the cards, but I would love to see Ron Paul and Hillary in debates. That old man would wipe the floor with her sorry butt.

 

[GoSlash27]

Caimlas,
Since your suppositions have already been disproven, I will counter the crux of your argument:
Republicans will not vote for Hillary over Ron Paul, but Democrats will vote for Ron Paul over Hillary. Independents will vote for Paul over Hillary by a much larger margin.
The #1 voting issue is the war, and the fact is that whether you personally agree or not, most Americans want this war to end. In my state even most Republicans are against this war!
I agree that Paul will most likely not secure the Republican nomination, but if he doesn't whoever else gets it will lose the general election.
Get used to it now. "Mrs. President". Practice it in your mirror and remember that this too shall pass.

 

[GoSlash27]

I'd also add to gego's comment:
Goldwater was sunk by his hawkish comments at a time when the public wanted peace. Paul is the only Republican who can't suffer the same fate this cycle. It's all the others who are making hawkish comments when the public wants peace.

 

[JohnBT]

"Democrats will vote for Ron Paul over Hillary"

I don't see it at all. It's so far from obvious that I don't know how you can believe it. Ron Paul is too right-wing for some right-wingers, and you think enough Dems will vote for him to make a difference in a national election?

John