dross on Ron Paul

[dross]

What I Like

1. Love his fiscal policy
2. Love his views on the role of government
3. Agree with him pretty much down the line on domestic matters with only a couple of minor disagreements.

What I Don't Like

1. Strongly disagree with his view on the wars, and his foreign policy views in general

That said, I'll vote for him if I truly believe he can beat Obama.

My Concerns

1. I'm afraid of what will happen in our current environment if the public is exposed to libertarian viewpoints
2. I'm afraid of what the press will do to his views
3. I'm afraid that if elected what he'll do will be so unpopular he'll be impeached
4. I'm afraid a Paul presidency might effectively kill the libertarian movement in this country

I honestly, truly, and without malice think that it's impossible for him to win the Republican primary, mainly because of the voters

I have strong doubts if he can win the general election, given that when the public hears his views they may completely freak out.

Being the most anti-socialist candidate ever, I'm afraid of what the press will do to discredit him, which would again harm freedom

I don't think most Americans want liberty taken neat.

So, in other words, I hate Ron Paul, I'm a mindless elephant-sniffer, and I let Fox News and Rush Limbaugh do my thinking for me.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Don't be afraid, it's OK.


I do agree with you in that he probably will not be elected because most people do not want to be free. Most people want to be taken care of and want to use big government as a stick with which to beat everyone else.

I do however feel compelled to fight the good fight and support Paul. I want him to be president. I sorely want to see the weeping and gnashing of teeth that would accompany his election.

There was no way in hell a bunch of hillbilly farmers could have defeated the mighty Brittish army. No way. Guarantee it could not be done. Never. Period. Ever. No.

 

[ATM]

...There was no way in hell a bunch of hillbilly farmers could have defeated the mighty Brittish army. No way. Guarantee it could not be done. Never. Period. Ever. No.

Nope.

 

[ATM]

I don't think most Americans want liberty taken neat.

Then we need to fix Americans, not politics. Get busy, mister.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I don't know why he doesn't state it more clearly, because most ppl don't understand his foreign policy views. RP plans to spend nearly 80% of the entire budget on national defense. He just wants to do it in a constitutional manner and use it to actually protect our borders and trade interest. The only reason europe is as well off as they are is because they haven't had to spend dime one on defense, we do it all for them. What would germanies economy look like if they had to take care of themselves?

Originally Posted by The Bubba Effect
...There was no way in hell a bunch of hillbilly farmers could have defeated the mighty Brittish army. No way. Guarantee it could not be done. Never. Period. Ever. No.

Nope.

The Revolutionary War was a fraud. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80). America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. v. New Haven 8Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.) . Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213). The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54). A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209).

 

[sepe]

What don't you agree with about his stance on war and foreign policy? Do you believe that we should be the world's big brother/babysitter? Do you believe we should keep handing out foreign aid to countries that both love us and hate us?

 

[Lex Concord]

So, in other words, I hate Ron Paul, I'm a mindless elephant-sniffer, and I let Fox News and Rush Limbaugh do my thinking for me.

Thanks for finally being honest about it.

 

[Lex Concord]

Nope.

Not without the help of the oft-denigrated French...and a monarchy at that.

 

[rambone]

1. I'm afraid of what will happen in our current environment if the public is exposed to libertarian viewpoints

I think there is a great risk that the public will embrace his viewpoints and begin to think outside the Left-Right box.

2. I'm afraid of what the press will do to his views

They can try to slander him, the way Rush, Hannity, and Levin are currently doing. But luckily his consistency and integrity shine through for anyone who bothers to look.

3. I'm afraid that if elected what he'll do will be so unpopular he'll be impeached

Wouldn't he have to do something unlawful first? I think the chances of this are nil.

4. I'm afraid a Paul presidency might effectively kill the libertarian movement in this country

Why? What should the libertarian movement do then? Ron Paul is an stoic messenger of liberty; articulate and well-versed. His unwavering consistency and uncorruptable personality make him a fine candidate. He's not a hypocrite, a flip-flopper, a crook, or a sellout. He would be the best thing that could happen to the libertarian movement.

Do you have these same concerns about the conservative movement being discredited by these other candidates?

I honestly, truly, and without malice think that it's impossible for him to win the Republican primary, mainly because of the voters

I think he can. I've talked to hundreds of people about Ron Paul and the most common thing they say is "I like him but he is unelectable." With Paul poised for victory in Iowa and other early states, these voters will realize that the "unelectable" mantra was all a bunch of defeatist baloney. Paul will be given credence and Republicans will have the all-important choice of choosing between Mitt Gingrich and Ron Paul. They will realize that he is their only hope of seeing any semblance of fiscal conservatism from a president in the foreseeable future.

If Republicans back another socialist wannabe then they will never be taken seriously again, and the country will reap what it has sown.

I have strong doubts if he can win the general election, given that when the public hears his views they may completely freak out.

The general election will be an epic battle but I believe Ron Paul will win. Mainstream Republicans are itching to pull the lever for anyone not named Obama. Paul will bring Independents, Libertarians, and traditionally non-voting citizens out of the woodwork. He will also steal votes from underneath Obama, due to his stance on war and civil liberty. And he has the most dedicated and fiercely supportive fans in all of politics; the kind it takes to win elections.

None of this can be said for the other candidates. They fracture their own base and scare away the independents. Some of the most conservative people I know are refusing to support another one of these other socialist, Police-State-loving RINOs. It would be hard enough for a conservative to vote for Newt Romney, let alone give him money and campaign for him. Its been done before in 1996 and 2008. Same results are imminent.

Being the most anti-socialist candidate ever, I'm afraid of what the press will do to discredit him, which would again harm freedom

He encompasses things that people from both sides of the paradigm like. His stances are what it takes to convert Democrats who aren't interested in more war, spy agencies and watch lists.

The attacks will be less devastating to a man or his character. He has a perfect constitutional record to stand on. Imagine the slugfest if the Republican nominee represents the worst of both sides of the spectrum, an all-around statist, and his flip-flopping record is so atrocious that Republicans have no way or desire to defend it.

 

[JohnP82]

He has my vote no matter what. Even if, as some say has no chance of winning, I would rather cast my vote for the candidate I truely believe in.

That is what voting is all about to me. It has gone on for far too long now, voting for the lesser evil. I am sorry, but that is not an option anymore for me. Win or lose I want my true voice to be heard and I will support the candidate that I truely think is the best for this great nation.

More and more people are starting to understand Ron Paul and what he stands for. If most of his supporters jump ship just because they feel he has no chance then he wont have a chance. Now is more important than ever for us to band together and do the right thing. Vote for whoever you think is the best person for the job, no matter who that person is. Just my

 

[ThrottleJockey]

This next election will be decided in the primaries. We'll either get a winner or we'll wind up with a third party and another 4 years of barry. I just pray that idiot trump stays down...he is a liberal and always has been, this whole candidacy thing was just a ruse so that when he runs third party he can split the conservative vote. The one thing we CANNOT allow is for our vote against barry to be split. I voted for Ross Perot and guess what I got? yup, slick willy.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

This next election will be decided in the primaries. We'll either get a winner or we'll wind up with a third party and another 4 years of barry. I just pray that idiot trump stays down...he is a liberal and always has been, this whole candidacy thing was just a ruse so that when he runs third party he can split the conservative vote. The one thing we CANNOT allow is for our vote against barry to be split. I voted for Ross Perot and guess what I got? yup, slick willy.

I'm not sure what'll happen if Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination & has to run against Obama & Gary Johnson. I hope that the Libertarian party would step aside to let Paul kick Obama's arse. It would be quite interesting if Obama had to stand on the debate stage against Paul & Johnson

The more likely scenario (admittedly...) is that it'll be Newt Romney -vs- Obama -vs- Libertarian (probably Johnson). If this "splits the vote" as you say, I'm fine with that...as I see very little difference between Newt Romney & Obama. If this is the scenario which plays out & Johnson manages to get more of a following than Barr did in 2008 (I can't imagine he wouldn't), I'll give my vote to Johnson, hoping the Libertarian Party hits the magic public financing number. Otherwise, Obama gets my vote. I don't want to reboot the Oval Office with a fresh socialist (Newt Romney)...I'd rather keep the one we know.

 

[Picit]

He has my vote but Im afraid the media will ruin it for him again....we need to take over the media to gain control of our country again!!!

 

[Fletch]

I'll vote for Obama before I'll vote for Gingrich.

 

[88GT]

His stances are what it takes to convert Democrats who aren't interested in more war, spy agencies and watch lists.

I'm not sure how many Democrat voters this actually covers, but I'm guessing it's less than you think. Moreover, these issues would also have to be more important in the eyes of these Democrats than the social issues that normally hold higher priority with them. I'm also not convinced that party loyalty is less strong among Democrats than you claim it to be among Republicans. If anything, I think history shows the opposite.

I think when push comes to shove in November, Democrat will be more important qualification to Democrats than any platform position.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any reason to believe the people of this country have suddenly turned the corner for freedom en masse.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm not sure how many Democrat voters this actually covers, but I'm guessing it's less than you think. Moreover, these issues would also have to be more important in the eyes of these Democrats than the social issues that normally hold higher priority with them. I'm also not convinced that party loyalty is less strong among Democrats than you claim it to be among Republicans. If anything, I think history shows the opposite.

I think when push comes to shove in November, Democrat will be more important qualification to Democrats than any platform position.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any reason to believe the people of this country have suddenly turned the corner for freedom en masse.

I don't think you're wrong. People are angry at the financial situation the country is in, but there is a large segment of Democrat voters who will vote Democrat no matter who their candidate may be.

 

[photoshooter]

Well... since I won't vote FOR a religious theocracy to control our government, that cuts out most of the other GOP candidates. Since I won't FOR a progressive, that eliminates the Dems and the rest of the GOP field.

Since I now only vote FOR a candidate that I believe in (not against the greater of two evils), that leaves the deciding how best to ruin our republic to the rest of you folks. Try not to screw it up too badly. Remember, our children will have to pick up the pieces if we don't start making things right in politics.

 

[cqcn88]

Here's a thought. If Paul does not win the nomination, would it benefit our country in the long run for Obama to be re-elected or for one of the remaining R candidates to win? My thinking is that Gingrich and Romney would likely be fairly close to the presidential norm. I'm totally playing nostradamus here but I think they'd likely get into office, give a rousing speech, make a few valorous attempts, maybe even a few small successes. Nothing major would actually change. Business as usual, etc. A few little scuffles with congress here and there but after a few years the president would go into "make sure I'm re-electable" mode and cease to do anything that could compromise his re-election campaign. No balanced budget, no significant check in government spending, no significant tax reform and for the most part the country would continue to meander along toward economic doom.

If Obama is re-elected and, *shudder*, he gets his congress, he'll no longer need to worry about re-election and he'll make a mad charge toward economic destruction and the end of civil liberties as we know them.

The point is, I think if one of the R's gets elected people will continue to go about their lives in a fog, blissfully unaware that there are real problems looming. If Obama gets elected again I think people are more likely to finally be scared into awareness and a Ron Paul type candidate would almost certainly win the following election.

 

[cqcn88]

Well... since I won't vote FOR a religious theocracy to control our government, that cuts out most of the other GOP candidates. Since I won't FOR a progressive, that eliminates the Dems and the rest of the GOP field.

Since I now only vote FOR a candidate that I believe in (not against the greater of two evils), that leaves the deciding how best to ruin our republic to the rest of you folks. Try not to screw it up too badly. Remember, our children will have to pick up the pieces if we don't start making things right in politics.

I respectfully disagree. Mainly because I am of the generation that will be picking up the pieces for the next 50 years or so. As a member of this generation, I would actually appreciate someone of the previous generation voting for the lesser of two evils as opposed to not voting at all. Not to say I'm a lesser of two evils voter myself, but I would approve of that far before I would approve of not voting.

 

[88GT]

The point is, I think if one of the R's gets elected people will continue to go about their lives in a fog, blissfully unaware that there are real problems looming. If Obama gets elected again I think people are more likely to finally be scared into awareness and a Ron Paul type candidate would almost certainly win the following election.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I think you're missing a few details too.

First, if Paul got elected, Americans would still continue to go about their lives in a fog, blissfully unaware that there are still real problems. He may be able to improve things, even significantly, but most Americans are--as you said--blissfully unaware. If the bad can't shake them into reality, why would the good?

Second, even if what you say is true about a second Obama term energizing Americans for a liberty-minded 2016 vote (a point I am not sure is grounded in fact--if it isn't going to happen this year, I don't think it will), the issue isn't whether or not the 2016 candidate/winner is going to be loyal to the Constitution. The issue is whether we'll have anything of a Constitution left to which said winner could be loyal.

And third, we should be able to field more than one Constitutional candidate this time around. But what do we have? If we can't put up anything better than that now, what makes you think we'll be able to do so the next time?