Well it was an admittedly speculative post. I don't disagree with what you are saying. It's likely true that good president would also not shake the people out of blissful ignorance any more than a bad one but the difference would be that we'd have a good president. I like your second point, I would hope that the people would not allow that to happen. The president can't really do a whole lot without the congress. I think the answer to your third point is simply follow the money. Constitutional candidates don't attract the big bucks. The people and entities with the money work very hard and invest a lot of dollars to keep as many politicians in office as possible who are willing to bend the bounds of where the constitution says the government should be spending money and passing laws.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
dross on Ron Paul
- Thread starter dross
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I'm good with speculation.
I just think it's important not to stall or stop there without considering other factors. Good point about following the money. Lucky for Paul he's got crazy-loyal supporters who would rather eat Ramen and generic Cheerios for a month's worth of Sundays in order to send him financial help than let the status quo beat him down with its corruption.
We'll see if it can translate into success past Iowa. I've not seen numbers for the states of Super Tuesday so it's hard to say how he's doing anywhere but Iowa right now.
How many people does it take to win an election? Paul doesn't need to convert "a large segment" of Democrats in order to win.
Elections do not rely on converting hardcore radicalized party-line voters to switch to your side. At all.
General Elections are always decided based on a small handful of swing voters. (Single digit percentage)
The party-line lever-pullers aren't going anywhere. In fact, in the General Election the candidates can ignore them for all intents and purposes. Platform and record don't matter to them. They are largely irrelevant in terms of campaigning. The target audience is people who haven't already made up their mind.
Ron Paul can easily sway moderate Democrats who previously voted for Obama for his anti-war, pro-civil-liberty message. Despite what your prejudices have led you to believe, many Obama voters care about freedom too. They heard McCain say he wanted to keep us in the Middle East for the "next 100 years" and they ran to Obama. Go figure.
The big difference in this election is the number of Supreme Court justices that will likely be replaced.
These next four years will determine the course of our country for a looong time.
They're not prejudices. My opinion is based on experience. They same kind you claim to give your position more credibility than mine: talking to people.
You can't support freedom and vote for Obama. Being anti-war isn't the same thing as being pro-freedom. For everyone of those who voted for Obama because he claimed to be anti-war, I guarantee he/she will have at least 2 positions on other issues that infringe on our freedom.You're right that it doesn't take much. But I'm not convinced that there are enough to make a difference. That's not a reflection on Paul. You keep responding as if you think it is. It's a reflection on the American people. I don't think there are enough in that swing group fair-minded or educated enough about liberty to recognize Paul for what he is as opposed to what the media will portray him to be. He does not represent himself well in that regard. And being anti-war isn't going to be enough. The media is going to paint Paul in a horrible light and he's going to make issues out of topics that are better left alone, I'm afraid.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
They're not prejudices. My opinion is based on experience. They same kind you claim to give your position more credibility than mine: talking to people.
Maybe some of those voter decided to spend the political capital in a different way than you did. Does that make them all freedom-hating socialists or fascists? Maybe they are using the same strategy you are?? The alternative wasn't exactly a purveyor of freedom either. And neither are most of the current crop of 2012 GOP candidates.
I am rather surprised to hear you say all this, since you are so strongly in favor of outcomes-based voting. You say you will back someone not because of their record or platform -- you vote for an outcome. Same holds true with people who believed Obama would not renew the Patriot Act, stop torturing people, stop spying on them, bring the troops home, and end the wars. Those voters don't all hate freedom; they had no clear freedom-loving candidate to choose from. I mean hell, John McCain interrupted his campaign to go vote for freaking TARP bailouts. McCain and Obama are both statists.
These prejudices cloud your vision.
You're the one painting them as liberty-lovers. If they're votes are outcome-based, I have no problem with that. But you keep claiming they are moving from Obama/Democrats to Paul because of a desire to support liberty. I don't think that's the case.
That's not saying Paul doesn't get their support honestly. I'm sure they really want those few things they have in common with Paul. But it's not based out of a desire for liberty on their part.
Just because Paul takes a certain position because it's the best one for liberty doesn't mean that everybody who takes that position does so for the same reason. It's because I don't think they will support freedom to the bitter end that I don't have faith in their ability to stick with Paul all the way. When push comes to shove, I think many of them will go running back to the Democratic Party come November.
Last edited:
And from another thread,
Is there something contradictory in those posts?
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Yes
since you're such a mind-reader, perhaps you could tell me what I was thinking when I posted both of those.
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard Ron Paul described - correctly in my view - as being more left-wing on international matters than Barak Obama.
Here is the reasoning: RP blames America for all the troubles of the world. If we hadn't been in the Mid-East, no one would have attacked us, except, the Russians and Chinese have interests in the Mid-East and the Russians have been killing muslim Chechins in job-lots, but the Muslim World isn't condemning them. Neither are they condemning the Chinese, who won't allow muslim prayer in the countries they control. No widespread hatred of the Chinese evident among the Mid-East either.
Barak Obama spent three years kissing Muslim asses and promising we would be different, has the hatred decreased? Nope. Out of all the nations in Europe, who attacked a Christian country in order to preserve Bosnian muslims - the US. Did we get any credit for that? Nope. Yet, all RP sees is America being a bully. In my mind, that, if no other reason, makes him unfit to be President.
But you know what? If by some miracle of infernal intervention he gets the Republican nomination for President, I'll still vote for him over Barak Hussein Obama.
Here is the reasoning: RP blames America for all the troubles of the world. If we hadn't been in the Mid-East, no one would have attacked us, except, the Russians and Chinese have interests in the Mid-East and the Russians have been killing muslim Chechins in job-lots, but the Muslim World isn't condemning them. Neither are they condemning the Chinese, who won't allow muslim prayer in the countries they control. No widespread hatred of the Chinese evident among the Mid-East either.
Barak Obama spent three years kissing Muslim asses and promising we would be different, has the hatred decreased? Nope. Out of all the nations in Europe, who attacked a Christian country in order to preserve Bosnian muslims - the US. Did we get any credit for that? Nope. Yet, all RP sees is America being a bully. In my mind, that, if no other reason, makes him unfit to be President.
But you know what? If by some miracle of infernal intervention he gets the Republican nomination for President, I'll still vote for him over Barak Hussein Obama.
Paco Bedejo
Master
Blackhawk...your view doesn't appear to be complete. Why do you think we've been attacked, if not for currently occupying nations claimed buy Muslims?
I don't either. They like him because he was against the war and said he would get us out of them. The far left was growing tired of Obama's slowness in extricating us from Iraq. That is done now. But they still want us out of Afghanistan. They want Club Gitmo closed and that isn't happening. They think Paul will do so. Then you have the pot heads that thought Obama might do something there. So they are going to be for Paul.
Well, first it was "occupying" Saudi Arabia (although we were there at the behest of the Saudis - and the British have been providing security and weapons to the Royal House of Saud for far longer than we); then it was because we oppressing the Palestinians (although we've been providing them millions of dollars every year); then it was because we were corrupting them with our wicked ways (although they've been buggering little boys and raping girls for sport much longer than we have). To be honest, I don't remember all the little ways we've offended them, but if you want to research the "justifications" Al-Qaeda and other RIFs have posted over the years, I'm sure you can find more.
Paco Bedejo
Master
You could have just said "my views are incomplete" & I would have accepted that.
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
I'm agnostic as to how Obama voters collectively feel about liberty. Choosing McCain over Obama is not exactly a badge of honor. McCain has supported some of the most detestable Police State bills that I can recall in recent years. I can hardly see any moral superiority for choosing one blatant evil over the other.
This is why I don't carry around stereotypes and prejudices that Dems & Reps feel one way or another about freedom. I used to be trapped in that paradigm. I now realize that I have vast differences with both groups as they exist today. I do think that it is flat out wrong to stereotype and say that Obama voters "cannot support freedom."Some of the most avid freedom-lovers I know in the Ron Paul movement are former Democrats who have converted to libertarians or Ron Paul Republicans.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Sounded to me like you were complaining that people consider your vote for an establishment candidate to be anti-liberty while you consider anyone else's vote for Obama to be anti-liberty.
