Ron Paul: Electable and rising

[mbills2223]

The arguing over his humor is quite ironic I have to say. However, to me it seemed like a valid comment considering many of Santorum's political beliefs. Although as far as his beliefs on gun control, I've seen worse.

Rick Santorum on Gun Control

Ron Paul, however, has to be the favorite among this community if you are looking at candidates strictly for policies regarding the 2nd amendment.

 

[NYFelon]

I saw the original post which did not contain the "A vile slag definition..." component. The point was that you had griped about Paco Bedejo's quip about the association of Rick Santorums graph color. The entire exchange in context is where I drew the "humor will not be tolerated" response. I wasn't aware of that "definition" until MrJ brought it up. However I am by no means a fan of Mr Santorum, and found P.B.'s reference mildly humorous, if not entirely mature. We can't spend our whole lives in 100% serious mode, and senses of humor differ amongst differing people. So what's the problem?

 

[mbills2223]

I saw the original post which did not contain the "A vile slag definition..." component. The point was that you had griped about Paco Bedejo's quip about the association of Rick Santorums graph color. The entire exchange in context is where I drew the "humor will not be tolerated" response. I wasn't aware of that "definition" until MrJ brought it up. However I am by no means a fan of Mr Santorum, and found P.B.'s reference mildly humorous, if not entirely mature. We can't spend our whole lives in 100% serious mode, and senses of humor differ amongst differing people. So what's the problem?

Couldn't agree more. Seemed like valid political satire to me.

 

[KG1]

I saw the original post which did not contain the "A vile slag definition..." component. The point was that you had griped about Paco Bedejo's quip about the association of Rick Santorums graph color. The entire exchange in context is where I drew the "humor will not be tolerated" response. I wasn't aware of that "definition" until MrJ brought it up. However I am by no means a fan of Mr Santorum, and found P.B.'s reference mildly humorous, if not entirely mature. We can't spend our whole lives in 100% serious mode, and senses of humor differ amongst differing people. So what's the problem?

The point I was orginally making in my post #75 with the quotes that I pulled from a previous post in which Paco was catagorizing other peoples discussions as "high school " for not sticking strictly to the issues and then he turned around and posted in the manner in which he did.

I don't know how to make it any more clear as to what I was referring to so i'll just leave it at that.

BTW..Just for the record I am not a Santorum supporter. That's not even the issue. I could care less what you or anyone thinks of him.

 

[KG1]

Couldn't agree more. Seemed like valid political satire to me.

I would strongly disagree that the vile invented slang definition of Santorum or referring to someone as a POS because you don't agree with their positions are "valid political satire"

 

[Paco Bedejo]

KG1, unbunch your panties. That was a single, non-serious post. You can't seriously compare a single admittedly-childish post to pages & pages of useless, bullying nay-saying.

FYI, I did know the slang of Santorum when I made the joke...that *WAS* the joke. Of all the colors they could have chosen for Santorum on that graph, they went light brown &...well...that's too much coincidence for my sensors.

 

[mbills2223]

A mild comparison by today's standards, but regardless of standards I stand by my statement. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't believe Santorum was being called a POS because anyone disagreed with his views. There is a mountain of irony in the fact that his graph color is brown, and anyone who can't appreciate the humor there is taking themselves too seriously. I personally find it humorous because much of what I hear come out of Santorum's mouth sounds like a line of BS aimed at winning the vote of social conservatives. Despite how you feel about it, this conversation is about as irrelevant as Rick Santorum in this political election.

 

[Zoub]

When has Paul pledged allegiance to the Party? Is that really how you view being a Republican? That's a dangerous view; a misplaced loyalty, in my opinion.

That is a good question worth answering.

I personally do not take on labels well. I am sure it is in part to the very diverse life I have lived. However, I do value loyalty. I may disagree with a person but if he or she is capable of loylaty, that means a lot to me.

My question is this, why is Paul a Republican? When I answer that question for myself, I don't like what I see. Paul is starting to look and sound a lot like Leiberman in that respect. I can respect switching parties but NOT after the election. Paul wants the Republican votes and machine to get him in to office so he can do what he thinks is best for the Country.

Does this issue make Paul less trustworthy then Newt or Romney? Like we even need to go there. I just don't like what he appears to be doing. It appears that in his mind, the ends justify the means. Obama did the exact same thing, using the Democrat party, only Obama's true agenda is to dismantle the country because he hates it and our way of life.

On the other hand it is the Paul supporters who often use the word "never." Hello..............Maginot line. The all or nothing crap rarely works. Three yards and a cloud of dust does work.

I may or may not vote for Paul, that depends on the situation real time, but I have never said "never" and if he did win the nomination, I would support him. If he does not, I would like to see him fill some role outside of Congress, maybe ambassador to the UN. What I cannot have is Obama leading this left charge and running SCOTUS. SCOTUS appointments are another example of "3 yards" but this 3 yards comes on 4th and 2 and it will help sustain a drive that will kill us in the long run.

The Paulinian's ask for allegiance but then clearly state they will give none in return. I would rather take to the field with ten I can trust then eleven with one I can't.

So I see this consistent undercurrent/theme from Paul and his supporters. Either I am the starting QB or I walk away. Either my candidate wins or I walk.

Are any of these people Republicans or just liars and quitters? Don't take this personal, no one reading this should do that, I am making my point on my perception of this movement. How many times has Paul lost? What is the definition of insanity?

I strongly disagree with Paul on a few issues, not related to defense lets skip that dead horse, but none of them would stop me from voting for him.

Most Paul supporters seem to think they are more fed up then rest of us. I would argue you are so blinded by your rage you are missing the fact 3 yards and a cloud of dust wins it, not the long bomb. SCOTUS is 4th down play and we need to play some tough a** defense right now, no matter who is calling the plays.

 

[88GT]

I know, as far as I've seen, you haven't been saying that literally. There have been quite a few people that have been poo-pooing on Paul when he was gaining based on the fact that those numbers don't mean anything. I was talking about the best chance at beating Obama as well. There are different polls that show very different numbers (some with Newt being 2nd weakest to Mitt...the basement dwellers totally ignored).

Yep, if people vote based on perception...Dr. Paul will have serious issues as he isn't given a reasonable shot during debates and is by talking heads for his stances even when other candidates are drifting towards in the direction of Dr. Paul, however not as extreme (since most are just flip flopping). The MSM has far too much influence in the process. Their job should be fair and balanced debate coverage, leaving their bias out of it, and letting the average citizen that cares enough to be informed...have access to all of the information. The MSM crapping on politicians or candidates being ignored during debates (don't care who it is) is just plain BS. We might as well not even vote if we're going to be force fed the candidates the left and right slanting media outlets choose. Maybe the process should be changed into some sort of reality show, at least there would be greater interest in voting by the blind, deaf, and dumb.

Yes, to the bolded, but they've never been fair and balanced. When I read history books that pull heavily from contemporaneous sources in the media, I am shocked at the vitriol and hate pouring forth from the pages. Our media now is no more biased than it used to be. They just pretend to put on airs about fairness and disguise their disingenuous with less overt language.

That said, it would also help if our public education system wasn't used as an indoctrination vehicle. But it is.

So while I understand all the arguments about the disproportionate hurdles Paul is facing and why, the realist in me has to say, "Yeah, but you knew that going in. Why waste resources fighting it? It isn't going to change." We come back to the definition of stupid. This is Paul's third rodeo, and he's watched a whole lot more than that. He should know how things work. If he does not work the system, that's on him. I respect him if his choice to operate outside it is based on principle. But he and his supporters need to understand that isn't going to help him win. So he can either take the principled stand and lose (or at least have an infinitely rougher go at it), or he can take an honest look at reality and figure out how to game the system for his own benefit. The winners of these political contests don't win because they're the best. They win because they figured out how to use the system to their advantage better than anybody else.

I would delighted on many levels to have Paul as President. But it isn't going to happen if he doesn't change his strategy I'm afraid.

 

[dross]

Yes, to the bolded, but they've never been fair and balanced. When I read history books that pull heavily from contemporaneous sources in the media, I am shocked at the vitriol and hate pouring forth from the pages. Our media now is no more biased than it used to be. They just pretend to put on airs about fairness and disguise their disingenuous with less overt language.

That said, it would also help if our public education system wasn't used as an indoctrination vehicle. But it is.

So while I understand all the arguments about the disproportionate hurdles Paul is facing and why, the realist in me has to say, "Yeah, but you knew that going in. Why waste resources fighting it? It isn't going to change." We come back to the definition of stupid. This is Paul's third rodeo, and he's watched a whole lot more than that. He should know how things work. If he does not work the system, that's on him. I respect him if his choice to operate outside it is based on principle. But he and his supporters need to understand that isn't going to help him win. So he can either take the principled stand and lose (or at least have an infinitely rougher go at it), or he can take an honest look at reality and figure out how to game the system for his own benefit. The winners of these political contests don't win because they're the best. They win because they figured out how to use the system to their advantage better than anybody else.

I would delighted on many levels to have Paul as President. But it isn't going to happen if he doesn't change his strategy I'm afraid.

Our first libertarian president will be elected in the same way our first truly socialist president was elected - people won't believe the truth about him.

See, we call Clinton a socialist because he advanced many socialist policies. But inside, he's not a socialist. Reagan advanced many libertarian policies, but he wasn't a libertarian.

Ron Paul is what the left accuses all Republicans of being, at least on economic issues.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

So, you basically are stereotyping? To say "all" Muslims are "bad" is just as moronic as saying "all" Hispanics are "illegal". Who cares if Iran has a nuke, or is trying to get a nuke. If they ever attempted to use it the ramifications would be so swift and violent that you could fly 15 feet off the ground for miles in Tehran and never hit anything. Why is it our job to police the world? Why is it our job or concern to be involved with what other countries do internally? If China started telling the United States that we have to abolish the Bill of Rights of the Constitution because they do not value free speech or gun rights.. we would literally tell them to stick an egg roll up their... The fact of the matter is we have NO RIGHT to tell a sovereign nation what to do just as they have NO RIGHT to tell us what to do. The "Muslim Threat" regurgitated rhetoric gets old... We got ourselves into this mess a long time ago. Who do you think funded Osama Bin Laden in the 80's when Russia invaded A-stan?? Who do you think put Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq? Who do you think put Hosni Mubarak in power in Egypt? We meddle in others affairs and then are baffled why the world hates us. George Washington advised us in his farewell address to remain neutral in the world, and Thomas Jefferson stated "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto". We should revert back to our old ways, and regain our identity. Rant.....over......

You sound like a RP supporter. You didn't respond to my thread. You're arguing with a voice in your head. Have fun with that.

 

[steveh_131]

That said, it would also help if our public education system wasn't used as an indoctrination vehicle. But it is.

Well I certainly have to give this a .

As to the rest, there is a lot of truth there. America may not be ready for libertarian principles. We may never be ready.

But think about this for a moment. Let's say Ron Paul runs his campaign the way he has. Trying to win supporters through straight principles, principles that a lot of us agree with. And maybe he doesn't win. But his numbers are soaring, and libertarian principles seem to be on an upward trend in popularity. His campaign makes them even more visible to the public.

If enough of us are willing to spend our vote on legitimizing these principles, instead of on the next establishment candidate, it could show people that freedom is legitimate. That freedom is 'electable' for lack of a better term. Maybe then people won't be so afraid to vote based on principles.

I'm not completely dense, I do know that a GOP candidate would probably slow the decline (at least economically). But I'm willing to spend my vote on the small chance that we could have a president who actually believes in liberty. Even if it's a long road to get there.

 

[jpo117]

I'm not completely dense, I do know that a GOP candidate would probably slow the decline (at least economically).

A bit off topic, but I've seen a few people on here suggest that a RINO with a friendly Republican Congress could do more damage than Obama with a hostile Republican Congress. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Cerberus]

A bit off topic, but I've seen a few people on here suggest that a RINO with a friendly Republican Congress could do more damage than Obama with a hostile Republican Congress. What are your thoughts on that?

Very strong chance of that. No one party should ever have complete control. I don't even think that right now a healthy dose of third partiers could be all that bad. A government in grid lock doesn't usually raise your taxes or manage to kick in your doors.

 

[rambone]

Gary Johnson is calling for support of Ron Paul on his website.

garyjohnson2012.com

 

[steveh_131]

A bit off topic, but I've seen a few people on here suggest that a RINO with a friendly Republican Congress could do more damage than Obama with a hostile Republican Congress. What are your thoughts on that?

I do agree that this is probable, on social issues and police state issues. Economically I'm not certain.

 

[jdklvans]

Whoever will keep our rights alive. Not so sure about his foreign policy to some degree.

 

[Fletch]

A bit off topic, but I've seen a few people on here suggest that a RINO with a friendly Republican Congress could do more damage than Obama with a hostile Republican Congress. What are your thoughts on that?

I do agree that this is probable, on social issues and police state issues. Economically I'm not certain.

Economically, Republicans tend to go into "small State" mode when they're in opposition. They rolled over and played dead for Bush during TARP, then started howling when Obama did basically the same thing. So a Republican president with a Republican Congress would be a worse thing economically than a Republican Congress with Obama.

On the campaign trail of course, the Republican presidential candidate will be all smiles and promises about how he'll fix things and (try to) shrink government. At this point, Ron Paul is the only one I'd believe on that count.

 

[steveh_131]

Economically, Republicans tend to go into "small State" mode when they're in opposition. They rolled over and played dead for Bush during TARP, then started howling when Obama did basically the same thing. So a Republican president with a Republican Congress would be a worse thing economically than a Republican Congress with Obama.

On the campaign trail of course, the Republican presidential candidate will be all smiles and promises about how he'll fix things and (try to) shrink government. At this point, Ron Paul is the only one I'd believe on that count.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

 

[teddy12b]

Economically, Republicans tend to go into "small State" mode when they're in opposition. They rolled over and played dead for Bush during TARP, then started howling when Obama did basically the same thing. So a Republican president with a Republican Congress would be a worse thing economically than a Republican Congress with Obama.

On the campaign trail of course, the Republican presidential candidate will be all smiles and promises about how he'll fix things and (try to) shrink government. At this point, Ron Paul is the only one I'd believe on that count.

That's pretty much the problem I see with the current candidate lineup. Whoever voted for Tarp is automatically crossed off my list because I'm tired of the little game they play where if someone on their side wants to spend money then it's ok, but if someone on the other side wants to spend, then it's the devil.

I read a good quote the other day and don't remember where it was but it was something to the effect of, the Presidential race is like everyone argueing over where to go for dinner and Ron Paul is the only one saying that we can't afford to go out to eat. While I'm sure I didn't quote that perfectly, it gets the point across.