Ron Paul .. the only True Constitutional Candidate

[gunowner930]

This is why Ron Paul can win. The nation is sick and tired of War.

George W. Obama has proved to be nothing but a puppet of the U.N. and the Military Industrial Complex. Continuing wars in Iraq & Aghanistan, starting a new one in Libya, ramping up in Pakistan, threatening Syria, bombing Yemen with drones... Its madness. We cannot afford it. It is pointless. Most Americans are sick of it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate with any discernible difference from Obama on war. Obama's actions speak for themselves. The rest of the warhawks and neoconservatives aren't going to win enough voters to unseat Obama. The country can't survive their status quo policies either.

I agree, he has to emphasize his integrity on issues that he hasn't flip flopped on, the economy, the wars, and size and power of the federal government. 2008 was a pipe dream, I think he at least has a realistic shot of securing the nomination. The economy will likely be the number 1 issue. If Paul wins the nomination and gets to debate with Barack Obama heads up, things could get ugly for Obama. I don't think Obama is capable of debating Paul, especially regarding economics. Obama will look stupid debating Paul.

 

[DragonGunner]

Could you post your citations about some of these things NOT being diseases?

Call me crazy but my mother suffered from narcotics addiction for many years, many accredited doctors and physiologists call this a disease, including myself.

I think you would need strong argument in order to debate with that stance

Don't care what some docs say, sorry for your mother, as you said...its a addiction....I see addiction as being different from a disease....I now our culture came up with this crap yrs. ago to start calling alot of things a disease....My best friend died from Cancer, he didn't have any choice....you have a choice with to get drunk an stay drunk, a choice to get addicted to drugs, to get fat an stay that way......its not a disease...its something else, but INGO rules won't let me address that.....as far as debate or having a stance....I know what I know. Some will agree an some like yourself won't......an I'm OK with that.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

No telepromter just speaking from the heart.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xt1-cM7VaE&feature=related[/ame]

 

[WWIIIDefender]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQs6ri7Dt0[/ame]

 

[WWIIIDefender]

and in 2008 right after we bailed out AIG.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8&playnext=1&list=PL73176D97DA66B6A3[/ame]

 

[rambone]

The War on Ron Paul -- by Susan Westfall

 

[WWIIIDefender]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fBjFzmWGPU&feature=feedu[/ame]

 

[RockofStrength]

I agree, he has to emphasize his integrity on issues that he hasn't flip flopped on, the economy, the wars, and size and power of the federal government. 2008 was a pipe dream, I think he at least has a realistic shot of securing the nomination. The economy will likely be the number 1 issue. If Paul wins the nomination and gets to debate with Barack Obama heads up, things could get ugly for Obama. I don't think Obama is capable of debating Paul, especially regarding economics. Obama will look stupid debating Paul.

You presume the American people will respect the intelligent, well-informed speaker in that case?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ron Paul is a perennial Presidential loser. His doesn't stand any more of a chance this time around than the past two times he's run for President. It has nothing to do with his ideas. It's his communication skills (or lack thereof). He is smart and well informed. However he can't communicate. He's a gadfly who will pull 6-8% of the primary vote and ensure an establishment candidate is nominated. Nothing more.

You Paultards will have to pick a different standard bearer. Herman Cain is fresh. I hear Jesse Ventura may run too.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Ron Paul is a perennial Presidential loser. His doesn't stand any more of a chance this time around than the past two times he's run for President. It has nothing to do with his ideas. It's his communication skills (or lack thereof). He is smart and well informed. However he can't communicate. He's a gadfly who will pull 6-8% of the primary vote and ensure an establishment candidate is nominated. Nothing more.

You Paultards will have to pick a different standard bearer. Herman Cain is fresh. I hear Jesse Ventura may run too.

Well us paultards will vote for paul regardless so you might as well just count our vote out then in your left right paridime game.

 

[Stschil]

Well us paultards will vote for paul regardless so you might as well just count our vote out then in your left right paridime game.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If those who continue to wait on the "establishment" candidate to emerge would simply change their mindset and help support a candidate that could actually LEAD the nation, we might have a chance at some true beneficial change in our government. This goes for all levels from city, town, county, state all the way to the White House. No, it wont be instantaneous, but I believe it must take place. We cannot fix the Nation from the top down, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well us paultards will vote for paul regardless so you might as well just count our vote out then in your left right paridime game.

That's fine. You can do what you want to do. But at the end of the day the consequences of your decision will be to put Romney or another moderate in the race against Obama. Although as usual the nominating game will likely be over by the time it reaches Indiana, so it's probably a moot issue anyway.

Oh, and when Ron Paul runs in the Republican primary, he's the one that is playing the left right paradigm game. He's just playing it in spikes when he should be wearing skates.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If those who continue to wait on the "establishment" candidate to emerge would simply change their mindset and help support a candidate that could actually LEAD the nation, we might have a chance at some true beneficial change in our government. This goes for all levels from city, town, county, state all the way to the White House. No, it wont be instantaneous, but I believe it must take place. We cannot fix the Nation from the top down, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

I absolutely agree. And the way to not do it is support gadflys so far outside the mainstream that they can't and won't win a nomination. It is to find and support candidates that support a majority of your vews but also actually have a snowball's chance in hell to win.

I don't want another establishment candidate. If we get another milktoast moderate I'll gouge out my eye (metaphorically speaking). But that's what happens when you get candidates who peel off voting blocs. That's all Ron Paul is. That's all he will ever be.

 

[Stschil]

That's fine. You can do what you want to do. But at the end of the day the consequences of your decision will be to put Romney or another moderate in the race against Obama. Although as usual the nominating game will likely be over by the time it reaches Indiana, so it's probably a moot issue anyway.

Oh, and when Ron Paul runs in the Republican primary, he's the one that is playing the left right paradigm game. He's just playing it in spikes when he should be wearing skates.



I absolutely agree. And the way to not do it is support gadflys so far outside the mainstream that they can't and won't win a nomination. It is to find and support candidates that support a majority of your vews but also actually have a snowball's chance in hell to win.

I don't want another establishment candidate. If we get another milktoast moderate I'll gouge out my eye (metaphorically speaking). But that's what happens when you get candidates who peel off voting blocs. That's all Ron Paul is. That's all he will ever be.

Unfortunately, the only candiate that Republicans will put forward will be an establishmentarian, because they want power. They know that there are more people with your views and will pander to them. It's not about leadership and what is good for the nation with either the R's or the D's. Put them all in a pot and mix it up and you'll never be able to tell the difference.

Not to be argumentative, but the way to change candidates like Ron Paul's status from gadfly, to use your term, is to change the voters' viewpoint on how the system needs to work.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Sir, in that the Ron Pauls of the world are detrimental. I feel that we need people like him, though not perfect and who is?, to challenge the status quo and hopefully help change things for the better, not give us more of the same.

Just using Indiana Sens and Reps as a local example, an overwhelming majority just gave us more of the same, once again, by allowing the Patriot Act to continue to heap injustice and oppression upon the Citizens of Our Nation.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Unfortunately, the only candiate that Republicans will put forward will be an establishmentarian, because they want power. They know that there are more people with your views and will pander to them. It's not about leadership and what is good for the nation with either the R's or the D's. Put them all in a pot and mix it up and you'll never be able to tell the difference.

Not to be argumentative, but the way to change candidates like Ron Paul's status from gadfly, to use your term, is to change the voters' viewpoint on how the system needs to work.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Sir, in that the Ron Pauls of the world are detrimental. I feel that we need people like him, though not perfect and who is?, to challenge the status quo and hopefully help change things for the better, not give us more of the same.

Just using Indiana Sens and Reps as a local example, an overwhelming majority just gave us more of the same, once again, by allowing the Patriot Act to continue to heap injustice and oppression upon the Citizens of Our Nation.

I don't agree with your assessment. The right candidate with the right message will win. Ronald Reagan was not an establishment candidate. He had a message, stuck to it, and won. He fought the establishment the entire time he was President.

And what exactly are my views, Obiwan?

One of the things Obama has learned is that being a candidate where you can throw rocks at everyone you don't like is different than actually having to govern. It's not the candidates, or the people elected to the positions. It's the system itself that is corrupt. It doesn't matter who you put in the seat. If Ron Paul were President he would encounter the same footdragging and reality check that any other President would. Obama declared Gitmo would close. Good. What do you do with the people there? Oops, not so simple now. No military trials. What are we doing? Holding military trials. Why? Because the one guy they tried in federal court was found not guilty on 23 of 24 charges. Oops.

Contrary to popular belief the President can't just do what he wants. The President is the executive. He governs according to the will and rules of Congress. He has a lot of deference, but he can't (or shouldn't, because this President does) spend money not allocated by Congress. He can't make laws not authorized by Congress. His budgets are granted by Congress. Congress is the real power.

Who said the Ron Pauls of the world are detrimental? Not me. I think his views are essential, and for the most part correct. I disagree on his isolationist stance, while I tend to agree in principle with much of the drug stance, is a flat out losing issue. His position on the Federal Reserve, while correct, cannot be consumed by most potential voters. Instead of little words he uses big, technical words in an Oprah world. It will never work. He speaks over people.

You can't change people's behavior. You can't change what they think. You can educate them as to why there are better solutions they may not have thought of. Only they will change their mind.

Paul's specific problem is he is a loser. He's proven that two times already, and this time can and will be no different. He cannot communicate. He's got a cult following, but lacks the leadership or communication skills and organization necessary to make his following a movement and the movement a mandate. He's a two-time loser who is doing nothing more than stirring the pot. He won't win, and knows it. While he helps shape the debate the voting populace has twice rejected his message. It's time for a new standardbearer, one that resonates with the voling base for the party whose nomination he seeks.

 

[Stschil]

Semper Fi, I think fundementally, feel the same way, the system needs to change.
My view on Paul are just that the more he tries, the more people actually start listening. I know that he doesn't have much chance, and I know that no President holds ultimate power, as it should be, we aren't a monarchy
But, as you stated, Reagan got things done. He did so because he had the backing of congress. In today's times, in order to get anything through congress, too many concessions need to be made. Too many favors, too much back scratching, too many back room deals, too much pandering to the politically uneducated masses.
My point, I suppose, is there is no candidate that can be trusted that will appeal to the masses. So, why support them? If the system is to change, the people who run it need to be put on alert that they don't hold the power anymore. If we vote time and time again for whomever happens to sound the nicest, instead of the ones that stand in support of the Constitution the two parties that now hold the American voter hostage will never do anything different.

Maybe I am truly misunderstanding you, it just sounds to me that you'd support any candidate over Nobamma just because it got to be better
I mean no disrespect, but if another person other than Paul would stand up with the same message, would that be more preferable?

 

[Garb]

Who said the Ron Pauls of the world are detrimental? Not me. I think his views are essential, and for the most part correct. I disagree on his isolationist stance, while I tend to agree in principle with much of the drug stance, is a flat out losing issue. His position on the Federal Reserve, while correct, cannot be consumed by most potential voters. Instead of little words he uses big, technical words in an Oprah world. It will never work. He speaks over people.

You can't change people's behavior. You can't change what they think. You can educate them as to why there are better solutions they may not have thought of. Only they will change their mind.

Paul's specific problem is he is a loser. He's proven that two times already, and this time can and will be no different. He cannot communicate. He's got a cult following, but lacks the leadership or communication skills and organization necessary to make his following a movement and the movement a mandate. He's a two-time loser who is doing nothing more than stirring the pot. He won't win, and knows it. While he helps shape the debate the voting populace has twice rejected his message. It's time for a new standardbearer, one that resonates with the voling base for the party whose nomination he seeks.

I think you're misrepresenting Paul here. I don't think he talks over people at all. In fact, I think the way he talks to people makes them feel good because he recognizes their individuality. Sure he gets a little preachy at times, but the things he brings to the table are issues that need to be brought up because if no one brings them up, nothing will change. I think his goal is to educate people, he's smart enough to know that he probably won't get elected as POTUS. He's a loser? What does that make Obama then? A winner? I don't think so. Obama won the presidency, but he can't win a debate to save his life. Ron Paul, unfortunately, seems to be the exact opposite. You can disagree with him, and that's completely fine, but until people's mindsets change, the country never will. I think he's playing a key role in educating people these days, something not many other candidates have done.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmsP95Bl9pM[/ame]

What does Ronald Reagan think of Ron Paul
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg[/ame]