Question for Paul supporters

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

And how do you know that Obama would outspend Romney over the next four years? Because Romney said he will cut spending in all these debates they have been having?

Immie

For one thing Obama won't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Ultimately I trust Romney's views are certainly more in line with free market capitalism and liberty in general, than Obama.

Well if I may speak for the other Paul supporters, we don't.

 

[Rocko]

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.

 

[Full-Auto]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

spending isnt my only issue, it is just the disclaimer

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ron paul or I'm taking my ball and going home for good. Last shot at saving the republic, I'm afraid.

To answer the OP, the answer is no. All the GOP candidates are dirty slime bags that have the "which ever way the wind blows" attitude Ive come to despise in our politicians. No principles, just power hungry sewer dwellers.

Obama is a spending whore and I hate his socialize it agenda. But if we're going to break this mother f'er, we might as well go down doing it big. If that makes sense.

 

[Avatar4321]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

I don't see it as the lesser of two evils personally. I would rather have part of my agenda push forwards rather than none.

 

[Rocko]

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

spending isnt my only issue, it is just the disclaimer

I hear you.....but still, don't you think we Obama is ultimately worse by any measure than anyone of the republicans?? ( Judging competency, world view, morality, respect for the constitution)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think there is any striking difference between Obama and any of the GOP candidates besides Paul. YOu have to remember, these guys all talk a good game, but that is all they really do. Talk. Once they get in office, it's business as usual. Bush ran on a non-interventionist ticket in 2000. How'd that work out?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think there is any striking difference between Obama and any of the GOP candidates besides Paul. YOu have to remember, these guys all talk a good game, but that is all they really do. Talk. Once they get in office, it's business as usual. Bush ran on a non-interventionist ticket in 2000. How'd that work out?

Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.

The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think there is any striking difference between Obama and any of the GOP candidates besides Paul. YOu have to remember, these guys all talk a good game, but that is all they really do. Talk. Once they get in office, it's business as usual. Bush ran on a non-interventionist ticket in 2000. How'd that work out?

Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.

The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.

Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.

You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....

 

[Immanuel]

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

And how do you know that Obama would outspend Romney over the next four years? Because Romney said he will cut spending in all these debates they have been having?

Immie

For one thing Obama won't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Ultimately I trust Romney's views are certainly more in line with free market capitalism and liberty in general, than Obama.

I suppose that I have become so cynical that I don't trust any thing either one of them say any longer. I believe Romney can be just as bad if not worse than Obama's last three years. Now what happens with Obama in the next four years is questionable and yes, I expect worse from him too, but Romney being an unknown quantity with questionable conservative qualities... scares the hell out of me.

After Bush, we said, he wasn't conservative... I fear Romney won't even make it a year before we are in that same predictiment.

Immie

 

[Rocko]

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

I don't see it as the lesser of two evils personally. I would rather have part of my agenda push forwards rather than none.

I feel the same way, but to some degree I also believe it's the lesser of two evils.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think there is any striking difference between Obama and any of the GOP candidates besides Paul. YOu have to remember, these guys all talk a good game, but that is all they really do. Talk. Once they get in office, it's business as usual. Bush ran on a non-interventionist ticket in 2000. How'd that work out?

Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.

The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.

Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.

You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....

You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.

I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.

The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.

Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.

You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....

You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.

I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's "big government record?"

 

[Rocko]

And how do you know that Obama would outspend Romney over the next four years? Because Romney said he will cut spending in all these debates they have been having?

Immie

For one thing Obama won't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Ultimately I trust Romney's views are certainly more in line with free market capitalism and liberty in general, than Obama.

I suppose that I have become so cynical that I don't trust any thing either one of them say any longer. I believe Romney can be just as bad if not worse than Obama's last three years. Now what happens with Obama in the next four years is questionable and yes, I expect worse from him too, but Romney being an unknown quantity with questionable conservative qualities... scares the hell out of me.

After Bush, we said, he wasn't conservative... I fear Romney won't even make it a year before we are in that same predictiment.

Immie

I agree with everything you wrote, but the bolded is reason enough to vote Obama out. It can get a lot worse and Obama is llikely to make it a lot worse.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.

The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.

Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.

You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....

You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.

I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.

The point in my comment is generalized adn sweeping deliberately. Because the wrong issues are the big-to-do of the day and even my friends and family are more concerned about abortion talks and other non federal gubmint issues. Who looks good, etc...It's not a jab at anyone in particular. But I must say, it looks dire in that regard.

Big government record? Doctor "no". You're going to bring up earmarks now, aren't you. Playing the game by the rules set in front of you while screaming about how it needs to change is a bit different than being a big govt. advocate. We have no other options that are viable. We have Paul. That's it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's "big government record?"

He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.

If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.

I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.

You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....

You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.

I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.

The point in my comment is generalized adn sweeping deliberately. Because the wrong issues are the big-to-do of the day and even my friends and family are more concerned about abortion talks and other non federal gubmint issues. Who looks good, etc...It's not a jab at anyone in particular. But I must say, it looks dire in that regard.

Big government record? Doctor "no". You're going to bring up earmarks now, aren't you. Playing the game by the rules set in front of you while screaming about how it needs to change is a bit different than being a big govt. advocate. We have no other options that are viable. We have Paul. That's it.

Playing a game and making yourself a hypocrite.

You knew exactly what I was going to bring up. You just dont have the integrity to admit he's wrong for doing so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's "big government record?"

He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.

If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.

I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.

Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?

 

[Avorysuds]

I wouldn't vote for any of them, however as VP for Rand it would be a tuff call... It sets Rand up very good in the future. The issue is Obama will win so it does not matter.

The GOP has gone too far out of its way to piss off Paul and his supporters, and the main issue is Paul’s supporters are simply far more intelligent about the issues than your average Republican. From the economy, from actual cuts to wars around the world. Paulites actually for the most part live up to their talk, where as all the others have done nothing but claim they will cut future Obamacare spending (not a current deficit spending issue) while offering new massive spending.

 

[Avorysuds]

In fact if it were not for Paul on stage they would not even be talking about cuts at all.