Question for Paul supporters

[Crackerjack]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

He has the potential to be far more effective at it than someone who won't even try.

 

[Avorysuds]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

LOLOLOL....


Newt, Santorum and Mitt all grew Government, on massive scales... Paul didn't. Just give up before you fall even further behind bro.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The only reason the legislation Paul has offered has not been passed is because the legislation he offers is Constitutional, and usually involves entrenched interests ceding power rather than garnering it.

Like the bill he offered years ago about putting a REAL LOCK on Social Security money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

LOLOLOL....


Newt, Santorum and Mitt all grew Government, on massive scales... Paul didn't. Just give up before you fall even further behind bro.

I think you missed the point I was making in the post. Perhaps if you read more carefully, you might or might not get it. Good luck.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only reason the legislation Paul has offered has not been passed is because the legislation he offers is Constitutional, and usually involves entrenched interests ceding power rather than garnering it.

Like the bill he offered years ago about putting a REAL LOCK on Social Security money.

I agree. I don't have any quarrel with 99% of the legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored. But if he can't persuade folks to follow his lead, he will be ineffective no matter how on target he may be. How tough would he be? Tough enough to incur the wrath of his fellow Republicans? Tough enough to so alienate himself that he would be unable to get any sort of reforms through?

He has no track record of either that kind of leadership or toughness. So we can only hope that he has the right stuff to be President.

Despite our fellow board member's opinion that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all grew government, nobody can grow it or shrink it by themselves.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

Why would I support someone who "achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go" when they're doing the exact opposite of what i want a politician to do?

I'd much rather vote for someone who consistently votes no, and has no support than someone who votes yes to expand spending and gov't and has oodles of support.

I saw zero, literally zero, fiscal restraint from 2001-2007 when we had almost nothing but republicans in power. They set a record for highest budget in U.S. history all 6 of those years consecutively.

I don't see how the man who invented Obamacare will slow socialism, or the man who's openly endorsed a single payer system multiple times.

But one thing i agree, even if Paul became prez it wouldn't fix gov't at all. It would just be one step, it would be a sign that the american people are finally taking fiscal responsibility, debt, deficits, spending and small gov't seriously. He would still be battling against the entire body of the republcan and democrat party who only know to expand spending and expand gov't.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

I'm not voting for big federal government. Romney, Newt and Santorum are big government guys. They can move their agenda BECAUSE of this. The whole nation is on fire with more safety, more government, less liberty. Like I said before, if we're gonna break this thing, I say we break it good and Obama is the man for the job.

As for what kind of clout Ron has to move his agenda? Not much. No argument there. He focuses on things he can do right away like ending the wars, bringing the troops home and doing the nation building here instead of some far off desert. After that, changing the national tone would be a huge step in the right direction. If that's all we get, it's far more than belly flopping around in what is happening now.

 

[HUGGY]

Would you support the nominee if it's not Ron Paul but he chooses Rand for VP?


Ron Paul is the poison pill of the republican nomination proccess. He is the "Ralph Nader" of the GOP. He will keep his supporters. He is far more visible this time around and his message remains the same. He will never endorse another candidate. He will make his point and by doing so ensure an Obama victory.

 

[Crackerjack]

Despite our fellow board member's opinion that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all grew government ...

That's not opinion. That's fact.

 

[Avorysuds]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

LOLOLOL....


Newt, Santorum and Mitt all grew Government, on massive scales... Paul didn't. Just give up before you fall even further behind bro.

I think you missed the point I was making in the post. Perhaps if you read more carefully, you might or might not get it. Good luck.

Sorry, my point was that of course newt, Santorum and Mitt got more done, they spent more, they grew Government more... None of them EVER shrunk Government, so why would I vote for someone that has a proven track record of growing Government and that's it?

If anything you just made the perfect case for Paul by showing the other candidates and Obama are the reason we are in this mess.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The only reason the legislation Paul has offered has not been passed is because the legislation he offers is Constitutional, and usually involves entrenched interests ceding power rather than garnering it.

Like the bill he offered years ago about putting a REAL LOCK on Social Security money.

I agree. I don't have any quarrel with 99% of the legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored. But if he can't persuade folks to follow his lead, he will be ineffective no matter how on target he may be. How tough would he be? Tough enough to incur the wrath of his fellow Republicans? Tough enough to so alienate himself that he would be unable to get any sort of reforms through?

He has no track record of either that kind of leadership or toughness. So we can only hope that he has the right stuff to be President.

Despite our fellow board member's opinion that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all grew government, nobody can grow it or shrink it by themselves.

I'm not going to blame the man who wrote the legislation that decreases spending and scales back gov't, i'm going to blame the men who know what's in the legislation and still vote against it.


If you're a fiscally responsible small gov't conservative, you shouldn't need sold on spending cuts and scale backs of gov't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lol, god you're such a poor sport. Whenever you lose a debate you instantly resort to the middle school name-calling.

We Paul supporters know what he's doing, i don't see any on this thread who don't. He's making the most out of a terrible situation.

Here's a crazy theory, why don't you hold your beloved neocons who vote in favor of spending increases responsible? Why attack the one guy who NEVER votes in favor of spending increases?

Oh i know why, cuz you're a big gov't liberal.

Flattery will get you nowhere.


Ron Paul is a hypocrite and if you have no problem with that then so be it.

Really, he is not and you any ability to prove he is. What Paul does is follow the laws we have but he talks about how damaging the laws we have are, and he is right.

The real issue is you're a typical Paul hater, you see Paul follow the law as bad because Paul himself said the system is bad yet you hold no other person on the stage with him accountable despite their record being 100x worse.

Sure he is and I gave a great example.

Your blind support is well.... sad.

Oh I don't hate Paul, hell he delivered me. And I actually enjoy discussions between the two of us even though I think he's an idiot and he probably thinks the same about me. Fact is Paul games the system in order to appear conservative and folks like you apparently buy into it.

As for the others on stage, they haven't been brought up. But they are hypocrites in their own right.

I'm still undecided but I know that Ron Paul will not get my vote just for his foreign policy stance alone.

 

[imbalance]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

I really disagree. Mitt has no rigid platform to exist in conflict with Ron/Rand's. I do not believe Mitt is beholden to special interests like so many want to make him out to be; it's just not consistent with his professional history. Romney has operated as an independent consultant, a financial strategist whose success has been dependent upon his intellectual flexibility adapting to whatever the situation called for. Ideologues cannot achieve consistent success in that line of work because problem solving for the honest sake of solution demands a genuine open-mindedness derived from the fallibilist philosophy I detect in Romney.

Certainly Romney is intellectually capable of learning/understanding various economic/political conceptual models. Just as importantly, I believe he's willingly capable of evaluating them objectively. So if you believe the principles advocated by Ron Paul to be correct, have faith that an open-minded individual will agree.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Would you support the nominee if it's not Ron Paul but he chooses Rand for VP?


Ron Paul is the poison pill of the republican nomination proccess. He is the "Ralph Nader" of the GOP. He will keep his supporters. He is far more visible this time around and his message remains the same. He will never endorse another candidate. He will make his point and by doing so ensure an Obama victory.

The GOP can thank themselves for Obama's victory in November. 2 months ago Paul and supporters were of little concern. Now we're gonna be the poison because they GOP candidates offered up next to Paul are hacks for conservatives? LOLZ!

We'll be getting blamed for this for years to come I can see.

 

[Avorysuds]

The only reason the legislation Paul has offered has not been passed is because the legislation he offers is Constitutional, and usually involves entrenched interests ceding power rather than garnering it.

Like the bill he offered years ago about putting a REAL LOCK on Social Security money.

I agree. I don't have any quarrel with 99% of the legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored. But if he can't persuade folks to follow his lead, he will be ineffective no matter how on target he may be. How tough would he be? Tough enough to incur the wrath of his fellow Republicans? Tough enough to so alienate himself that he would be unable to get any sort of reforms through?

He has no track record of either that kind of leadership or toughness. So we can only hope that he has the right stuff to be President.

Despite our fellow board member's opinion that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all grew government, nobody can grow it or shrink it by themselves.

So the answer is simple, vote for people that have a track record of growing Government... And people wonder why the Republican party is dying....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I will write Ron Paul in

 

[Dr.Drock]

Would you support the nominee if it's not Ron Paul but he chooses Rand for VP?


Ron Paul is the poison pill of the republican nomination proccess. He is the "Ralph Nader" of the GOP. He will keep his supporters. He is far more visible this time around and his message remains the same. He will never endorse another candidate. He will make his point and by doing so ensure an Obama victory.

False, once Ron Paul dies I'll be every bit against the big gov't libs in the rep party as I am against your hero big gov't libs in the dem party.


I'm not a republican, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. The day there's more than one fiscally responsible small gov't conservative in gov't, I'll support him/her. Couldn't care less what party s/he is or isn't in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

would you support the nominee if it's not ron paul but he chooses rand for vp?


ron paul is the poison pill of the republican nomination proccess. He is the "ralph nader" of the gop. He will keep his supporters. He is far more visible this time around and his message remains the same. He will never endorse another candidate. He will make his point and by doing so ensure an obama victory.

the gop can thank themselves for obama's victory in november. 2 months ago paul adn supporters were of little concern. Now we're gonna be the poison because they gop candidates offered up next to paul are hacks for conservatives? Lolz!

We'll be getting blamed for this for years to come i can see.

yep

 

[Crackerjack]

Would you support the nominee if it's not Ron Paul but he chooses Rand for VP?


Ron Paul is the poison pill of the republican nomination proccess. He is the "Ralph Nader" of the GOP. He will keep his supporters. He is far more visible this time around and his message remains the same. He will never endorse another candidate. He will make his point and by doing so ensure an Obama victory.

The GOP can thank themselves for Obama's victory in November. 2 months ago Paul adn supporters were of little concern. Now we're gonna be the poison because they GOP candidates offered up next to Paul are hacks for conservatives? LOLZ!

We'll be getting blamed for this for years to come I can see.

Getting blamed for voting my conscience is something I can handle. I doubt I'll lose much sleep over it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As for the others on stage, they haven't been brought up. But they are hypocrites in their own right.

Yes they have. You just want to do the RP bash dance. It's sooo last year already though.