Ron Paul Cant Win

[Xchel]

um no I can specifically point out a real reason why we need bases sometimes in foreign countries especially since I live in that country...in Honduras there was huge political unrest because of a president being removed in 2009 for wanting to throw out the constitution...Chavez from Venezuela wanted to and insisted on invading Honduras, the US was against that idea as were others..If there had been no US base I have no doubt that Nicaragua and Venezuela would have invaded Honduras causing a war throughout latin America and in case you forgot that is your backyard...and it would have spread and caused you grief in the US.

For the one that said that he was against Perry because of immigration policies..it seems you need to brush up on Ron Paul's actual immigration policy...

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?

 

[Unkotare]

Or maybe I just dont live in the same fantasy you do. .

NO, it's because you are stupid and short-sighted. You talk about what we "can't afford." Do you think our military presence abroad is for fun, idiot?

No I think its for the profits of the military industrial complex. I think it exists for huge multinational corporations to suck wealth from the nations treasury. I think it exists so our corporate interests can have new markets to expand into, and the military is used for nations that resist.

Try again, moron.

 

[WatertheTree]

Are you sure that you are a Republican because your words tell me that you are a progressive. You better check your party affiliation, because you are absolutely not a conservative if these are your views. You are a blame AMERICA crowd and that's exactly what progressives or liberals do--- conservatives don't.

P.S non-interventionists is the same as isolationists. Okay?? Especially when it came to World War 11.

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

what is a constitutionalists? I might know what a constitutionalist is..but not a constitutionalists...that also being said by you does not make you more qualified on anything. Do you have an advanced degree in political science that we do not know about? Beyond that you are no more qualified than anyone else here on what is or is not conservative or history and you do not seem to understand that non interventionist is what isolationist means.

Isolationist is what we have been doing to Cuba, or Korea. Keeping them isolated from trade and relations with other nations.

Non interventionist is like iceland, or sweden, or austrailia. You know, country's that are not a bunch of war mongers so eager to dedicate the youth and the treasury to just plain silly ideals that are not based in reality at all.

 

[WatertheTree]

um no I can specifically point out a real reason why we need bases sometimes in foreign countries especially since I live in that country...in Honduras there was huge political unrest because of a president being removed in 2009 for wanting to throw out the constitution...Chavez from Venezuela wanted to and insisted on invading Honduras, the US was against that idea as were others..If there had been no US base I have no doubt that Nicaragua and Venezuela would have invaded Honduras causing a war throughout latin America and in case you forgot that is your backyard...and it would have spread and caused you grief in the US.

For the one that said that he was against Perry because of immigration policies..it seems you need to brush up on Ron Paul's actual immigration policy...

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.

 

[Xchel]

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

what is a constitutionalists? I might know what a constitutionalist is..but not a constitutionalists...that also being said by you does not make you more qualified on anything. Do you have an advanced degree in political science that we do not know about? Beyond that you are no more qualified than anyone else here on what is or is not conservative or history and you do not seem to understand that non interventionist is what isolationist means.

Isolationist is what we have been doing to Cuba, or Korea. Keeping them isolated from trade and relations with other nations.

Non interventionist is like iceland, or sweden, or austrailia. You know, country's that are not a bunch of war mongers so eager to dedicate the youth and the treasury to just plain silly ideals that are not based in reality at all.

nope he is an isolationist...not just a non interventionist like Swedan and the other two countries which are insignificant in size or military....find a country who has 300 million in population like us that has successfully been isolationist. A person does not do it, it is a foreign policy that applies to yourself. An isoliationist opposes international alliances and that is exactly what Ron Paul does.

 

[Unkotare]

Isolationist is what we have been doing to Cuba, or Korea. Keeping them isolated from trade and relations with other nations.

Non interventionist is like iceland, or sweden, or austrailia. .

Um, NO.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshkO8HqQ10]Consuela says "No" for about 30 seconds - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

[

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire .

We are not an empire, moron.

 

[Xchel]

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.

I live in Honduras that is where I get my facts. You think that his ALBA agreements are off the wall theories? Where in the hell have you been? This is why fools should not get involved in politics....especially when they are clueless as to why we do not want to pull out our bases from everywhere.

but since you continue to have your head in the sand....

Chavez wants military alliance against US - Geopolitical Monitor

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Hugo Chavez suggests invading Honduras after coup

perhaps you are the only person who did not know about the unrest that happened on June 29, 2009 and that is why you are unqualified to determine what is needed and Ron Paul is even more disqualified than you are.

 

[Paulie]

There's obviously a huge problem in this country when people somehow manage to refer to Ron Paul as a "liberal democrat".

The only fucking person in the entire federal government who's not afraid to vote conservative even when the rest of the republican party is leaning left, and somehow he's still passed up by "conservatives".

I hope you idiots vote for Romney or Perry so I can laugh in your face when they double cross you.

 

[Xchel]

Paulie or laugh when Ron Paul sends us into the dumpster right? he isn't winning stop complaining about it.

 

[Paulie]

Paulie or laugh when Ron Paul sends us into the dumpster right? he isn't winning stop complaining about it.

For someone who thinks he's so unelectable and irrelevant you sure do spend an extremely large amount of time in threads about him

 

[Xchel]

actually I spend time on threads everywhere..not just on Ron Paul...but I also didn't start the thread and no he isn't electable...that can be seen by the way he was just about booed off stage for his comments in the debate.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are not to well versed if you are a Ron Paul supporter. We were isolationists before World War 11, we allowed Germany to gear up, why we stood by and watched, we were attacked by their ally Japan at Pearl Harbor, while we were sleeping, Germany declared war on us and if it had not been that Russia turned on Germany and Germany had to fight a second front, you would be speaking German or Japanese now and there would not have been a jewish person left in the world. Over 100 million people were killed during World War 11, now imagine that number exponentially with nuclear weapons and there you have your answer. Ron Paul is a kook.

Ron Paul has an extremely dangerous foriegn policy one that would allow a nation of nut case martyrs to have a nuke which I can guarantee you they would use or turn over to terrorists who have vowed to kill any non-muslim there is, that includes you and your loved ones.

We were non-interventionists.

Also, without our involvement in World War 1 and the treaty of versailles that was levied against the German people because of our involvement which Hitler used as grievance that propelled him into power.

The Muslim world hates us because our foreign policy is responsible for the overthrowing of once democratic rulers to dictators, we levy sanctions that kill thousands of innocent people, and occupy their lands we have over 900 hundred bases in over 100 countries.

So, by your logic if we have a white extremist here in America targeting China, is it okay for China to occupy our land, impose its will on the population while it hunts down this extremist? What if their sanctions keep medical care and food from reaching American citizens and some bullets and bombs go stray and kill some Americans?

We would be opposed to it.

Read what the CIA writes about Blowback. I used to agree with you and beat the war drum that it is Muslim extremism but that just isn't the case. The founder spoke of educating each other and I strongly suggest you do some reading.

Are you sure that you are a Republican because your words tell me that you are a progressive. You better check your party affiliation, because you are absolutely not a conservative if these are your views. You are a blame AMERICA crowd and that's exactly what progressives or liberals do--- conservatives don't.

P.S non-interventionists is the same as isolationists. Okay?? Especially when it came to World War 11.

! The poster was is absolutely correct in the assessment of World War 1 and its connection to World War 2 as well as the fact that our policy in the Muslim world DOES have an impact on Muslim nations outlook on the US. Terrorist attacks certainly do have a connection with that policy as well. The key is finding the correct amount of involvement to keep us safe at home. That is not a conservative or progressive view, it is basic understanding that your actions have impact and consequence. If you can't see that I do not know what to tell you. Do you really think that our foreign policy does not have an effect on Muslim extremist targeting? Calling that a blame America first attitude is asinine.

um no I can specifically point out a real reason why we need bases sometimes in foreign countries especially since I live in that country...in Honduras there was huge political unrest because of a president being removed in 2009 for wanting to throw out the constitution...Chavez from Venezuela wanted to and insisted on invading Honduras, the US was against that idea as were others..If there had been no US base I have no doubt that Nicaragua and Venezuela would have invaded Honduras causing a war throughout latin America and in case you forgot that is your backyard...and it would have spread and caused you grief in the US.

For the one that said that he was against Perry because of immigration policies..it seems you need to brush up on Ron Paul's actual immigration policy...

Nice, so you gave a reason that ONE base out of the stated 900 had some importance. We do not need to pull out of all bases but MASSIVE numbers of bases need to be closed. We have HUNDREDS of bases in Germany alone. What possible reason can we have for that many bases in Germany to exist. Also, we have bases in the UK as well. We need ONE base in Germany OR the UK to serve as a waypoint between the AOR and the US. That is all. Anything beyond that is an exercise in stupidity and waste.

That's because you are stupid and short-sighted.

Or maybe I just dont live in the same fantasy you do. .

NO, it's because you are stupid and short-sighted. You talk about what we "can't afford." Do you think our military presence abroad is for fun, idiot?

Do you think that we need ALL the bases established overseas or that a small fraction of bases could accomplish the same goal?

I think most of the answers here explain the OP question pretty well...people vote for presidents based mostly on appearance and style.

I agree, we have turned into a nation of superficial teenagers who live in a fantasy world where there is zero accountability for our actions.

= you are another empty-headed 'Blame America First' numbskull.

Again with the your "blaming America" talking point. No one is blaming America for anything. They are saying that Americas actions have impact and since our actions are the only thing we can change we need to look at those actions.

 

[Unkotare]

There's obviously a huge problem in this country when people somehow manage to refer to Ron Paul as a "liberal democrat".

The only fucking person in the entire federal government who's not afraid to vote conservative even when the rest of the republican party is leaning left, and somehow he's still passed up by "conservatives".

I hope you idiots vote for Romney or Perry so I can laugh in your face when they double cross you.

The Paulites have grown bitter over the fact that their fantasy will NEVER come true.

 

[Avatar4321]

People said the Americans during the fight for Independence couldn't win either. We all know how that turned out, (THANKS FRENCH!).

So the French are gonna send troops and a navy to support Ron Paul? This should be interesting..........

When the French send troops and a navy to support themselves, ill believe it.

Until then, im not going to be expecting much lol

 

[FA_Q2]

We were non-interventionists.

Also, without our involvement in World War 1 and the treaty of versailles that was levied against the German people because of our involvement which Hitler used as grievance that propelled him into power.

The Muslim world hates us because our foreign policy is responsible for the overthrowing of once democratic rulers to dictators, we levy sanctions that kill thousands of innocent people, and occupy their lands we have over 900 hundred bases in over 100 countries.

So, by your logic if we have a white extremist here in America targeting China, is it okay for China to occupy our land, impose its will on the population while it hunts down this extremist? What if their sanctions keep medical care and food from reaching American citizens and some bullets and bombs go stray and kill some Americans?

We would be opposed to it.

Read what the CIA writes about Blowback. I used to agree with you and beat the war drum that it is Muslim extremism but that just isn't the case. The founder spoke of educating each other and I strongly suggest you do some reading.

Are you sure that you are a Republican because your words tell me that you are a progressive. You better check your party affiliation, because you are absolutely not a conservative if these are your views. You are a blame AMERICA crowd and that's exactly what progressives or liberals do--- conservatives don't.

P.S non-interventionists is the same as isolationists. Okay?? Especially when it came to World War 11.

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

Well, do you really think that we could survive without building treaties and relationships with foreign nations? I agree that we need to MASSIVELY scale back out presence thought the world BUT we are far stronger because of things like NATO then we would be without them. We may be the world's first rate economy but unified with NATO we are the entire worlds economy and might. There are clear benefits to having alliances with those that support our interests.

 

[Unkotare]

Do you think that we need ALL the bases established overseas or that a small fraction of bases could accomplish the same goal?.

You would have to look at each one individually and assess the particular situation there. Could be we need more, or maybe we could consolidate some, but I don't think "a small fraction" is anywhere near realistic.

 

[Avatar4321]

First, he doesn't have the support from the base of the republican party.
Second, he doesn't appeal to independents.
Third, he is attack material. Let sick people die, get rid of CIA, DHS, FBI, INS etc. Just makes him look nuts.
Fourth, he is the only candidate that can make republicans like me vote for Obama.

Another stupid post...

Gotta love the crazy Ron Paul haters lol... Now they will vote for Obama, nice haha.

Why is it a stupid post? He gave you several of his reasons why he thinks Ron Paul wont win. All you have done is attack him.

Some will vote for Obama over Paul. Some may just stay home.

 

[Avatar4321]

Stupid is as stupid does. Not gonna waste my time.

You just can't stand the fact that people aren't buying into his BS, so, like most Paulette bots, they just attack and refuse to engage.

And it's one of the reasons, why people like YOU are his own worst enemy.

No man, I dont think you understood me.

Im not going to debate shit with you, your stupid, dumb, an- NOT WORTH MY TIME.

Just another liberal democrat, f'n moron. Your a great example of failed schools.

You want Ron Paul to win. You think your position is superior and yet you are too lazy to provide intellectual arguments to support either position.

And you wonder why Ron Paul won't win? You don't win elections by being arrogant and refusing to dialogue.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because there are alot of people who oppose his policies.

I could support him if i had to. But I dont plan on voting for him. The man is the least Presidential up there.

WTF is Presidential!?!?

Oh yes, (cough, cough) that Ron Paul is for freedom and I like that but look at the cut of his jib. I am going for Perry or Romney, yes they may continue the same policies of Obama and take more of our freedoms away, but they are Presidential. I must take orders from the king...

Never voted to raise taxes
Never voted against The Constitution (Like they are supposed to)
Revealed the Federal Reserve, but some on this board consider him a nut job for it.
Returns a portion of his salary to the treasury each year.
Warned about our foreign policy could cause a major attack on the U.S. (Pre 9/11) want the YouTube?
Warned about the financial crisis, when no one on that stage had a clue. Tube available for nay sayers.

Most of you say your Tea Party, but you will never be what the Tea Party stood for in '07. We studied and became well versed and mobilized to voice our opinions and educate the public. You listen to Hannity, Levin, Beck, and go outside and wave a flag, come home and call us PaulBots.. who's the bot?

What is Presidential? Ill give you my opinion:

1) Someone who can show leadership. Ron Paul's leadership is non-existant as far as I've seen.

2) Someone who can articulate his positions instead of looking like a deer in the headlights or rambling incohesively every time he is asked a question.

3) Someone who inspires confidence. Who can stand up to criticism while continuing to persuade people why he is correct.

Everything I've seen from Ron Paul shows that he can't do any of those things.

Add to that that he is wrong on a number of things, why would I want to vote him in on my first choice?