Ron Paul's influence going forward

[Liability]

I'm a Ron Paul fan, Liability is right, Ron Paul has the same chance to win as I do.


The politicians in the Republican party would much rather have 4 more years of Obama than 4 or more years of Paul. I have no doubt about that.

I doubt that the above highlighted sentence is true.

But if it is, then I'm glad I left the GOP.

Personally, although I think Dr. Paul would be a hideous President, as bad as I believe he would be, he'd still be VASTLY better than the incumbent.

Paul is fiscal conservative who's big on reducing the size and scope of the federal gov't.

That's the exact opposite of how the republican party is, but it's not the opposite of how Obama is. Hence they'll happily take Obama over Paul. There's too much money at stake for them not to.

Again, I don't see it the way you do. But to whatever extent your claim has ANY merit, then shame on the GOP.

I have often said the present-day GOP is just the Dem Parody lite.

But even a weak-knee alternative to the Dim Party OUGHT to be able to recognize how awful the current President is and how hideously dangerous his polices are.

 

[jillian]

We should have a government that follows the CONSTITUTION...that is what ron paul says. You make yourself look like a moron...maybe you are but seriously consider reading up before posting stupid shit...it is embarrassing for you. Ron Paul is against CORPORATISM and for CAPITALISM...the two are different...sigh you know what I am wasting my time trying to educate another moron on this board. No thanks.

paulian's don't know what the constitution is.

Which is why Ron Paul is called the "Champion of the Constitution" by millions of people. Tell me...where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress can create a central bank, run by independent corrupt bankers? I can't seem to find it.

not by "millions of people"... only by paulians.

 

[Liberty]

what you fear monger neocons need to realize, liability, is that what you support is just a way for others to make a buck...it has nothing to do with safety. If the government wanted us to be safe we'd bring our troops home and have them help out with the border issues. That would be common sense. Policing the world has gotten us no where...

 

[Liberty]

paulian's don't know what the constitution is.

Which is why Ron Paul is called the "Champion of the Constitution" by millions of people. Tell me...where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress can create a central bank, run by independent corrupt bankers? I can't seem to find it.

not by "millions of people"... only by paulians.

Heh...figured you wouldn't bother to answer the question.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I doubt that the above highlighted sentence is true.

But if it is, then I'm glad I left the GOP.

Personally, although I think Dr. Paul would be a hideous President, as bad as I believe he would be, he'd still be VASTLY better than the incumbent.

Paul is fiscal conservative who's big on reducing the size and scope of the federal gov't.

That's the exact opposite of how the republican party is, but it's not the opposite of how Obama is. Hence they'll happily take Obama over Paul. There's too much money at stake for them not to.

Again, I don't see it the way you do. But to whatever extent your claim has ANY merit, then shame on the GOP.

I have often said the present-day GOP is just the Dem Parody lite.

But even a weak-knee alternative to the Dim Party OUGHT to be able to recognize how awful the current President is and how hideously dangerous his polices are.

And most of Obama's policies were just expansions of Bush's policies, which were expansions of Clinton's policies, which were expansions of Bush/Reagan's policies, etc etc etc.

The next prez, rep or dem, will continue Obama's policies and expand on them. I don't like it, I hate it, but I'm aware that it's a reality.

 

[Liability]

Paul is fiscal conservative who's big on reducing the size and scope of the federal gov't.

That's the exact opposite of how the republican party is, but it's not the opposite of how Obama is. Hence they'll happily take Obama over Paul. There's too much money at stake for them not to.

Again, I don't see it the way you do. But to whatever extent your claim has ANY merit, then shame on the GOP.

I have often said the present-day GOP is just the Dem Parody lite.

But even a weak-knee alternative to the Dim Party OUGHT to be able to recognize how awful the current President is and how hideously dangerous his polices are.

And most of Obama's policies were just expansions of Bush's policies, which were expansions of Clinton's policies, which were expansions of Bush/Reagan's policies, etc etc etc.

The next prez, rep or dem, will continue Obama's policies and expand on them. I don't like it, I hate it, but I'm aware that it's a reality.

I don't deny a basic pattern. I do deny that the conclusion you reach is all that inevitable.

There has been a change in the perception of the wisdom of going about business as usual.

For example, although folks love to "see" that the Tea Party movement sprouted and quickly withered, I contend that it has not withered at all. The movement rises up as needed. The public perception has already been changed. Even in the Godforsaken liberal wasteland of NY government, the idea of balancing budgets by reducing spending is taking root.

There may be a long row yet to hoe. But it is going to become increasingly difficult for either party to field candidates who engage in the irrational political game of spending moe than we can afford. In fact, it seems clear to me that the big political problems that are going to be addressed in the coming years will lie in the realm of HOW to go about cutting spending. It is going to happen because it has to happen. We do not want to be Greece.

The current utterly reckless President throws ever increasing gobs of money (in the form of pure unadulterated debt and fictional accounting) at the problems of our society, as though the government has a proper role in addressing all such unfairness or inequity. He's wrong and dangerous in his methods just as he is far the fuck off base on the very premise.

Those days are not going to be tolerated anymore.

 

[geauxtohell]

I happened upon this old article from 2008.

McCain in talks with Ron Paul for backing - Washington Times

It shows that the GOP nominee even back in 2008, when Paul had less than half of the support he has now in 2012, knew that he needed Ron Paul and his supporters.

So what about now?

Well we know Ron Paul's delegate strategy is doing better than the media is reporting, but we also know that he didn't win the straw poll in any of the states that he needed to win. We can argue about the obvious fraud that occurred in Maine, but it doesn't matter. Romney won, fair or not. Not to mention how Paul underperformed in states like Alaska and North Dakota.

Regardless, the GOP nominee, whether it's Romney or Santorum (My money's still on Romney), is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

Paul is done. Sorry if you can't admit it.

 

[Liberty]

I happened upon this old article from 2008.

McCain in talks with Ron Paul for backing - Washington Times

It shows that the GOP nominee even back in 2008, when Paul had less than half of the support he has now in 2012, knew that he needed Ron Paul and his supporters.

So what about now?

Well we know Ron Paul's delegate strategy is doing better than the media is reporting, but we also know that he didn't win the straw poll in any of the states that he needed to win. We can argue about the obvious fraud that occurred in Maine, but it doesn't matter. Romney won, fair or not. Not to mention how Paul underperformed in states like Alaska and North Dakota.

Regardless, the GOP nominee, whether it's Romney or Santorum (My money's still on Romney), is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

Paul is done. Sorry if you can't admit it.

He is saying there are some out there (such as myself) who will not vote for the GOP nominee without some sort of catering to the libertarian movement. If no catering is attempted, then I will write in ron paul and will smile when obama gets reelected.

 

[dblack]

He is saying there are some out there (such as myself) who will not vote for the GOP nominee without some sort of catering to the libertarian movement. If no catering is attempted, then I will write in ron paul and will smile when obama gets reelected.

If the 'catering' boils down to pandering (and I can't imagine how it would ever be anything more than that) the Republicans still won't get my vote. One thing I don't think a lot of Republicans get is that a large portion of Paul supporters are independents and libertarians who would never vote Republican as a rule. They were drawn to the party through Paul's emphasis on libertarian values and won't stick around to "vote against Obama".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We should have a government that follows the CONSTITUTION...that is what ron paul says. You make yourself look like a moron...maybe you are but seriously consider reading up before posting stupid shit...it is embarrassing for you. Ron Paul is against CORPORATISM and for CAPITALISM...the two are different...sigh you know what I am wasting my time trying to educate another moron on this board. No thanks.

paulian's don't know what the constitution is.

Ain't that the truth. Funny how they scream the right to privacy is absolute (it is a main philosophy of libertarianism/Paulism), because it's in the constitution. However, what they don't know is a Right to Privacy is NOT in the constitution. It became a fundmental right the Griswold case, based off an interpretation of the constitution!

You ever read the 9th Amendment?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I happened upon this old article from 2008.

McCain in talks with Ron Paul for backing - Washington Times

It shows that the GOP nominee even back in 2008, when Paul had less than half of the support he has now in 2012, knew that he needed Ron Paul and his supporters.

So what about now?

Well we know Ron Paul's delegate strategy is doing better than the media is reporting, but we also know that he didn't win the straw poll in any of the states that he needed to win. We can argue about the obvious fraud that occurred in Maine, but it doesn't matter. Romney won, fair or not. Not to mention how Paul underperformed in states like Alaska and North Dakota.

Regardless, the GOP nominee, whether it's Romney or Santorum (My money's still on Romney), is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

Paul is done. Sorry if you can't admit it.

Maybe you should try reading what I said again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I happened upon this old article from 2008.

McCain in talks with Ron Paul for backing - Washington Times

It shows that the GOP nominee even back in 2008, when Paul had less than half of the support he has now in 2012, knew that he needed Ron Paul and his supporters.

So what about now?

Well we know Ron Paul's delegate strategy is doing better than the media is reporting, but we also know that he didn't win the straw poll in any of the states that he needed to win. We can argue about the obvious fraud that occurred in Maine, but it doesn't matter. Romney won, fair or not. Not to mention how Paul underperformed in states like Alaska and North Dakota.

Regardless, the GOP nominee, whether it's Romney or Santorum (My money's still on Romney), is going to need Ron Paul's supporters in November just like McCain did in 2008.

Paul is done. Sorry if you can't admit it.

He is saying there are some out there (such as myself) who will not vote for the GOP nominee without some sort of catering to the libertarian movement. If no catering is attempted, then I will write in ron paul and will smile when obama gets reelected.

I don't know about smiling, but a shrug of the shoulders would be a possibility.

 

[Liberty]

He is saying there are some out there (such as myself) who will not vote for the GOP nominee without some sort of catering to the libertarian movement. If no catering is attempted, then I will write in ron paul and will smile when obama gets reelected.

If the 'catering' boils down to pandering (and I can't imagine how it would ever be anything more than that) the Republicans still won't get my vote. One thing I don't think a lot of Republicans get is that a large portion of Paul supporters are independents and libertarians who would never vote Republican as a rule. They were drawn to the party through Paul's emphasis on libertarian values and won't stick around to "vote against Obama".

i agree with you

 

[LibertyForAll]

What is winning? Do I care who's name is on the desk? Not really. What I care about are the issues. I respect Ron Paul for his integrity but ultimately he is just one man. What interests me and inspires me to get involved is the movement that is sprouting around him. I am encouraged by it and I want to be a part of it so that I can further the agenda. You can say what you want about Ron Paul and I don't really care because your mind is already made up. The goal for me is not to get Ron Paul elected so much as it is to get the stuff done that needs to get done and that will take a lot of like minded individuals getting elected. I want to change the GOP platform to ensure it promotes fiscal and personal responsibility and adherence to the constitution. I want to wrest control of it from the corporate and give power back to the people. So when I see people around the country getting involved and working to take over their local GOP and change the platform then yes, I feel like we are winning.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul has very little political capital. Most fourth place finishers don't

He will be ignored by the Republicans

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul has very little political capital. Most fourth place finishers do

He will be ignored by the Republicans

Yep, Ron Paul supporters will be ignored like we were in '08, and it'll be another very easy Obama win.

That's good news for you, but not for america.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ron Paul’s Devious Plan to Steal the Presidency

Up until yesterday, I really hadn’t taken the Ron Paul campaign very seriously. Most non-Paul voters probably felt like I did, and laughed him off as that “kooky Uncle” who didn’t have a chance in hell to win the Republican nomination for President.

Well, I’ve changed my mind. Big time.


Read more Ron Paul’s Devious Plan to Steal the Presidency

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul has very little political capital. Most fourth place finishers do

He will be ignored by the Republicans

Yep, Ron Paul supporters will be ignored like we were in '08, and it'll be another very easy Obama win.

That's good news for you, but not for america.

Its the way things work.

last place does that

 

[jillian]

We should have a government that follows the CONSTITUTION...that is what ron paul says. You make yourself look like a moron...maybe you are but seriously consider reading up before posting stupid shit...it is embarrassing for you. Ron Paul is against CORPORATISM and for CAPITALISM...the two are different...sigh you know what I am wasting my time trying to educate another moron on this board. No thanks.

paulian's don't know what the constitution is.

Ain't that the truth. Funny how they scream the right to privacy is absolute (it is a main philosophy of libertarianism/Paulism), because it's in the constitution. However, what they don't know is a Right to Privacy is NOT in the constitution. It became a fundmental right the Griswold case, based off an interpretation of the constitution!

it didn't "become" a fundamental right. it IS a fundamental right. it was defined in the line of cases because the court said that was the only way to effectuate the protections of the constitution.

so that's the least of their problems.

i do find it bizarre when so-called libertarians would allow government to interfere with my dominion over my body.

 

[dblack]

i do find it bizarre when so-called libertarians would allow government to interfere with my dominion over my body.

So do I.