Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.
That's pretty much the crux of it. I suppose only agree with him 75-80% (he loses me a bit on abortion and immigration), but the areas of agreement are rock solid. I'm might find a 'commercial' candidate I can agree with 20-30% of the time, but that 30% will almost certainly be bullshit.
The only thing running someone like Paul as a 3rd party candidate would do is fracture the GOP and hopefully give them a wake up call to change some of their positions back to their roots.
But Paul isn't stupid. He knows if he ran 3rd party in the general he'd risk taking votes away from a GOP candidate and handing Obama another term.
He's trying to knock some sense back into the GOP. Judging by his growing support and how far he's come since 2007, I'd say he's doing a damn good job.
Don't worry about Paul and his supporters, we'll be fine. Focus on Obama and getting him reelected, and let us worry about Paul
So you are supporting Paul simply to change the GOP? I can respect that.
I am not overly concerned with Paul supporters. Just have a desire to discuss politics on a political message board. If we were out drinking beer and the ballgame was on, I'd talk baseball instead.
Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.
I can't say that about any other candidate. The man doesn't play politics and change positions, he just is who he is and I respect the hell out of that. The sad and ironic part is that is one of the big reasons why he has such a tough time competing against the establishment.
He doesn't tell you what you want to hear, use canned responses over and over, revert back to talking point sound bytes when confronted with a tough question...he looks America in the eyes and tells them what he feels they NEED to hear. He's not afraid to say we're broke, or that we can't do something.
We're not God. We can't do EVERYTHING.
So you are supporting Paul simply to change the GOP? I can respect that.
I am not overly concerned with Paul supporters. Just have a desire to discuss politics on a political message board. If we were out drinking beer and the ballgame was on, I'd talk baseball instead.
Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.
I can't say that about any other candidate. The man doesn't play politics and change positions, he just is who he is and I respect the hell out of that. The sad and ironic part is that is one of the big reasons why he has such a tough time competing against the establishment.
He doesn't tell you what you want to hear, use canned responses over and over, revert back to talking point sound bytes when confronted with a tough question...he looks America in the eyes and tells them what he feels they NEED to hear. He's not afraid to say we're broke, or that we can't do something.
We're not God. We can't do EVERYTHING.
And while I disagree with Paul, I respect that he has the balls to say what he means. I just disagree with most of what he says. I do think he would be the better option out of the GOP crop (if you care about why, scroll back to my thoughts on Iran - I think Paul is the only GOP candidate that is going to keep us out of Iran).
To go back to something you (or someone said earlier) about changing the GOP by supporting Paul. Do you really think that is happening? You can point to the Tea Party, but look at what happened: a purely fiscal reform movement that was not a social conservative movement in the least under Paul (other than abortion, I wouldn't call Paul a social conservative) got co-opted by the likes of Michelle Bachmann (Which is ironic, as Bachmann was a Bush loyalist during our costly wars of expedition and his unprecedented government expansion) and has now become a fiscal and socially conservative movement. Is Paul changing the GOP, or are they just leeching his ideas and putting their own mark on them?
Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.
That's pretty much the crux of it. I suppose only agree with him 75-80% (he loses me a bit on abortion and immigration), but the areas of agreement are rock solid. I'm might find a 'commercial' candidate I can agree with 20-30% of the time, but that 30% will almost certainly be bullshit.
If you're a conservative, what's wrong with his position on abortion? He delivered babies, I can understand why he would be against it. But he wouldn't make laws on it. How is that not win-win?
when the GOP tosses your boy under the bus again? Because you, me, and everybody else knows it's going to happen. There is simply no way in hell that an isolationist who wants to dismantle the FED is ever going to be given the keys to the GOP kingdom. We all know it.
My question is, as this is Paul's last hurrah, why do you guys even try to find a home in the GOP? Why not just run as a Libertarian. In this election cycle, that might actually work, as people are pissed at both parties. Even if not the case, why keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? From what I can tell of the Paul supporters, they aren't exactly in the bag for the GOP machine either. I mean, they stole your Tea Party idea. No you would think that Michelle Bachman came up with the idea.
Frankly, I just don't get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Congrats on the second place finish behind Bachmann in Iowa. I do respect the groundswell that Paul carries with him.
However, we all know where this is heading.
What I don't get is why leftists who proclaim to desperately want to end the unconstitutional wars not support Ron Paul. Why don't you?
Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.
I can't say that about any other candidate. The man doesn't play politics and change positions, he just is who he is and I respect the hell out of that. The sad and ironic part is that is one of the big reasons why he has such a tough time competing against the establishment.
He doesn't tell you what you want to hear, use canned responses over and over, revert back to talking point sound bytes when confronted with a tough question...he looks America in the eyes and tells them what he feels they NEED to hear. He's not afraid to say we're broke, or that we can't do something.
We're not God. We can't do EVERYTHING.
And while I disagree with Paul, I respect that he has the balls to say what he means. I just disagree with most of what he says. I do think he would be the better option out of the GOP crop (if you care about why, scroll back to my thoughts on Iran - I think Paul is the only GOP candidate that is going to keep us out of Iran).
To go back to something you (or someone said earlier) about changing the GOP by supporting Paul. Do you really think that is happening? You can point to the Tea Party, but look at what happened: a purely fiscal reform movement that was not a social conservative movement in the least under Paul (other than abortion, I wouldn't call Paul a social conservative) got co-opted by the likes of Michelle Bachmann (Which is ironic, as Bachmann was a Bush loyalist during our costly wars of expedition and his unprecedented government expansion) and has now become a fiscal and socially conservative movement. Is Paul changing the GOP, or are they just leeching his ideas and putting their own mark on them?
The tea party as you know it today is totally an establishment controlled movement. I really don't know exactly what the establishment hopes to gain from it, although I have guesses.
It's definitely not what the Paul movement began as, I'll tell you that.
Why any conservative would support Bachman is beyond me. It just goes to show that voters are morons.
when the GOP tosses your boy under the bus again? Because you, me, and everybody else knows it's going to happen. There is simply no way in hell that an isolationist who wants to dismantle the FED is ever going to be given the keys to the GOP kingdom. We all know it.
My question is, as this is Paul's last hurrah, why do you guys even try to find a home in the GOP? Why not just run as a Libertarian. In this election cycle, that might actually work, as people are pissed at both parties. Even if not the case, why keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? From what I can tell of the Paul supporters, they aren't exactly in the bag for the GOP machine either. I mean, they stole your Tea Party idea. No you would think that Michelle Bachman came up with the idea.
Frankly, I just don't get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Congrats on the second place finish behind Bachmann in Iowa. I do respect the groundswell that Paul carries with him.
However, we all know where this is heading.
What I don't get is why leftists who proclaim to desperately want to end the unconstitutional wars not support Ron Paul. Why don't you?
I think you'd be surprised how many folks who you'd imagine are lefties think Ron Paul is the least obnoxious candidate running in either party.
Many of the people that people like you think are lefties are actually libertarians with a social conscious.
They're not supportive of Obama, and they are looking for somebody to start making sense.
And while I disagree with Paul, I respect that he has the balls to say what he means. I just disagree with most of what he says. I do think he would be the better option out of the GOP crop (if you care about why, scroll back to my thoughts on Iran - I think Paul is the only GOP candidate that is going to keep us out of Iran).
To go back to something you (or someone said earlier) about changing the GOP by supporting Paul. Do you really think that is happening? You can point to the Tea Party, but look at what happened: a purely fiscal reform movement that was not a social conservative movement in the least under Paul (other than abortion, I wouldn't call Paul a social conservative) got co-opted by the likes of Michelle Bachmann (Which is ironic, as Bachmann was a Bush loyalist during our costly wars of expedition and his unprecedented government expansion) and has now become a fiscal and socially conservative movement. Is Paul changing the GOP, or are they just leeching his ideas and putting their own mark on them?
The tea party as you know it today is totally an establishment controlled movement. I really don't know exactly what the establishment hopes to gain from it, although I have guesses.
It's definitely not what the Paul movement began as, I'll tell you that.
Why any conservative would support Bachman is beyond me. It just goes to show that voters are morons.
What they want to gain from it? Votes of course!
How did Bachmann and the "establishment" steal it from Paul? That leads to my original question.
For me it would be Romney, and then Paul. But, yeah, as I said before; Paul would be better then most of these whack jobs who want to get us into Iran.
The tea party as you know it today is totally an establishment controlled movement. I really don't know exactly what the establishment hopes to gain from it, although I have guesses.
It's definitely not what the Paul movement began as, I'll tell you that.
Why any conservative would support Bachman is beyond me. It just goes to show that voters are morons.
What they want to gain from it? Votes of course!
How did Bachmann and the "establishment" steal it from Paul? That leads to my original question.
If anything, the media stole it. They refused to cover it when the Paul movement was doing it, but once the establishment got their hands on it and had some control, the media began covering it and were able to manipulate it in any direction they wanted, to the point of it becoming just a steaming pile of dog shit at this point.
If anything, the media stole it. They refused to cover it when the Paul movement was doing it, but once the establishment got their hands on it and had some control, the media began covering it and were able to manipulate it in any direction they wanted, to the point of it becoming just a steaming pile of dog shit at this point.
), the tea parties - Paul and his campaign had virtually nothing to do with any of that. It was all people getting excited about ideas. I thought I was too old and jaded to fall for that kind of thing, but I have to admit, it was heady stuff.
If anything, the media stole it. They refused to cover it when the Paul movement was doing it, but once the establishment got their hands on it and had some control, the media began covering it and were able to manipulate it in any direction they wanted, to the point of it becoming just a steaming pile of dog shit at this point.
Yup... and another thing that I think a lot of people don't really get about the Paul thing. All that activity that was going on in 2006 - 2008 around the Paul campaign was honest-to-goodness grassroots stuff. The rallies, the money-bombs, (the blimp :eek), the tea parties - Paul and his campaign had virtually nothing to do with any of that. It was all people getting excited about ideas. I thought I was too old and jaded to fall for that kind of thing, but I have to admit, it was heady stuff.
Which made it doubly depressing when the canned, corporate version of "hope and change" won the day.
What they want to gain from it? Votes of course!
How did Bachmann and the "establishment" steal it from Paul? That leads to my original question.
If anything, the media stole it. They refused to cover it when the Paul movement was doing it, but once the establishment got their hands on it and had some control, the media began covering it and were able to manipulate it in any direction they wanted, to the point of it becoming just a steaming pile of dog shit at this point.
Blaming the media again? C'mon, man. It's lame and it doesn't really explain what happened. Bachmann commandeered the "Tea Party Caucus" (despite being an establishment candidate). That's how it happened.
If anything, the media stole it. They refused to cover it when the Paul movement was doing it, but once the establishment got their hands on it and had some control, the media began covering it and were able to manipulate it in any direction they wanted, to the point of it becoming just a steaming pile of dog shit at this point.
Yup... and another thing that I think a lot of people don't really get about the Paul thing. All that activity that was going on in 2006 - 2008 around the Paul campaign was honest-to-goodness grassroots stuff. The rallies, the money-bombs, (the blimp :eek), the tea parties - Paul and his campaign had virtually nothing to do with any of that. It was all people getting excited about ideas. I thought I was too old and jaded to fall for that kind of thing, but I have to admit, it was heady stuff.
Which made it doubly depressing when the canned, corporate version of "hope and change" won the day.
I agree that Paul had a great grassroots movement. If you think Obama didn't have a tremendous grassroots movement too, you are probably as removed from that reality as you claim people are of the Paul movement. Obama had a great grassroots movement. He had too to knock out HRC. Like him or not, Obama inspired a massive number of young voters (which, if he can do that again, will be huge. I wouldn't underestimate all the 14 - 17 year olds that view Obama as "hip" that will be voting for him this go round. Of course, they could also go towards Paul too).
How easy was it to just sign up at Obama's website and become a campaign supporter? They would give you all the things you needed and would hook you up with a call bank if you wanted.
The Paul movement was comprised more of people doing it on their OWN, than through the campaign. The official campaign would give you some lit to print out and that's really about it. Most supporters used their own time and money to create a campaign of their own. We burned hundreds of thousands of DVD's of his speeches, debates, interviews, etc and canvassed neighborhoods, set up booths, etc. We formed hundreds of meet-up groups across the country independent of anything the campaign was doing.
Paul owes his support he has today entirely to people who did it to get him recognized, in spite of scarce media coverage, simply because they liked him that much.
If the media didn't pump Obama up to what they did, he'd just have been another dem candidate in the field of many. You don't seem to realize the true power of the mainstream media.
when the GOP tosses your boy under the bus again? Because you, me, and everybody else knows it's going to happen. There is simply no way in hell that an isolationist who wants to dismantle the FED is ever going to be given the keys to the GOP kingdom. We all know it.
My question is, as this is Paul's last hurrah, why do you guys even try to find a home in the GOP? Why not just run as a Libertarian. In this election cycle, that might actually work, as people are pissed at both parties. Even if not the case, why keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? From what I can tell of the Paul supporters, they aren't exactly in the bag for the GOP machine either. I mean, they stole your Tea Party idea. No you would think that Michelle Bachman came up with the idea.
Frankly, I just don't get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Congrats on the second place finish behind Bachmann in Iowa. I do respect the groundswell that Paul carries with him.
However, we all know where this is heading.
Does it really matter whose support is more grassroots? Really?
The truth is you're both right, you just have different subjective understandings of what the term means. Paulie believes the true measure is word of mouth whereas Sallow believes the true measure is whether you win. An argument can be made for both.
when the GOP tosses your boy under the bus again? Because you, me, and everybody else knows it's going to happen. There is simply no way in hell that an isolationist who wants to dismantle the FED is ever going to be given the keys to the GOP kingdom. We all know it.
My question is, as this is Paul's last hurrah, why do you guys even try to find a home in the GOP? Why not just run as a Libertarian. In this election cycle, that might actually work, as people are pissed at both parties. Even if not the case, why keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? From what I can tell of the Paul supporters, they aren't exactly in the bag for the GOP machine either. I mean, they stole your Tea Party idea. No you would think that Michelle Bachman came up with the idea.
Frankly, I just don't get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Congrats on the second place finish behind Bachmann in Iowa. I do respect the groundswell that Paul carries with him.
However, we all know where this is heading.
I think it would be like Perot all over again....splitting the votes and easily handing Obama a victory.
I expect most of Paul's supporters to do the same thing that Hillary's supporters did when the DNC threw her under the bus.
