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.
It is of course never the fault of the rest of the party who pull for statist candidates.You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
That's what we're doing. It isn't "emotional support" either. It's integrity and conviction. I'm not gonna vote to put the (R) in just because it is an (R). I'll never NOT vote ideologically. Never. That's for the "lesser of two evils" crowd.
Ahem. What you are saying here is exactly what voting ideologically is. You would throw the country into the toilet if you can't have your way. That, my friend, is a very large reason that we are in the mess we are in.
Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.
More Ron Paul hypocrisy.
After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast? He even even wrote in a 2005 column that In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.
Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas; $8 million for replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.
Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?
Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting no to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.
Well I'm not going to continually repeat myself.
Great defense of Ron Paul's hypocrisy.
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.
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.
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.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
What's funny is that certain individuals on the right are more than happy to play the "I know what's best for you better than you do" card when it suits their agenda.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.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
That's just it, we don't see that voting for Mitt Romney, or the others if you want, over Barack Obama is what's best for America. The simple fact is that they'll all grow the government, they'll all continue racking up our debt, they'll all continue our aggressive foreign policy, and none of them will do a thing about the Federal Reserve. It's not spiting ourselves by not voting Republican and Obama getting re-elected, because there's absolutely no difference between any of those Republicans and Obama.
Ahem. What you are saying here is exactly what voting ideologically is. You would throw the country into the toilet if you can't have your way. That, my friend, is a very large reason that we are in the mess we are in.
Holy shit man, yes, vote for what you believe in, not a lesser of two evils when that evil is almost un definable on difference from the other evil (Obama).
Spending
Wars
ITS THE SAME ON BOTH SIDES. How about I not vote for someone that wont balance the budget and follow the constitution Lets see, that knocks off Santorum, Mitt and Newt!
Good luck!
So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.
At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.
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.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
That's just it, we don't see that voting for Mitt Romney, or the others if you want, over Barack Obama is what's best for America. The simple fact is that they'll all grow the government, they'll all continue racking up our debt, they'll all continue our aggressive foreign policy, and none of them will do a thing about the Federal Reserve. It's not spiting ourselves by not voting Republican and Obama getting re-elected, because there's absolutely no difference between any of those Republicans and Obama.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
That's just it, we don't see that voting for Mitt Romney, or the others if you want, over Barack Obama is what's best for America. The simple fact is that they'll all grow the government, they'll all continue racking up our debt, they'll all continue our aggressive foreign policy, and none of them will do a thing about the Federal Reserve. It's not spiting ourselves by not voting Republican and Obama getting re-elected, because there's absolutely no difference between any of those Republicans and Obama.
And I see a huge difference between ANY of the GOP hopefuls and Obama whether or not they are as conservative as I am. If you don't see any difference, that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.
Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.
I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.
That's just it, we don't see that voting for Mitt Romney, or the others if you want, over Barack Obama is what's best for America. The simple fact is that they'll all grow the government, they'll all continue racking up our debt, they'll all continue our aggressive foreign policy, and none of them will do a thing about the Federal Reserve. It's not spiting ourselves by not voting Republican and Obama getting re-elected, because there's absolutely no difference between any of those Republicans and Obama.
And I see a huge difference between ANY of the GOP hopefuls and Obama whether or not they are as conservative as I am. If you don't see any difference, that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.
Holy shit man, yes, vote for what you believe in, not a lesser of two evils when that evil is almost un definable on difference from the other evil (Obama).
Spending
Wars
IT’S THE SAME ON BOTH SIDES. How about I not vote for someone that won’t balance the budget and follow the constitution… Lets see, that knocks off Santorum, Mitt and Newt!
Good luck!
So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.
At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.
What about the consequences of continually voting 'lesser of two evils'? Doesn't that maintain the status quo, leaving us with only two legitimate possibilities for most major federal offices?
If we had more choices than just D or R, lesser of two evils wouldn't even be an argument....but as long as people continue to vote that way, we won't have more choices. Is that not a consequence Americans should consider?
Paul supports have more in common with anyone of the republican candidates than Obama. You guys are needed.
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?
Paul supports have more in common with anyone of the republican candidates than Obama. You guys are needed.
It's about time someone recognized that we're needed.
The things we have in common aren't going to get implemented. All 3 of the others have records of growing government.
I can't support them.
As far as the question in the OP. I would only vote for Romney if he gave us some liberty minded people placements in the cabinet. I need Ron as Treasury Sec, I need Andrew Napolitano as AG, I need Peter Schiff as the next Fed Chairman, And Michael Sheurer as Sec, of Defense.
Give me those and you got my vote. You can have whatever else you want.
And Iraq had ZERO to do with 911.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.
Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.
We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.
