Ron Paul

Back on topic…

Ron Paul I do think IS running for the Libertarian Nomination (as Jen posted previously).  He has a boat load of cash, and has picked up a LOT of name recognition despite little “free press” during his time in the Republican Primaries.

Normally Libertarians do pull largely (but not exclusively) from the ranks of Republicans, due mostly to the extremely fiscal conservative outlook of the Libertarians.  But they also draw support for Democrats due to their support of individual freedom and lack of government regulation and control.

This year I suspect that the Libertarian (if they do nominate Paul) will actually draw MORE support from the Dems that from the Republicans due to Ron Paul being a RABID anti-war candidate (the only one left in the race).  20% of the voters out there place withdraw from Iraq as their single greatest concern, and that is a lot of potential Paul votes since McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Romney all are on the other side of the fence on that issue.  Add in the fiscal conservative Republicans who are not going to go for McCain, the social moderates who will not vote for Romney…  And the general lack of enthusiasm for ANY of the 4 remaining major candidates from the 2 main parties, and it COULD be a good year for a Libertarian Ron Paul ticket…

I like RP. It’s just his/Libertarians isolationist philosophy that I disagree with.

I was watching Hannity last night and I had an apiphany, Jennifer = Ann Colter

How does it make sense to say I’d rather be a socialist than vote for a guy that works with the socialists to get what he wants done?

By the way youtube is full of videos of the debates of Romney in the 90s Claiming to be as liberal or more so than Teddy K.  Here’s a good quote from Romney “We have tough gun laws in Massachusetts, I suport them, I won’t chip away at them, I beleve they help protect us and provide for our safty.”

Dezrt, it makes logical sense from this standpoint:

Since McCain has only signed off on liberal legislation, though he talks a good talk, he must, there fore, be a liberal.

And, since he is a liberal, but claiming to be a conservative, people will believe his actions represent what conservatives want to do.

And thus, he will sully the name of conservativism and do irreparable harm to the party as a whole.

However, if we elect someone who wants the same things as McCain, but admits to being a liberal, then liberalism will sustain the sullying of the name and the irreparable harm, not the conservatives.

Thus, if the choice is between a Republican Liberal or a Democrat Liberal, the obvious choice is to go with the Democrat Liberal so we can use true conservativism next time to contrast what the Democrat did wrong.

McCain is for illegal immigration.  McCain is for big government.  McCain may be against abortion, but unless the Supreme Court gets 3 or 4 open minded Justices in the next few years, and someone can actually get through the court system to be heard by the Supreme Court, abortion is a non-issue.  It’s like when the magician brings out the beautiful assistant to distract the crowd while he lines his pockets for the next trick.

McCain may even be pro-military.  But so is Hillary.  She voted for the war in Iraq the first time and has yet to actually cast a ballot against the war.  Though, she’s had a lot of speeches about how we need to find a new path in Iraq.  Again, if you look at her actions and McCain’s actions, they run parallel, not perpendicular to each other.

What America does NOT want is another wishy-washy conservative.  AKA “Compassionate” conservative like George Bush.  George was reelected because we knew Kerry was worse, not because Bush was great.  We need another Bush Sr.  We need another Richard Nixon.  We need another Andrew Jackson.  We need another Thomas Jefferson.  We need another Ronald Reagan.  We need another John F. Kennedy.  We do not need another FDR.  We do not need another Bill Clinton.  We do not need a John McCain.

Jesus Christ jen.  get over it.  romney’s gonna lose, and you gotta quit pouting.  McCain is very conservative.  blather on all you like with hannity and rush and colter. which i like colter, anyone who calls someone a fag and doesnt care about the PC is gold in my books.

wow.  McCain fiengold.  bipartisan laws have to be with both parties you dig?  all it said was no negative ads 30 days before election day……(bush vs McCain anyone) and also the ads have to say who funded it and who they support.

oh no how terrible.  so shutup about this being all terrible.  pleeeaaaasssseeee.

McCain is for illegal immigration?  wow did you ever twist that, wont dignify that stupidity with a response.

He may be against abortion?  Jesus H…        He MAY be pro military?..no more crack.

and Ron Paul wont return campaign funds from white supremicists…the only reason the media has stayed mum on this is b/c they want him to run as a 3rd party ticket.  if they let everyone know that, he wont stand a chance for 1%.  and his writings…dont forget those…funny how they go hand in hand with the no return of the racists donations.

McCain liberman is for a good cause, but put in in a stupid way.  its not realistic, its idealistic…damn green hippies.  he was just trying to do the right thing though.

oh and McCain was against tax cuts b/c he said middle income and lower income people need tax cuts also.  he wanted them for EVERYBODY……and he wanted to cut spending to match the cuts.

sounds very conservative to me.

i won’t reply to what you said, but i will say this.
the tone and wording you used was far from in line IMO. the way you went at it is the same kind of talk that will get this whole political debate closed down. there is a respecfull way to talk about this with out being degrading to people with opposing views to your own.

There’s a difference between working WITH the Democrats for CONSERVATIVE legislation, and abandoning the party to side with the democrats.

Reagan worked WITH the Democrats to move the conservative agenda forward.  McCain has yet to work with the Republicans, he’s abandoned the party, and now wants us to support him.

Romney’s not out yet.  He got almost as many votes as McCain in Florida and he had the most votes by people who consider themselves conservative (while McCain got most of the votes from people who consider themselves liberal or moderate.)

But I want to know, Balung.  If Romney gets the nomination, will you vote Democrat?  You seem to dislike Romney for some reason, though the only reason I can assume is because he’s a Mormon and not a Catholic or Protestant.

true, mormons are nice people, too nice,  but i think their religion is whack.  i wouldnt vote for a satanist, witch, evangelical snake worshipper, a muslim b/c their faith calls on non muslims to be subdued(read the quotes from the koran, its undeniable), a hindu b/c of its racist caste system, a unitarian, an athiest, an animist, or some others that i cant think of.  oh and not a scientologist.

other than the founding fathers of mormonism being responsible for cold blooded murder.  which they turned the story into a movie to come out this summer, just so if Mitt was nominated, he’d be blasted by hollywood.

that and the whole premise of the conception of mormonism is dumb.  2 sacred rocks?  only he can read them?  from a hat so no-one else can see?  when he’s called out on it, by a smart lady, who says “hey prove it,……if the stone with the tablet in the hat says what you say it does, do it again and it should say the exact same thing…”  very smart, joseph smith then had to change from the original rock saying it wouldnt work again… :roll:

but i will vote for romney before hillary…i’d think about it for a loooong time with obama, then slap myself and vote republican.  and then think about it some more.

McCain has too supported republicans, he was a bush defender to show his loyalty to the party.  what else did the party want?  hardly any other republicans were out there stauncly defending bush.

No, he supported the military.  He has never supported Bush nor the Republican leadership.  He’s actually worked to undermine and sabotage the republican leadership.

Anyway, religion does not matter to me.  I’m not electing a theocrat. I am electing a conservative if I can get one, and if it’s McCain and not a conservative, I’ll find the most liberal person I can and vote them in to prevent Republicanism being labeled the Junior Leagues for the Democrat Party.

And electing McCain would basically redefine the party as liberals who are not quite fanatic enough to be members in the majors, aka the Democrats.

please give me the fact that he supported bush all the way through.  :cry:

@JWW:

@Jermofoot:

Ok, so I made it more extreme than it seems, but IMO the electoral college is obsolete.  Direct vote, please.  Or modification of the electoral college so that it’s not winner take all.

Yeah, then the young lads w/guns in jesus country (IOWA, Nebraska etc…) revolt because they soon realize that their votes don’t matter as they observe the massive large city pop’s drown out their voice in the political system….

A few massive states (NY, CA, FL, TX etc…) shouldn’t be able to steam roll our republic’s political system year in year out.

And each state has a direct vote.

Lastly, there have been few instances where the electoral college hasn’t performed as it was intended.

I know the pros/support for the electoral college.  Some of them are good points, some of them are just ridiculous.

For instance…who cares about the states.  States aren’t voting for the POTUS.  People are.  And the states you name are diverse enough to not have a monopoly either way.

Of course, if there are more urbanites than ruralites, then someone might complain.  But their vote counted, and a majority liked Candidate A better than Candidate B.  You wouldn’t have a fiasco like in 2000.  If not, give out a percentage of the electoral votes at least.  Then it would be fair.

I think a direct vote of the people would be better.  It would change the way candidates campaign.  They would have to clean it up, mean what they say, and be clear about where they are.  At least, that’s what I imagine.

@balungaloaf:

please give me the fact that he supported bush all the way through.  :cry:

No, he made a political move to get re-elected by supporting the military.  He did not support Bush.  He supported the military because he has, and is, and always will run as a war hero and war heros are expected to back the military in all regards whenever possible.

However, he has called for the closing of Gitmo (and thus our only toe-hold on Cuba) as well as the awarding of Constitutional liberties to foreign nationals and terrorists.

Not exactly backing Bush, IMHO.

@Jermofoot:

For instance…who cares about the states.

I do. The states need to be stronger, the federal govt weaker, IMO. And I still like R. Paul (staying on topic  :-D) just not his isolationist views.

Haven’t heard about his connections to skin-heads? Don’t all politicos have skeletons in their closets?

I’m not a big isolationist myself.

Any candidate we have should be willing to use the full might of the United States Military to achieve the goals of the Allied States of America (also known as the United States of America.)

However, some isolationist ideas are not really isolationist.  For instance, if you want to put huge tarrifs on imported goods from China to protect workers in the USA, that’s not really isolationist.  You are still accepting trade, you are just charging more for foreign goods to keep their market share lower, not cutting off trade altogether.

Another example, shutting down the bases in Germany.  Do the Germans need us to protect them from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics anymore?  No.  Why?  We won that war, the USSR does not exist.  Thus, Germany does not need tens of thousands of US Soldiers and billions of dollars from the US in its country.    They’re really not even pretending to be that good of an ally anymore, it would be better, cheaper and smarter to redeploy the base, the materials and the men to somewhere more efficient, say, Israel who  WOULD be our good ally and we could support each other and have a base close to the hot spots in the world.

Shutting down our bases in Korea and Vietnam is the same thing.  We have a big base in Japan, just redeploy there and cut costs.

Not really isolationist, more fiscally, logically and militarily more conservative.

But poor Mr. Paul only has like 2% of the vote.  Honestly, I wish he would drop out, but he won’t.  Romney could use the votes to put more nails in McCain’s coffin and secure the victory in February.

@Cmdr:

However, some isolationist ideas are not really isolationist.  For instance, if you want to put huge tarrifs on imported goods from China to protect workers in the USA, that’s not really isolationist.  You are still accepting trade, you are just charging more for foreign goods to keep their market share lower, not cutting off trade altogether.

and then they put tariffs on our goods and then we boycott their raisins and then they raise tariffs even higher etc……not good

@Cmdr:

Another example, shutting down the bases

Agreed, good idea.

sorry honey, Mitt is DONE

sorry honey, Mitt is DONE

Mitt… Mitt who??

OK, this thread has crossed the line on civil discourse.

This is the ONLY warning.

@Imperious:

sorry honey, Mitt is DONE

Mitt… Mitt who??

That’s how I feel about John.

Lord knows John won’t even get 10% of the vote in the General election.  It will be Dukakis all over, only this time, we’ll be the ones with no votes and they’ll be the ones with the landslide victory.