Can Ron Paul win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Obama didn’t betray those values, but was faced with the reality of not having any clout in congress, even when Nancy Pelosi and the democrats controlled both the house and senate.
Click to expand...
Nothing in Congress forced him to embrace the NDAA. The only thing holding him back was that it originally limited his authority by requiring military jurisdiction over suspected terrorists. Obama asked for the authority of indefinite detention without counsel to not be tied to the military so that the FBI wouldn’t have to hand over a suspect in the middle of an “interrogation”; Congress granted that wish and gave him the power to issue a waiver for the military custody requirement. Obama never requested the indefinite detention element to be removed, never threatened to veto it based on that provision.

Obama wasn’t forced by Congress to kill the propagandist al-Awlaki, either. He certainly wasn’t forced by Congress to go to war with Libya. Let’s not pretend that Obama is a principled man in a “difficult spot”; he’s a Constitutional law scholar who asked to indefinitely suspend Habeas Corpus.

Even if what you say were true it would be dangerous to allow Obama to stay in office. We need someone who will veto these kinds of acts of Congress, not someone who will ask for them or cave to them, and the only major candidate in the field who fits that bill is Ron Paul.

Peace and God bless!
 
JustaServant said:
Stawman.
Ron Paul’s position is based on the Constitution and historical sense,
Michele Bachman’s view is based on fundamentalist dispensational theology.
Click to expand...
Sure. “Strawman” or not, the Ron Paul supporters have a much deeper problem-many people agree with me. Like it was said before, convice me to vote for your man, not insult whomever I support, which ironically is Bachmann. At least I know she stands no chance and will happily vote for the GOP canidate in the general election.
 
The statements of Ron Paul on Bachmann and his fellow contenders has had the expected results. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, and the people who prefer character assassination rather than reasoned arguments.

It resonates well with young cynics though, who much prefer the info-tainment on a Jay Leno show than actually taking politics seriously enough to bother discovering the nuances behind the point of view of his opponents.

Reaching out and touching the lowest common denominator of support, as Ron Paul now has done in his desperate attempt to raise his chances in this race, simply does not reveal a man of principles. He may not be the conspiracy nut that National Review editors brushed him off as being, but he knows well enough that without appealing to that 30 % of the electorate that believes in the conspiracy of the evil American government, or the related antisemitic trash talk, he doesn’t stand a chance.

My heart goes out to all those sincere and principled libertarians here, who now have become associated with the lowest common denominator through Paul’s appeal to that crowd. His ad hominem character assassination of his fellow contenders has brought that crowd out of the closet, and they are clicking their heels with glee at having been recognized by Paul.
 
gnjsdad said:
Sure. Middle East expert Juan Cole, who speaks Farsi, had this to say when A’jad’s “threat to wipe Israel off the map” surfaced. It’s a mistranslation, a mistranslation some American politicians are all too willing to accept

Excerpt…

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for ‘this occupation regime over Jerusalem” to “vanish from the page of time.’ Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).

*If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn’t he start at home if that was what he is really about? *
Click to expand...
I wonder if any Muslim would consider a call by Obama or some other American president for Islam to vanish from the pages of time to be a tad anti-Islamic?
No, more to the point, I wonder if any Muslim wouldn’t?

What is the difference between people that justify this kind of talk as reasoned, and the antisemitism of the holocaust deniers of yore, by the way?
 
Darryl1958 said:
I wonder if any Muslim would consider a call by Obama or some other American president for Islam to vanish from the pages of time to be a tad anti-Islamic?
No, more to the point, I wonder if any Muslim wouldn’t?

What is the difference between people that justify this kind of talk as reasoned, and the antisemitism of the holocaust deniers of yore, by the way?
Click to expand...
Ahmadinejad means that he wants the Palestinians to control that region
 
bbarrick8383 said:
reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/is-america-waging-a-covert-war-on-iran
Click to expand...
Another major reason I’m supporting Ron Paul. This belligerent talk about Iran is precisely what led up to the Iraq invasion (“They might have weapons of mass destruction!”). We’re no sooner pulling out of that disaster then we start rattling the same sabres towards a much more significant power? When does this absurdity stop?

We need to cut costs and preserve our military men and women for honorable service in defense of our country, not extend ourselves into yet another avoidable war of our own making. Obama will work to extend us into a conflict, as will Romney and Gingrich, and I absolutely can’t support that policy.

Peace and God bless!
 
plus the Jews that control Israel are the Jews that have been separated from Palestine for the longest time, the Ashkenazi that have lived in Eastern Europe. not the Jews that remained in Palestine
 
Not_Sure said:
Ahmadinejad means that he wants the Palestinians to control that region
Click to expand...
He wants Tehran to control the region. Hizbollah is one Iranian stategy to do this, and funding Hamas is another. Palestinian Arabs are the pawn as always, and they would be quite easily sacrificed along with the Jew if it came to a nuclear strike.

The Iranian theocracy is not based in humanism. It was quite willing to use young boys as mine sweeps in its war against Iraq. Iranian officials are on record as musing that it would only take a few nuclear strikes to ‘contain’ Israel, and even if Israel killed millions of Iranians in retaliation, that is probably a price that Iran could handle.

Islamic theocracies generally have no problem with non-Islamic people living under their rule. Dhimmis, who traditionally know better than to demand greater rights, and who pay their special taxes, are an economic good for Islamic theocracies.

For sure it is no skin off of Ron Paul’s nose if he underestimates what Iran would be willing to do, and will be able to do, once they have weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe Israel though takes the Iranian threat a little more seriously than all that. Antisemites of course don’t much care about all that, would even be rather satisfied to see the destruction of the Zionist state, and that is why they are among those who support Ron Paul.
 
Not_Sure said:
plus the Jews that control Israel are the Jews that have been separated from Palestine for the longest time, the Ashkenazi that have lived in Eastern Europe. not the Jews that remained in Palestine
Click to expand...
You seem to want to define who the real Jews are and who are the fake Jews.
Do Jews themselves make such distinctions among themselves?
and is it in the place of Catholics to determiine who is a Jews and who is not?
 
Darryl1958 said:
The statements of Ron Paul on Bachmann and his fellow contenders has had the expected results. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, and the people who prefer character assassination rather than reasoned arguments.

It resonates well with young cynics though, who much prefer the info-tainment on a Jay Leno show than actually taking politics seriously enough to bother discovering the nuances behind the point of view of his opponents.

Reaching out and touching the lowest common denominator of support, as Ron Paul now has done in his desperate attempt to raise his chances in this race, simply does not reveal a man of principles. He may not be the conspiracy nut that National Review editors brushed him off as being, but he knows well enough that without appealing to that 30 % of the electorate that believes in the conspiracy of the evil American government, or the related antisemitic trash talk, he doesn’t stand a chance.

My heart goes out to all those sincere and principled libertarians here, who now have become associated with the lowest common denominator through Paul’s appeal to that crowd. His ad hominem character assassination of his fellow contenders has brought that crowd out of the closet, and they are clicking their heels with glee at having been recognized by Paul.
Click to expand...
Did you listen to his actual argument in the debate? I’m probably biased, but I found it much more convincing than Bachmann’s evidenced lies.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Did you listen to his actual argument in the debate? I’m probably biased, but I found it much more convincing than Bachmann’s evidenced lies.
Click to expand...
The motivation for my post is what Ishii wrote, just a few posts after I had given what I considered a fair and balanced accounting of what I personally liked about Ron Paul’s brand of politics, as it has been portrayed by some of his more decent and thoughtful posters here.

And then I noticed the kind of posters coming on board to support the guy after Ishii exposed his SIXHIRB attack against his fellow Republican competitors in the race.

The post quoted has nothing to do with any debate. It has everything to do with his low ball at some very decent people, and the way that it has brought the lowest common denominator here out of the closet to cheer him on.

Like I say, my heart really does feel for people such as Scott LaFrance and BarrickB here, who now find themselves in some very embarrassing company as a result of this latest tactic employed by Ron Paul.
He said Bachmann “hates Muslims” and that Rick Santorum “doesn’t like gay people.”
Click to expand...
He has become a joke.
Click to expand...
Ishii
Click to expand...
 
Latest tactic? It was a comedy show. He’s been nothing but classy despite the way he’s treated all the time. Look up his interview with Ed Schulz and how he handled that disgraceful guest appearance.
 
I’m not really convinced the comment on Bachmann is going to hurt Paul much. He shouldn’t have made it, but the people who are going to vote for him are going to have to be willing to accept his foreign policy and accepting his foreign policy as valid means that you have to view most of the other candidates, Bachmann included, as War Mongers.
 
PatrickSebast said:
I’m not really convinced the comment on Bachmann is going to hurt Paul much. He shouldn’t have made it, but the people who are going to vote for him are going to have to be willing to accept his foreign policy and accepting his foreign policy as valid means that you have to view most of the other candidates, Bachmann included, as War Mongers.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the other candidates are talking about Iran the same way that the Bush Administration talked about Iraq in 2003, it’s not hard to paint them as war mongers. In fact, from my perspective these candidates want to be seen as war mongers, as it seems to appeal to a certain segment of the U.S. population.

Peace and God bless!
 
PatrickSebast said:
I’m not really convinced the comment on Bachmann is going to hurt Paul much. He shouldn’t have made it, but the people who are going to vote for him are going to have to be willing to accept his foreign policy and accepting his foreign policy as valid means that you have to view most of the other candidates, Bachmann included, as War Mongers.
Click to expand...
How many wars makes a warmonger?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top