Can Ron Paul win?

[bbarrick8383]

Non-intervention is a form of isolation. And just as dangerous.

No it’s not, the two are totally unrelated. A non-interventionist respects the laws and cultures of sovereign nations yet communicates and negotiates trade deals amongst other things with them. An isolationist country folds itself up within its own borders and pretends there is no outside world.

The people in charge in Iran are the people in charge…they have the money, the weapons, direct the policy. A jew hating holocaust denier runs the country…that’s a problem.

Ahmadinejad has no control over the military or foreign policy in his country.

Again, I’m not saying go to war…not yet…but I am saying they have to be dealt with and the diplomacy thus far has been an abject failure. Ron Paul did great as a congressman…he should remain just that. As President he’d be just as dangerous as Obama has been. We obviously disagree on that. Look, Paul has some attractive ideas…I won’t deny that…but some of his ideas are dangerous.

How is it a failure? What’s the goal? You don’t like the leadership fine, are we going to do this every time we do not like the direction a sovereign country is heading? It’s about time we stop policing the rest of the world and take care of our own country for awhile. If intel shows that Iran is even close to getting a nuclear weapon, which every major country in the world can not agree on, then we can let Israel know and let them deal with it.

I’m thinking it’s not Paul whose the danger, maybe it’s this propaganda that people have been fed that we must play superhero to the world.

 

[brian24]

Of course he can win. He is running. Anyone who is running can win. It sickens me when people’s argument is “I would vote for him but he can’t win.” If everyone who says/ said that voted for him, he can win.

This is a video compiled by Veterans for Ron Paul released a week ago. It is awesome and literally brought me to tears. As the video says, please watch it in its entirety. The “I like Ron Paul except his foreign policy” statement is old and worn ragged.

youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo

 

[bbarrick8383]

That’s a good point. The leadership of Iran (as opposed to the people, whom I’ve heard many of which actually are pretty western in their thinking) is not reasonable. To not understand the nature those who we deal with is a dangerous thing. Its like back in the Cold War when the liberals though “Gee, the Soviets are reasonable, all we have to do is negotiate and show them we mean no harm and they’ll respond.” In the end, evil regimes only respect force, or the threat of force. The difference between Iran and the Soviets is that there are martyrs in Iran willing to die for a religion - the Soviets were happy to wait for the inevitable end of capitalism.

That’s Obama’s policy. I think we should monitor the situation and let Israel handle as much of the dirty work as possible. We have conflicting reports and no evidence of any manufacturing of weapons.

The idea that Romney, Gingrich and Obama are equally terrible is to not understand Obama. Obama is way worse. Any Catholic seriously interested in the sanctity of life ought to want to oust him in the next election. If that means electing a quirky, idealistic progressive conservative then so be it. If it means electing an establishment Republican who is a Mormon then so be it: ***I don’t want Obama to pick the next two supreme court justices. Do you? ***

I agree.

Darryl, you make great points. We need to be realistic about Iran. Not jingoistic, not “neo-con” not “trigger happy” or “isolationist”. We need to be realistic and be ready to defend our interests when necessary. But we have to understand the nature of our enemies and not be naive.

Ishii

I agree, we should be realistic about both sides of the debate as well. Ron Paul is not an isolationist who would shut down and let the world go to hell for all he cares. If Israel can prove Iran has a nuke or is very close to it and that it would need America’s help and would be in our best interest to do so then by all means. Let’s take it to Congress and hash it out there where it’s supposed to be.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Of course he can win. He is running. Anyone who is running can win. It sickens me when people’s argument is “I would vote for him but he can’t win.” If everyone who says/ said that voted for him, he can win.

This is a video compiled by Veterans for Ron Paul released a week ago. It is awesome and literally brought me to tears. As the video says, please watch it in its entirety. The “I like Ron Paul except his foreign policy” statement is old and worn ragged.

youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo

Hey, thanks for this video Brian. I’ll share it with everyone I can. Amazing.

 

[gilliam]

Iowa: Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10

From Public Policy Polling:

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there’s been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich’s image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has ‘strong principles,’ while 43% think he does not.

Paul’s ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he’s run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it’s ‘very important’ that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person…

Romney’s vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul. Among voters who say they’re not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul. It’s particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he’s the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul

publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

hat tip

If Paul wins Iowa, expect the GOP to get out the long knives and attack him. That has been the pattern this year.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It’s already started.

A poll show’s Paul gaining in Iowa.

All of the sudden, people are talking about how Iowa doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ran across this as well:

The Dome of the Rock in Israel is one of the holiest sites in Islam, following Mecca and Medina. According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. After Muhammad’s return, he called all who would believe him to join with him and be Muslim.

I promise you, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or any other Muslim for that matter, would not nuke Isreal and destroy one of the most holiest sites in Islam, no matter how much he may dislike the Jewish people. Muslims may fight over the land, but the last thing on Earth they want to do is destroy it.

1.bp.blogspot.com/-0qMnCu2DJr8/Td_eFXdlPOI/AAAAAAAABm…

dailypaul.com/194078/iran-will-not-nuke-israel-absurd-thinking-by-bachmann-and-the-rest

 

[Ghosty]

Iran’s “conventional military force” has been responsible for the deaths of a lot of US soldiers.

Honorable U.S. men and women who didn’t need to be where they were sent. Men and women who swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and who went where they were ordered to because they believed that the people in power had their best interest at heart.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists.

You mean regional fighters that have different allies than you. I’m not in favor of anything the Islamists do, but I certainly can’t begrudge them for being angry at us flying drones over their sovereign airspace.

My fear is that if they get a nuke they will use it…they will (have) destabalize the region.

What Islamist nation has destabilized a region by acquiring powerful weapons? I’ll even up the ante: what nation in the region has acquired nuclear weapons without Israel wiping out their capability unilaterally? The Middle East doesn’t need us.

Again, I’m not advocating war with Iran…just a much harder line than we’ve taken thus far.

A much harder line than denying all trade with them, and shutting down the bank accounts of Iranians that can be traced to U.S. institutions? The only harder line I can think of would be bombing them.

 

[ishii]

That’s Obama’s policy. I think we should monitor the situation and let Israel handle as much of the dirty work as possible. We have conflicting reports and no evidence of any manufacturing of weapons.
I agree, we should be realistic about both sides of the debate as well. Ron Paul is not an isolationist who would shut down and let the world go to hell for all he cares. If Israel can prove Iran has a nuke or is very close to it and that it would need America’s help and would be in our best interest to do so then by all means. Let’s take it to Congress and hash it out there where it’s supposed to be.

Fair enough. Ron Paul makes some good points. I don’t think he’s a viable candidate, in all seriousness. He makes some good points, but the political reality is that America is not going to elect a 77 year old libertarian. Just like I am a realist on foreign policy (as opposed to a neo-con) I am also a political realist.

Ishii

 

[Ghosty]

Fair enough. Ron Paul makes some good points. I don’t think he’s a viable candidate, in all seriousness. He makes some good points, but the political reality is that America is not going to elect a 77 year old libertarian. Just like I am a realist on foreign policy (as opposed to a neo-con) I am also a political realist.

Ishii

So do you believe that electing someone who would suspend Habeas Corpus is the only real option for the U.S.? Do you believe that talking about, and advocating, war with a non-nuclear power that has a grudge against the U.S. for overthrowing their duly elected government is the only defense for our nation?

Peace and God bless!

 

[bbarrick8383]

Fair enough. Ron Paul makes some good points. I don’t think he’s a viable candidate, in all seriousness. He makes some good points, but the political reality is that America is not going to elect a 77 year old libertarian. Just like I am a realist on foreign policy (as opposed to a neo-con) I am also a political realist.

Ishii

I know reality, it prevents me from holding my breath, but it doesn’t prevent me from hoping.

 

[ExLibris]

It’s already started.

A poll show’s Paul gaining in Iowa.

All of the sudden, people are talking about how Iowa doesn’t matter anymore.

It reminds me of that scene from 1984 where The Brotherhood changes the banner in the public square where The Party is holding its rally to reflect the sudden, baseless change in foreign policy thus showing the citizenry the lies it had been fed. In response, just like it had done a dozen times, The Party merely rewrote history.

The Iowa Caucuses don’t matter! They never mattered! Why are we even talking about this? They don’t matter!

 

[PatrickSebast]

The PEOPLE of Iran are great…it’s their leaders that are irrational. Can anyone seriously listen to Ahmadinejad and think otherwise?

  “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the

Islamic countries due to their need.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

And our Leader isn’t great either. We don’t need to go to war just because they have a terrible leader, and with the proper actions and diplomacy we may not have to. War should be a last resort and discouraged at all cost, not touted like a trophy through the primary debates with everyone competing to express how much more willing they would be than the other guy to attack Iran.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Romney has already been preordained as the republican nominee by the powers that be. If Gingrich has been attacked fiercely when his popularity increased, just wait until talk radio and the rest of the “conservative” political machine sets their cross hairs on Ron Paul. Game over for him. Either way, we’ll likely be stuck with Obama with all of this division among the republicrats.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s already started.

A poll show’s Paul gaining in Iowa.

All of the sudden, people are talking about how Iowa doesn’t matter anymore.

It matters. However its gonna be a long year.

 

[PatrickSebast]

The idea that Romney, Gingrich and Obama are equally terrible is to not understand Obama. Obama is way worse. Any Catholic seriously interested in the sanctity of life ought to want to oust him in the next election. If that means electing a quirky, idealistic progressive conservative then so be it. If it means electing an establishment Republican who is a Mormon then so be it: ***I don’t want Obama to pick the next two supreme court justices. Do you? ***

Ishii

I said it before and I will say it again. Neither I nor anyone else who would vote for a third party candidate given a poor selection (and I’m not certain yet whether I would qualify Romney or Gingrich as part of the poor selection) is willing to vote on the principle of one bad candidate being a lesser evil than the other because it promotes the development of further evils. Yes Obama supports abortion and that is terrible, but if I think someone is going to be irresponsible with our military, limit our freedoms, or cause an unjustified war then I will not vote for them. Many people will not vote for them, and we won’t feel any guilt for it either. McCains recent show of support for the idea of allowing the US military to indefinitely detain citizens does nothing but affirm me in my belief that I simply can not vote in conscience for the lesser evil.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I know reality, it prevents me from holding my breath, but it doesn’t prevent me from hoping.

Really I get tired of hearing that Ron Paul can’t win. He is a nominee, he has decent support, and political commentators fail to judge primaries properly all the time. Sure he doesn’t stand the best chance in the world, but the way commentators talk about him it sounds more like they are trying to convince themselves. I don’t like all of his policies, but I would love to see him win just because of all the nay-sayers. The idea that someone who’s popularity has grown by leaps and bounds has absolutely no chance can only be attributed to a need to deny.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“We have guided missiles and misguided men.” Dr King

Not much has changed.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

But Paul can’t win.

I’m wondering when this argument dies.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But Paul can’t win.

I’m wondering when this argument dies.

Ah, but it is already. You know what the real issue is I see. Paul has that geeky approach which is very humble, he’s not an advocate of rhetoric. Or the best public speaker. A mistake which so many fall for, look at Obama:shrug:

However, are we looking for great orators, or a individual who will correct the Economy and end Abortion, and stop the constant persuit of silencing Religious Freedom by Obama and HR3?

No-One knows the economy better than Paul. If thats not clear by now, than you haven’t been watching the debates.

By 2014 we’ll have a horror show right here with Religious Freedom.

Peace