Can Ron Paul win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
What? Being told you are a partisan, unintelligent, Muslim-hating, neocon sheep duped by the GOP doesn’t convince you to vote for him? Huh… 😉
Click to expand...
I seem to have caught a bit of inflammatory “Ron Paul’s supporters are as nutty as he is” rhetoric without saying any of the above.

Seems to me some Paul supporters, excluding myself, are willing to put Obama back in office before they put a RINO back in, and part of me does not blame then.

That being said, we all have a lot of work In front of us if we want to convince anyone of anything, and inflammatory language isn’t going to help no matter which side it comes from.

Does Ron Paul have some fruitcake supporters? Yes. So do the Republicans and especially the Democrats. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s have some reasonable debates.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
How many wars makes a warmonger?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, but if Ron Paul wins the nomination Obama would have a very difficult time explaining how Ron Paul could actually fall to the “left” of him on such a serious issue, especially when Obama originally ran with such strong opposition to war and ended up with 3 of them.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I seem to have caught a bit of inflammatory “Ron Paul’s supporters are as nutty as he is” rhetoric without saying any of the above.

Seems to me some Paul supporters, excluding myself, are willing to put Obama back in office before they put a RINO back in, and part of me does not blame then.

That being said, we all have a lot of work In front of us if we want to convince anyone of anything, and inflammatory language isn’t going to help no matter which side it comes from.

Does Ron Paul have some fruitcake supporters? Yes. So do the Republicans and especially the Democrats. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s have some reasonable debates.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you think that my post was singling you out. 🤷

Whatever…Ron Paul won’t be the nominee, but I hope most of his supporters will support his party’s candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Sadly, the Republicans most likely to say “I won’t vote for x in the general election” are Ron Paul supporters. You can take that personally, if you like, but there are too many posts from others to back it up.
 
PatrickSebast said:
I don’t know, but if Ron Paul wins the nomination Obama would have a very difficult time explaining how Ron Paul could actually fall to the “left” of him on such a serious issue, especially when Obama originally ran with such strong opposition to war and ended up with 3 of them.
Click to expand...
I think the first mistake is to consider starting/finishing wars a left or right characteristic. But if I’m not mistaken, aren’t republicans historically speaking elected to end them?
 
rlg94086 said:
Sadly, the Republicans most likely to say “I won’t vote for x in the general election” are Ron Paul supporters. You can take that personally, if you like, but there are too many posts from others to back it up.
Click to expand...
Personally I think that speaks positively of Ron Paul supporters. I wish more people on either side would outright reject the idea of party loyalty and voting for the lesser evil. I don’t want to vote for Obama, and there are a few potential Republican nominees that I don’t want to vote for either. And I am not willing to compromise my values to support the two party system, or a candidate who I think has terrible views simply because I like the other guy even less.

If Ron Paul supporters find their values more important than simply giving way to the system then I hope they really are representative of the upcoming generation of youth.
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m not sure how you think that my post was singling you out. 🤷

Whatever…Ron Paul won’t be the nominee, but I hope most of his supporters will support his party’s candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Sadly, the Republicans most likely to say “I won’t vote for x in the general election” are Ron Paul supporters. You can take that personally, if you like, but there are too many posts from others to back it up.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying that you singled me out. Just pointing out that the mud gets slung both directions.
 
PatrickSebast said:
Personally I think that speaks positively of Ron Paul supporters. I wish more people on either side would outright reject the idea of party loyalty and voting for the lesser evil. I don’t want to vote for Obama, and there are a few potential Republican nominees that I don’t want to vote for either. And I am not willing to compromise my values to support the two party system, or a candidate who I think has terrible views simply because I like the other guy even less.

If Ron Paul supporters find their values more important than simply giving way to the system then I hope they really are representative of the upcoming generation of youth.
Click to expand...
And, Obama wins. I’m sure he will thank you all for helping him. 👍
 
rlg94086 said:
And, Obama wins. I’m sure he will thank you all for helping him. 👍
Click to expand...
I assure you that very few of us will feel bad about one terrible candidate defeating another terrible candidate because we refused to support either.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I think the first mistake is to consider starting/finishing wars a left or right characteristic. But if I’m not mistaken, aren’t republicans historically speaking elected to end them?
Click to expand...
It isn’t really a clear-cut issue, but currently being anti-war is seen as more of a left/democrat thing thanks to the previous election and the Iraq war.
 
No, Ron Paul cannot win the nomination, and if he did he couldn’t win in the general election against Obama. IF Paul somehow won the GOP nomination I would either sit out the election or write in my Dad. Come on people…just look at his position on Iran and you know he’d be a mess.
 
Yerusalyim said:
No, Ron Paul cannot win the nomination, and if he did he couldn’t win in the general election against Obama. IF Paul somehow won the GOP nomination I would either sit out the election or write in my Dad. Come on people…just look at his position on Iran and you know he’d be a mess.
Click to expand...
Iran: that dangerous, world-dominating power with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet three times over. We need to take a militant stance against their expansive military power across the globe. They have nuclear launching platforms in the Persian Gulf!
 
Ghosty said:
Iran: that dangerous, world-dominating power with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet three times over. We need to take a militant stance against their expansive military power across the globe. They have nuclear launching platforms in the Persian Gulf!
Click to expand...
Your sarcasm is lost on me. Iran with a nuclear weapon is a nightmare. Israel would be in mortal danger…no one would be safe. Iran’s leaders WANT a confrontation…their theology demands it…martyrdom is in their constitution. To assert that Iran with a nuke is no real danger goes beyond naive…it’s dangerous.
 
Yerusalyim said:
Your sarcasm is lost on me. Iran with a nuclear weapon is a nightmare. Israel would be in mortal danger…no one would be safe. Iran’s leaders WANT a confrontation…their theology demands it…martyrdom is in their constitution. To assert that Iran with a nuke is no real danger goes beyond naive…it’s dangerous.
Click to expand...
We have no reason to start a war, as some Republicans have indicated, considering the lack of evidence of Iran’s nuclear programs intentions. If Israel is worried about it, let Israel stop it. I have no problem in our country helping theirs with intelligence, but they don’t need their hand held in this at this point in time.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
We have no reason to start a war, as some Republicans have indicated, considering the lack of evidence of Iran’s nuclear programs intentions. If Israel is worried about it, let Israel stop it. I have no problem in our country helping theirs with intelligence, but they don’t need their hand held in this at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is evidence…not conclusive…and I’m not yet advocating war…but a hard line…the point is Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a Nuke and stated even if there were conclusive proof he would do NOTHING. Paul is a dangerous man if he ever has power.
 
Yerusalyim said:
Your sarcasm is lost on me. Iran with a nuclear weapon is a nightmare. Israel would be in mortal danger…no one would be safe. Iran’s leaders WANT a confrontation…their theology demands it…martyrdom is in their constitution. To assert that Iran with a nuke is no real danger goes beyond naive…it’s dangerous.
Click to expand...
Promoting the people of Iran as irrational martyrs that would rather die than find a diplomatic solution is also dangerous and lead to a deadly war for people of many nations. They are far more dangerous than Iraq and with Israels involvement it could mean a middle-east wide conflict.
 
Yerusalyim said:
Actually, there is evidence…not conclusive…and I’m not yet advocating war…but a hard line…the point is Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a Nuke and stated even if there were conclusive proof he would do NOTHING. Paul is a dangerous man if he ever has power.
Click to expand...
Why is it Team America:World Police’s job to do anything?

What’s Israels military capability compared to Iran’s?

If anything it should go like this:

US: Hey Israel, Iran’s going to have a nuke in 3 months.

Israel: Ok, we will take care of it, thanks for the heads up.

US: No problem, good luck, give us a call if you need a hand.
 
Yerusalyim said:
Your sarcasm is lost on me. Iran with a nuclear weapon is a nightmare. Israel would be in mortal danger…no one would be safe. Iran’s leaders WANT a confrontation…their theology demands it…martyrdom is in their constitution. To assert that Iran with a nuke is no real danger goes beyond naive…it’s dangerous.
Click to expand...
Your jingoism is lost on me. Iran with a nuclear weapon would be less powerful, less influential, less anything than the U.S. was 70 years ago. Iran with a single nuclear weapon would be catching up with their surroundings 30 years too late, and even then their capability would be wiped out within a matter of days by their neighbors without any U.S. posturing. In all likely-hood we (the public) wouldn’t know they even had an active reactor until after it was destroyed by Israel.

So long as we’re having casual discussions like this Iran has every right and reason to build a nuclear weapon. If you were to go on an Iranian Shiite discussion board and hear them saying that the U.S. wants a confrontation, that opposing Sharia Law is in our Constitution, would you think they’re crazy, or would you think they’re making realistic statements about our stance?

The difference is that we have the capability to wipe them out, while they have nothing but conventional military forces that are surrounded by our military bases. Are you seriously scared of Iran?
 
PatrickSebast said:
Promoting the people of Iran as irrational martyrs that would rather die than find a diplomatic solution is also dangerous and lead to a deadly war for people of many nations. They are far more dangerous than Iraq and with Israels involvement it could mean a middle-east wide conflict.
Click to expand...
The PEOPLE of Iran are great…it’s their leaders that are irrational. Can anyone seriously listen to Ahmadinejad and think otherwise?
Code: 
  “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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top