Can Ron Paul win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a delusion to believe that abortion will be eliminated by Supreme Court appointments. We’ve had Republican Presidents for the majority of the last 30 years and Roe v. Wade still stands. We need to stop pretending that electing lousy Presidents in the hopes of court appointments is a winning strategy. The odds of any benefit for the unborn with such a strategy are so thin as to be negligible, and electing bad presidents for such long odds is negligent.

Peace and God bless!
 
It’s a delusion to believe that abortion will be eliminated by Supreme Court appointments. We’ve had Republican Presidents for the majority of the last 30 years and Roe v. Wade still stands. We need to stop pretending that electing lousy Presidents in the hopes of court appointments is a winning strategy. The odds of any benefit for the unborn with such a strategy are so thin as to be negligible, and electing bad presidents for such long odds is negligent.

Peace and God bless!
Didn’t say that abortion will be eliminated by supreme court appointments, did I? It would put it to the states where some will outlaw abortion, some will keep it legal (for now). If you don’t overthrow Roe V Wade, then abortion on demand is the law of the land for all fifty states for another generation. Elect Romney and you’ll get justices like Scalia or Alito. We have four justices now, all we need is one more. Elect Obama (by voting for a 3rd party, or sitting the election out) and we’ll have abortion on demand for many, many more years. Don’t let the “perfect” be the enemy of the good.

Ishii
 
Are the bigoted media synonymous with the liberal media, a subset of the liberal media, inclusive of both liberal and conservative media? And what particular bigotry are they exhibiting?
I suppose both medias are being somewhat bigoted in different ways. The conservative media doesn’t give him much respect, but won’t say why. The liberal media doesn’t raise this issue which is sure to be an interesting debate. It’s like the liberal media doesn’t want to go there, as if they are controlling public debate over the issues, restricting free and open debate and thought. The numbers of dependents who need bailouts is only growing, and no one in the liberal media is opening minds to consider our future bankruptcy before it happens.
 
You can say it as much as you want, but that doesn’t make it right. You aren’t thinking about proportionality. Just look at your sentence: “yes, Obama supports abortion and that is terrible, but…” But? Are you seriously saying that the foreign policy of Romney or Gingrich which you obviously disagree with is as morally grave and urgent as the issue of the sanctity of life contained in the abortion issue? You have your priorities out of whack. Allow Obama another four years and two more justices and expect abortion on demand to be the law of the land in all fifty states for another generation or longer. When that happens don’t complain because you will have blown your chance to prevent that out of a misguided belief that our civil liberties are in some kind of imminent collapse. John McCain wants to detain us all! Therefore allow the guy who wants to cement abortion on demand to be the law of the land - Obama - win the election. Those who support Ron Paul are letting the perfect (what they think is perfect) to be the enemy of the good, or even letting the perfect be the enemy of letting evil flourish. Abortion and a senate bill supported by McCain are not of equal gravity. The only way for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Or for good people to cling to the “perfect” candidate with no chance of winning.

Ishii
Obama cannot make on demand abortion the law of the land it is completely out of his power, due to how the very legal structure of our country works there are a very limited number of ways that abortion laws are going to change, one is a constitutional amendment which is something that neither a Republican or Democratic president could pass in either direction, another is through the Supreme Court changing its previous decisions which requires lots of evidence and a demonstration of harm caused to a person by a previous ruling this VERY rarely happens. The only other method to deter abortion is through the development of some sort of atificial womb that would allow the unborn to survive from an earlier age since it has been ruled and reasserted in multiple supreme court cases that it is a State’s right to ban abortion up to the date of the earliest surviving child outside of the womb. Obama’s only potential impact on abortion is the level of federal funding he gets for it and considering the relative affordability of abortions even without federal funds (they are not expensive procedures) I doubt federal funds have a great deal of impact on the number performed in the first place.

I’m not waiting for a perfect candidate I am refusing to vote for terrible candidates, and fear-mongering regarding abortion and the placement of Supreme Court appointees is not going to convince me. If you can demonstrate with well founded legal examples how Obama can significantly impact the state of abortion to the point where I should be concerned enough to vote for someone I disagree with on a fundamental level then go for it, I am open to learning. I am not however open to rhetoric that supports the idea of obligating my votes to the two party system simply because one of the candidates supports abortion.
 
He might be a fair bit better than Obama for all I know but he isn’t going to win - he hasn’t said anything extraordinary and he hasn’t made it very close in the last election either, so as a personal opinion he only has a 0.05% chance of winning 🤷. I also no longer see him as a very good candidate myself though [foreign policy with Iran turned me right off]. No offense to him or his supporters.
 
Obama cannot make on demand abortion the law of the land it is completely out of his power, due to how the very legal structure of our country works there are a very limited number of ways that abortion laws are going to change, one is a constitutional amendment which is something that neither a Republican or Democratic president could pass in either direction, another is through the Supreme Court changing its previous decisions which requires lots of evidence and a demonstration of harm caused to a person by a previous ruling this VERY rarely happens. The only other method to deter abortion is through the development of some sort of atificial womb that would allow the unborn to survive from an earlier age since it has been ruled and reasserted in multiple supreme court cases that it is a State’s right to ban abortion up to the date of the earliest surviving child outside of the womb. Obama’s only potential impact on abortion is the level of federal funding he gets for it and considering the relative affordability of abortions even without federal funds (they are not expensive procedures) I doubt federal funds have a great deal of impact on the number performed in the first place.
This is very misleading and wrong. Obama can keep abortion the law of the land through his judicial appointments. Obama can ensure that survival and continuation of abortion on demand being the law of the land by filling the supreme court with a bunch of Elena Kagans and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. He has given us two justices - solid pro-Roe V Wade justices to be sure. If he wins he could nominate two more which would mean an unprecedented four supreme court justices. The impact those justices would have on abortion law is easy to imagine. There would be no challenge to Roe V Wade for many years. So again, your’re flat out wrong. Obama can and does have a huge effect on abortion by keeping it legal.
I’m not waiting for a perfect candidate I am refusing to vote for terrible candidates, and fear-mongering regarding abortion and the placement of Supreme Court appointees is not going to convince me. If you can demonstrate with well founded legal examples how Obama can significantly impact the state of abortion to the point where I should be concerned enough to vote for someone I disagree with on a fundamental level then go for it, I am open to learning.
Good. I’m glad you’re open to learning. As I said above, Obama can impact the state of abortion by solidifying its legality, and by helping extend and expand its availability. Have you heard of his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius? In a recent speech to NARAL she said, " they (the GOP) want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America…we are in a war," Just how pro-abortion is Sebelius? She helped protect Planned Parenthood by shredding documents that showed how PP covered up child rape and illegal late term abortions. How pro-abortion is Obama? He of course hired Sebelius. And now Sebelius is leading the fight of the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and institutions to provide contraception and abortions. Sebelius "boasted of the regulation that forces religious objectors to choose between violating their religion and kicking their employees off of health insurance." Obama is trying to force Catholic hospitals and institutions to accept the secular leftist social agenda or stop providing healthcare or health coverage.

Patrick Sebast, the Obama administration is evil. It is wrong to make light of this by saying that Obama can’t affect the state of abortion availability and law. To simply say that all the candidates are equally terrible and the same - except Ron Paul of course - is to ignore the reality of the evil of the Obama Administration. It is time that serious catholics understood that come election time, there will be a chance to throw Obama out of office. This will be done by voting for most likely a GOP candidate with many flaws. I truly hope that you and the rest of the Paul supporters will see this reality and act on it once Paul loses in the primaries.

Ishii

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/sebelius-war-lands-her-in-court#ixzz1h3MiLKtO
 
If you’re referring to America, keep in mind that we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for years and obviously didn’t use them. Think about that- we were the only country for years that had them, and then we had overwhelming superiority for years and didn’t use them. So why should we fear?

Ishii
The US didn’t bomb Japan?
 
I’m not waiting for a perfect candidate I am refusing to vote for terrible candidates, and fear-mongering regarding abortion and the placement of Supreme Court appointees is not going to convince me. ** If you can demonstrate with well founded legal examples how Obama can significantly impact the state of abortion to the point where I should be concerned enough to vote for someone I disagree with **on a fundamental level then go for it, I am open to learning.
Not even a third of the pro-abortion policies of Obama:
lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/
January 23, 2009 – Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decision to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations
February 27, 2009 – Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
February 28, 2009 – Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research
March 10, 2009 – Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.
March 11, 2009 – Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama’s director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.
March 11, 2009 – Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
March 17, 2009 – President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
March 26 – President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
May 5 – Details emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The Domestic Extremism Lexicon calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions
May 8 – President Obama’s budget eliminates all federal funding for abstinence-only education.
May 26 – Appoints appeals court judge Sonia Sonotmayoras a Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor agrees that the courts should make policy, such as the Roe v. Wade case. Sotomayor is later opposed by pro-life groups and supported by pro-abortion groups and those who know her say she will support abortion on the high court.
August 24 – Releases veterans guide promoting euthanasia
November 6 – Endorsed the House version of the health care bill that, at the time, contained massive abortion funding, rationing and assisted suicide promotion
December 2 – Authorized taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that kills days-old unborn children.
December 17 – Signed a bill that overturned the 13-year-long ban on funding abortions with tax dollars in the nation’s capital.
February 2, 2010 – Submits new budget calling for taxpayer funding of abortions and more money for Planned Parenthood
February 26, 2010 – Obama has selected pro-abortion magistrate judge Timothy Black for the District Court Bench for the Southern District of Ohio. Black gets the endorsement of NARAL
March 22, 2010 – Signs the pro-abortion health care bill into law that contains massive abortion funding, no conscience protections and
rationing.
March 24, 2010 – Signs executive order purporting to ban abortion funding that leaves taxpayer funding of abortions in place.
April 7, 2010 – Obama administration pressures Kenya to adopt a new constitution that would legalize unlimited abortions
May 10, 2010 – Names pro-abortion activist Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court; she is strongly opposed by pro-life groups.
June 17, 2010 – Obama administration, via FDA panel, approves the use of the new abortion drug ella.
July 19, 2010 – A new report indicates the Obama administration has spent as much as $23 million to influence residents of Kenya to vote for a proposed constitution that essentially legalizes abortion.
August 26, 2010 – Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs
September 1, 2010 – Obama administration officials tell embryonic stem cell researchers to ignore judge’s decision preventing federal funding
December 14, 2010 – Obama administration admits it is working to rescind conscience protections for medical professionals who don’t want to participate in abortions
January 5, 2011 – Obama renominates four pro-abortion judicial picks
January 27, 2011 – Picks pro-abortion activist to lead Global Health Initiative
February 18, 2011 – President Obama weakens conscience protections for pro-life medical workers
March 11, 2011 – Obama administration accused of ignoring Hyde Amendment on abortions done and paid for via federally-funded college health care plans.
April 11, 2011 – Refuses Speaker John Boehner’s request to cut taxpayer funding to the Planned Parenthood abortion business
April 14, 2011 – Obama administration castigates The Vatican over family planning
June 2, 2011 – Obama administration approves more taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research
July 21, 2011 – Demands that New Hampshire make taxpayers fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
August 1, 2011 – Forces insurance companies to pay for abortion drugs under Obamacare
.
 
It will help his cause by exposing a larger audience to his libertarian message.
I agree, but Ron Paul is different. There are others who carry the libertarian torch and who will do so after Ron is done. This helps pave the way for others in the future. Ross Perot had some political organization after his run, but it didn’t have much strength and dissolved. The Libertarian Party has existed for some time now and Paul will help them gain strength in the future even if he doesn’t run as a Libertarian.
I’m glad you are at least honest in pointing out that Ron Paul is a true RINO - Republican In Name Only. He is truly a Libertarian. He’s never changed his ideology; rather, he dishonestly presents himself as a Republican to get votes. He doesn’t deserve to win the Republican Primary for that reason alone.
 
I’m glad you are at least honest in pointing out that Ron Paul is a true RINO - Republican In Name Only. He is truly a Libertarian. He’s never changed his ideology; rather, he dishonestly presents himself as a Republican to get votes. He doesn’t deserve to win the Republican Primary for that reason alone.
Robert,

I suppose that depends on one’s perspective. When I finally registered as an independent I didn’t feel as if I’d left the Republican party so much as I felt the Republican Party left me. Paul is likely the same.

I mean, seriously, this is the Party that might very well nominate Gingrich or Romney. And both Perry and Bachmann had - at one time - significant support. That’s not a party - that’s a pathetic train wreck.

Pax,
OA
 
Robert,

I suppose that depends on one’s perspective. When I finally registered as an independent I didn’t feel as if I’d left the Republican party so much as I felt the Republican Party left me. Paul is likely the same.

I mean, seriously, this is the Party that might very well nominate Gingrich or Romney. And both Perry and Bachmann had - at one time - significant support. That’s not a party - that’s a pathetic train wreck.

Pax,
OA
Really? He left the Republican Party, became Libertarian, and then returned to the Republican Party. Who left whom? :hmmm:

He’s a Libertarian, not a Republican. He just switched back to get elected…not very honest.
 
Ron Paul made horrible cheapshots at Michelle Bachmann saying she wants to get Muslims, and Rick Santorum saying he is obsessed with gay people or something. It got the Jay Leno audience laughing but it was not funny. This is a fight to win against Obama and to denigrate your fellow nominees is inappropriate.
 
I’m glad you are at least honest in pointing out that Ron Paul is a true RINO - Republican In Name Only. He is truly a Libertarian. He’s never changed his ideology; rather, he dishonestly presents himself as a Republican to get votes. He doesn’t deserve to win the Republican Primary for that reason alone.
Robert Taft was called Mr. Republican and is more similar to Ron Paul than any of these other candidates.
 
He’s a Libertarian, not a Republican. He just switched back to get elected…not very honest.
Libertarians are what the Republican party would be if they didn’t pander to be popular.

I guess if you like your Republican with a little bit of liberal who doesn’t like to follow the constitution on the side, then yea Paul’s a RINO to you.
 
Robert Taft was called Mr. Republican and is more similar to Ron Paul than any of these other candidates.
Robert taft also proposed his form of military isolationism with turn of the century technology.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: There is a gigantic fallacy of the excluded middle between Paul’s military isolationism (and yes, it IS military isolationism, regardless of his free trade ideals) and Bush’s military adventurism. See “Reagan Doctrine”.

And no, bbarrick8383, Libertarians are not “what the Republican party would be if they didn’t pander to be popular.”

How popular is being pro-life? You’re painted as being some type of doctor-assasinating nut job. How popular is supporting the sanctity of marriage? You’re painted as a civil-rights denying nazi, or modern-day Klansman.
 
I didn’t mean to imply that. Yes, he would definitely take more Republican votes than Obama votes.

You’re missing the point. We don’t need to worry about angering Islamists; we need to not worry so much about everyone else and stop policing the world.
I don’t think I’m mising the point.

smndtupidisaftr (and Paul) have suggested that US foriegn policy provoked 9/11, due to our airbase on “The Land of the Two Mosques” and our support of Israel.

My argument is, we had a reason to be there (Saddam had 300,000 troops on the Saudi border, we have a vested interest in Saudi oil, the recognized government asked to be there), so why would we set our foriegn policy around what a few guys hanging out in a cave want?

Islamist attacked Sweden (contrary to Paul’s belief), and al Qaeda released a fatwa calling for the murder of the “Muhammed Cartoonists”. Are we to change our laws regarding cartoonist (like South Park) to keep from angering them? Change our laws to prevent pastors from burning Korans?

In short, if we are changing our foriegn policy since we “provoked” 9/11, how much of our domestic policy will we have to change to keep from “provoking” them again?

Its a serious question, and I haven’t seen anyone address it.
 
How popular is being pro-life? You’re painted as being some type of doctor-assasinating nut job. How popular is supporting the sanctity of marriage? You’re painted as a civil-rights denying nazi, or modern-day Klansman.
Of course, to the opposition that is.

But to the base it’s not.

How popular is it to want to live under a government that sticks to the rules, that’s only wants its powers to be limited to what the constitution allows?

Not very, not even in the Republican party.
 
I don’t think I’m mising the point.

smndtupidisaftr (and Paul) have suggested that US foriegn policy provoked 9/11, due to our airbase on “The Land of the Two Mosques” and our support of Israel.

My argument is, we had a reason to be there (Saddam had 300,000 troops on the Saudi border, we have a vested interest in Saudi oil, the recognized government asked to be there), so why would we set our foriegn policy around what a few guys hanging out in a cave want?

Islamist attacked Sweden (contrary to Paul’s belief), and al Qaeda released a fatwa calling for the murder of the “Muhammed Cartoonists”. Are we to change our laws regarding cartoonist (like South Park) to keep from angering them? Change our laws to prevent pastors from burning Korans?

In short, if we are changing our foriegn policy since we “provoked” 9/11, how much of our domestic policy will we have to change to keep from “provoking” them again?

Its a serious question, and I haven’t seen anyone address it.
Paul does not just attribute to that but also to the fact that we’ve been meddling in their internal affairs for the past 60 years.
 
Iowa’s GOP is very worried:

What especially worries Iowa Republican regulars is the possibility that Paul could win here on January 3rd with the help of Democrats and independents who change their registration to support the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman but then don’t support the GOP nominee next November.

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.
“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

Read more: politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html#ixzz1h56kSJSJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top