Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
irishpatrick said:
For Ron Paul supporters:

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, will you vote for the winning GOP candidate, will you lean toward Obama and the Democrats, or will you just not vote?
Click to expand...
Personally, I believe in 1 moral truth: the non-aggression principle (NAP).

Plainly put, I believe it is immoral to initiate force against another human being.

Therefore, remaining consistent with this truth, I am necessarily an anarcho-capitalist, aka voluntaryist. I believe voluntary interaction is the only moral form of society - therefore I believe the existence of any government must necessarily be in direct violation of the NAP.

Further study shows not only is voluntaryism a morally pure code, but it is also the most economically beneficial to everyone involved - see Austrian Economics/Murray Rothbard.

I am voting for Ron Paul because his principles are more closely aligned with this NAP than any candidate of the past 100 years - and perhaps I have some morbid curiosity to see if he could actually shrink the size of government. It is the last time I will ever participate in validating any system of government by voting. Voting for Ron Paul is ultimately in violation of my above principles, but his message is so closely aligned with the non-initiation of force principle, I can’t resist.

Needless to say, this will be the last time I vote, and I will vote for no one other than Ron Paul. After this election, no matter how libertarian a candidate’s message is, I will view any supporter of the use of force against me (aka government) as an enemy.
 
irishpatrick said:
I meant to say the auto bailouts, but thanks for the correction.

So, does unborn life mean so little that they are not worthy of your vote if you do not get your personal wish list?
Click to expand...
The auto-bailouts were set by the Bush Administration under the TARP, they were simply implemented by Obama because Bush left office before all the money was doled out. Yet another bad Republican plan.

The unborn mean so much to me that they’re my first point on the list, the first test for any candidate. We don’t need to stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, however, and that’s a line we’ve been fed for too long. If voting for a particular president could assure that Roe v. Wade would be eliminated, I would vote for them, but that’s simply not the case. Since a Supreme Court appointment vote is a shot in the dark, and is still subject to approval from Congress, I refuse to throw away all my other voting principles in the off-chance that maybe something will come of Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court.

I personally believe at this point that the Supreme Court appointment stance is being manipulated as a political tool by many (not all) in the GOP, and it’s easy to understand why. The moment Roe v. Wade is overturned the GOP will lose a huge plank of its support from people who are pro-life but otherwise would support the programs the Democrats promote. I think the political machine is too smart to throw that away, regrettably. I still won’t vote for anyone who isn’t solidly pro-life, however.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
I’ll leave aside the rest for a moment, but the part in bold needs to be addressed. The TARP was a bipartisan law signed by George W. Bush, not Obama, and McCain voted in favor of it. TARP is precisely the kind of thing that the mainstream GOP supports that those of us who support Ron Paul disagree with.

In answer to your previous question about supporting GOP candidates other than Ron Paul, I’ll just say this:

I will not vote for someone who supports abortion. Period.

I will not vote for someone who supports massive corporate bailouts. Period.

I will not vote for someone who supports pre-emptive military strikes by the U.S. on Iran (or any other nation) without immediate, direct, and impending threat to the U.S. Period.

I will not vote for someone who supports the suspension of our Common Law tradition and Habeas Corpus. Period.

These are my bare minimum non-negotiables. If any other GOP candidates who fit this bill get the nomination, I will happily vote for them. I will not vote for anyone who fails on these points just in the hopes of favorable Supreme Court appointments, because 1) such appointments aren’t a guarantee, and 2) they are not required to overturn Roe v. Wade (see Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution).

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
👍 Great post!

God bless!
 
irishpatrick said:
Mistakes happen. Your point?
Click to expand...
How about the Republican party is not anti-abortion in practice? How about, it’s time for a change? Maybe we shouldn’t jump on the heir-apparent bandwagon and accept lip-service pro-life politics.
 
irishpatrick said:
So, you think allowing Obama to get a second term is better than all of the other GOP candidates? Really?
Click to expand...
Huh? No one person “allows” someone to become president with their vote. Check the constitution. It is not something one can “allow.”
 
rlg94086 said:
Fact: Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. The majority of voters don’t believe he is an acceptable candidate.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Too funny!

I really did burst out laughing when I saw this. My wife thought I had lost it. I think Republicans are one of the primary reasons I has such a distaste with the Republican party, kind of like the Steelers.
 
pnewton said:
:rotfl:
Too funny!

I really did burst out laughing when I saw this. My wife thought I had lost it. I think Republicans are one of the primary reasons I has such a distaste with the Republican party, kind of like the Steelers.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe the Gallup poll? Okay. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
Fact: Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. The majority of voters don’t believe he is an acceptable candidate.

Fact: Ron Paul’s “back-up plan” is to have a chance to speak at the convention and influence the Republican Party platform

Fact: Ron Paul has said he has no interest in running as a third party candidate. Oh wait, he’s waffled on that…not sure which of his statements to believe…

Those are enough facts to lead most conservatives to support another GOP candidate.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t think Ron Paul is electable. There are not enough people that like him and his inability to comment on issues other than to say “Give it to the individual states”. Even Ron Paul doesn’t think he’s going to be elected.
My fear is that he’ll try for a third party vote, and take some republican votes away from the republican candidate, and Obama will win.

If Ron Paul won the Nomination, it is with great reservations that I would vote for him.

I would vote though, if one doesn’t vote, one doesn’t have the right to complain, and I do like to complain. 😉
 
Elle_C said:
I honestly don’t think Ron Paul is electable. There are not enough people that like him and his inability to comment on issues other than to say “Give it to the individual states”. Even Ron Paul doesn’t think he’s going to be elected.
My fear is that he’ll try for a third party vote, and take some republican votes away from the republican candidate, and Obama will win.

If Ron Paul won the Nomination, it is with great reservations that I would vote for him.

I would vote though, if one doesn’t vote, one doesn’t have the right to complain, and I do like to complain. 😉
Click to expand...
Hi Elle,

If you doubt the good doctor’s intellectual gravitas, listen to this speech made before congress. Democracies can easily turn into tyrannies when one group decides to vote away the rights or property of another group. The constitution and rule of law are the only things protecting us against this. This is the reason why Dr. Paul does not pander to voters by promising to use federal power for powers that belong to the states.

Romney and Paul are the only two who have a chance at beating Obama. Paul has the better chance because of his appeal to independents (I guess freedom is popular). Romney would have a very uphill struggle getting his base to turn out even if he takes on a more conservative running mate. I don’t blame the base, they have simply been lied to one too many times and it would actually be irresponsible of them to trust his words over his record. Romney is pro abortion and pandering. Santorum would rally all of the liberals who are disgusted with Obama to hold their nose and vote for him anyway. Santorum polls the worst against Obama off all of the candidates. Romney and Paul poll the best. Paul has greater appeal because he is actually converting young democrats over to the Republican party in great numbers. I guess that they have been lied to one too many times as well.
 
pnewton said:
How about the Republican party is not anti-abortion in practice? How about, it’s time for a change? Maybe we shouldn’t jump on the heir-apparent bandwagon and accept lip-service pro-life politics.
Click to expand...
Or…

How about if we do that now, we get Obama for four more years…
 
pnewton said:
:rotfl:
Too funny!

I really did burst out laughing when I saw this. My wife thought I had lost it. I think Republicans are one of the primary reasons I has such a distaste with the Republican party, kind of like the Steelers.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul can win the nomination–but if he does, he will lose big to Obama.
 
Ghosty said:
The unborn mean so much to me that they’re my first point on the list, the first test for any candidate. We don’t need to stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, however, and that’s a line we’ve been fed for too long. If voting for a particular president could assure that Roe v. Wade would be eliminated, I would vote for them, but that’s simply not the case. Since a Supreme Court appointment vote is a shot in the dark, and is still subject to approval from Congress, I refuse to throw away all my other voting principles in the off-chance that maybe something will come of Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court.

I personally believe at this point that the Supreme Court appointment stance is being manipulated as a political tool by many (not all) in the GOP, and it’s easy to understand why. The moment Roe v. Wade is overturned the GOP will lose a huge plank of its support from people who are pro-life but otherwise would support the programs the Democrats promote. I think the political machine is too smart to throw that away, regrettably. I still won’t vote for anyone who isn’t solidly pro-life, however.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
No matter how you want to spin it–Bush has the court one vote away from being a prolife bench, and had he had one more appointee if would already be a majority prolife court. We need one more vote–now is NOT the time to get weak of heart. Overturning legal abortion is a long marathon, not a sprint, and it will take people who are willing to never stop trying. There is nothing wrong with pursing other options, while also trying to get that fifth vote on the SC bench.
 
irishpatrick said:
This is the USA, and yes every single vote does count, and if you are not willing to vote, than your opinion about politics and the nation are worthless.
Click to expand...
Well I am willing to vote if there is a truly acceptable candidate who has a chance of winning. There has not been one in my lifetime. By the way are you a father? If so do you tell your kids their opinion about politics is worthless since they cant vote?
Ghosty said:
I personally believe at this point that the Supreme Court appointment stance is being manipulated as a political tool by many (not all) in the GOP, and it’s easy to understand why. The moment Roe v. Wade is overturned the GOP will lose a huge plank of its support from people who are pro-life but otherwise would support the programs the Democrats promote. I think the political machine is too smart to throw that away, regrettably.
Click to expand...
A great point. I think people dont realize that the goal of politicians is to create problems not solve them. If politicians solved problems there would be less need of them. The reason I’ve concluded the Democrat Party is better than the Republican and have more respect for their voters is the Democrats somewhat frequently accomplish what they are elected to do. To be sure what the Democrats accomplish is truly terrible. But the Republicans do nothing they say. People dont seem to remember that Republicans under Bush controlled the Congress. And what did they accomplish? Nothing.
Elle_C said:
I honestly don’t think Ron Paul is electable.
Click to expand...
That opinion is at odd with polls that show Paul would stand a chance of winning versus Obama. The pundits keep repeating this lie to make it seem true. But the facts say otherwise. Paul’s biggest challenge is the Republican Party which seems to favor keeping government at its current size and making more war not less. But if Paul wins the nomination his positions poll well.
 
irishpatrick said:
No matter how you want to spin it–Bush has the court one vote away from being a prolife bench, and had he had one more appointee if would already be a majority prolife court. We need one more vote–now is NOT the time to get weak of heart. Overturning legal abortion is a long marathon, not a sprint, and it will take people who are willing to never stop trying. There is nothing wrong with pursing other options, while also trying to get that fifth vote on the SC bench.
Click to expand...
Having a “pro-life” SCOTUS is not necessary to overturn Roe.

Republicans need to stop crying about activist justices out of one side of their mouths and championing “pro-life” justices out of the other.
 
irishpatrick said:
No matter how you want to spin it–Bush has the court one vote away from being a prolife bench, and had he had one more appointee if would already be a majority prolife court. We need one more vote–now is NOT the time to get weak of heart. Overturning legal abortion is a long marathon, not a sprint, and it will take people who are willing to never stop trying. There is nothing wrong with pursing other options, while also trying to get that fifth vote on the SC bench.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul will give you that justice. Romney will not. Paul and Romney are the only two who have a chance at beating Obama.
 
irishpatrick said:
Ron Paul can win the nomination–but if he does, he will lose big to Obama.
Click to expand...
Not according to the polls. Romney and Paul are about evenly matched and ahead of the pack in terms of their ability to do well against Obama. Paul has greater populist appeal than Romney though.
 
There is only one political party, it is a party of big-government and has two wings to it. The DNC is pro-welfare, pro-abortion, and pro-war. The RNC is pro-corporate welfare, pro-life, and pro-war. Both favor taking money from one group and doling it out to another. Both favor undeclared military adventurism as an integral part of their foreign policy. Both favor government interventionism in the economy. Both favor heavy police involvement in controlling the rabble (us). BOTH are heavily dependent on the partisanship of the Supreme Court and judicial activism. The Republican variety of the Duopoly favors life from conception to natural death. The Democrat variety favors death to whomever it deems inconvenient to the state. Both have their pet groups. Republicans have corporations (which Democrats refuse to acknowledge as legal persons) and the Chamber of Commerce. Democrats have unions (which Republicans refuse to acknowledge as legal persons) and central banks.
 
pnewton said:
Not as a predictor of the future, I do not. Polls and statistics have their place, namely propaganda and misdirection, for those into such things.
Click to expand...
I never said the poll predicted the future. The poll showed that 60% of the voters don’t think he is an acceptable candidate. Now, you may still think he can win the nomination, but all indicators show he has no chance.

Dismiss reality as propaganda, if you will. Ron Paul isn’t losing because of propaganda, misdirection, big media conspiracy, etc. He’s losing because a majority of voters don’t even think he’s acceptable, let alone agree with him…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top