Ron Paul Thread

[Ghosty]

So, aren’t you using the same tactics that Ron Paul supporters claim the GOP uses…vote for this guy, or else Obama wins? What is the difference?

I don’t know what “Ron Paul supporters” claim because, as a Ron Paul supporter, I haven’t noticed any kind of “team strategy” and certainly haven’t been informed of any.

Yes, people who support candidates generally try to argue that support for their candidate is the best option. That is why we support candidates in the first place. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be arguing that?

As for Obama winning if Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum are the nominees, that’s just a statement of how I’m reading the race. Independents will not back any of those three, and if you have any arguments or numbers that show otherwise then please present them. Romney generally gets the nod from the GOP as “the most electable”, but he hardly claims any support outside of the GOP, and his support within the GOP is tepid even among those who say they will vote for him. Gingrich and Santorum, on the other hand, positively repel everyone outside of the GOP and have no chance of “crossing the aisle” when it comes to garnering otherwise-Obama votes.

Ron Paul actually appeals to independents and disaffected Democrats, and while his views don’t hold up as well within the GOP, most GOPers would support anyone against Obama. Most independents and disaffected Democrats won’t support just anyone against Obama, however; in order to get their votes the candidate must challenge Obama on the issues that have them disaffected in the first place, and that candidate is Ron Paul and Ron Paul alone.

The economy isn’t as easy an avenue of attack as you might think because the bailouts (that “Socialist” program) were the brainchild of Republicans like Romney in the first place, and Obama will be quick to point that out. Obamacare was based off of the Massachusetts medical program almost to a T, and Obama will bring that up as well regardless of whether or not it stands up in the Supreme Court. Where Obama is vulnerable is his violations of civil liberties and his aggressive foreign policy, despite general GOP attempts to paint him as “weak” for following the GOP/Bush play-book to the letter. Romney won’t attack him where he’s weak, and neither will Gingrich nor Santorum. They won’t attack him there because that’s where they agree with him publicly, despite the fact that that’s his weakest link in his own base.

So if the GOP strategy is to leave Obama with his base, and leave him pretty much standing “as-is” with the independents, then the GOP will lose. Period. There are not enough people outside the party who support the program as it stands to go for the “general GOP candidate”, and not enough people who couldn’t care either way who would switch captains in the middle of the course. Obama will get another four years, not because he’s so loved, but because people can’t be bothered to trade out what they know for such an intangible change. Perhaps Ron Paul wouldn’t be an acceptable trade, but at least he’d be a notable change, and that’s the only thing that has a chance of winning against an incumbent President. Heck, it’s what sealed Obama’s victory in 2008 even, despite the fact that he was simply pandering to those who wanted a change and never actually carried it through.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

There is enough ammo in Obama’s war chest to smear Ron Paul should he somehow chance upon the nomination. The campaign would be about how extreme Paul is and how mainstream Obama is - Obama would say how we’re finally headed in the right direction, etc - and this would be helped by the unemployment rate going down a bit more, which it seems poised to do. There would be thinly veiled comments about Ron Paul’s fitness for the presdency in light of his age - this would be done by Obama surrogates, of course. Paul’s long history as a true-believing libertarian (and Libertarian) would be picked apart and he’d be asked to explain every statement. The campaign would always be on the defensive. In short, the only way Paul could win would be if there was an economic collapse.

I heard a couple of interesting things - Michael Medved said that the election will hinge on how the supreme court decides on Obama-care. If the public mandate is found unconstitutional Obama would likely lose (to a more mainstream GOP candidate). Also, the election will be decided by a handful of “purple” states in which Obama seems to be weaker than in 2008. Politically its still an eternity until November.

Ishii

You know as well as I do that Obama wouldn’t sway GOPers with such a campaign, and independents and disaffected Democrats don’t want the mainstream. Remember that being against the mainstream was how Obama won the independents in the first place. Such a campaign would be asking for Ron Paul to attack him on his foreign policy, corporate bailouts, and Obamacare, all of which were originally Republican programs. Ron Paul would attack him on that front, and Obama would have no defense; he would lose a chunk of his base, and the GOP would never support him anyway.

Unless you believe that GOPers would be swayed by Obama’s campaign, your point falls flat.

Peace and God bless!

 

[exnihilo]

Let’s see, al-Qaeda attacked us because we decadent westerners were in the “holy land” of Saudi Arabia. We were there by invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia because Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. Had we not gone in, our access to oil would have been cut off by the way. So tell me again, how Islamists are not attacking us because we are decadent Westerners?

Isn’t it ironic that we went to save an oppressive, misogynistic, fanatical Islamic monarchy? I thought we spread democracy by the sword? How can I reconcile all these facts?

Why would you think it is possible to cut off US access to oil? Oil is an international market. And most importantly the US is one of the largest oil producing countries in the world. In fact the US produces more oil than Iran and Iraq combined. Oh and the biggest US consumer is, of course, the US military. If the US military were not constantly making war overseas we’d be able to save a tremendous amount of oil.

First off, you’re confusing a harsh economic recession with an an economic* collapse *. The former we’re still in, the latter hasn’t happened and hopefully won’t happen. The economy has indeed stagnated, but that’s not a collapse. I agree that Obama has been a terrible president and spend trillions, etc.

We’d have to define economic collapse first to say whether we are in one or not. If defined too narrowly there might never be economic collapse, but it seems that many people believe there are such things. In fact most people who support government economic intervention are very fond of the word collapse.

We are certainly in a depression. That was the term for what we now call recession until the Great Depression. After 1945 the US never had two things again. We never had a depression as they became recessions. And we never had war as they became defenses.

 

[jam070406]

If you’re referring to my post, I was making the point that Obama would have an easy time portraying Ron Paul as extreme, based on Paul’s statements over the past few decades.

Ishii

I don’t think so. People want change. Obama ran on hope & change. People found out fast that it was empty rhetoric and the new boss looked alot like the old boss. Paul offers real change.

 

[jam070406]

Ron Paul introduces legislation to repeal section of NDAA

m.digitaljournal.com/article/318153

 

[estesbob]

Ron Paul introduces legislation to repeal section of NDAA

m.digitaljournal.com/article/318153

Given he has been able to pass exactly one piece of legislation in his two decades in congress i wouldnt hold out much hope that this will pass. in fact he will probably vote no out of habit if it does reach the floor.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Given he has been able to pass exactly one piece of legislation in his two decades in congress i wouldnt hold out much hope that this will pass. in fact he will probably vote no out of habit if it does reach the floor.

So, we should just dismiss his action just because other Republicans won’t support it? I mean, Mitt Romney supports NDAA. Sooo, we should get behind Mitt Romney and the NDAA because the GOP establishment wants him to face off against Obama?

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think so. People want change. Obama ran on hope & change. People found out fast that it was empty rhetoric and the new boss looked alot like the old boss. Paul offers real change.

If you think about it all politicians run on change. When was the last time you heard of a stay the course candidate? In fact our history books tell us about the presidents who changed things and ignore the guys who ‘did not do anything’. The problem of course is not all change is good. As a culture we dont seem to respect someone proceeding with caution. That is one reason I really like Ron Paul. He is against the welfare state but says we cant dismantle it in a day because so many have come to depend on it.

Given he has been able to pass exactly one piece of legislation in his two decades in congress i wouldnt hold out much hope that this will pass. in fact he will probably vote no out of habit if it does reach the floor.

I dont hold out hope either however it is not the fault of Ron Paul but of the rest of Congress. I just dont get how people blame Ron Paul for not getting supposedly very Republican legislation passed, especially when the Republicans controlled all branches of government during some of the Bush years. Ron Paul gets dismissed for holding fast to Republican ideals.

 

[Seamus_L]

People in this country really scare me sometimes. You can oppose US military action in another part of the world and get labelled unpatriotic and anti-American, yet you can support the NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, etc, with no damage to your reputation.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

People in this country really scare me sometimes. You can oppose US military action in another part of the world and get labelled unpatriotic and anti-American, yet you can support the NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, etc, with no damage to your reputation.

You are not a patriot if you don’t support the American Empire. Its pretty simple.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Here is an article about one of my favorite moments of last night’s debate, when the crowd actually booed in order to get John King’s attention to let Ron Paul in on the abortion issue:

ibtimes.com/articles/285094/20120120/ron-paul-debate-south-carolina-abortion-cnn.htm

I thought Paul did an awesome job last night, even though he’ll be ignored so that the press can focus on Gingrich’s standing ovation and Romney’s taxes. (I watched the entire hour of CNN’s post-debate coverage and they didn’t mention Paul until the very end when one anchor said, “Hey we haven’t brought up Ron Paul.”)

 

[Michael_C]

Given he has been able to pass exactly one piece of legislation in his two decades in congress i wouldnt hold out much hope that this will pass. in fact he will probably vote no out of habit if it does reach the floor.

He was pretty effective in shedding light on the FED. Something no politician has ever done.

 

[ishii]

I don’t think so. People want change. Obama ran on hope & change. People found out fast that it was empty rhetoric and the new boss looked alot like the old boss. Paul offers real change.

Maybe, but I am pretty sure that Obama has his loyal base and all he needs to do is convince a percentage of independents that Paul is too risky and extreme - all points I made previously. Incumbents have an advantage in elections. I guess we could only know if they actually ran against each other.

Ishii

 

[Cascadian]

People in this country really scare me sometimes. You can oppose US military action in another part of the world and get labelled unpatriotic and anti-American, yet you can support the NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, etc, with no damage to your reputation.

In the words of Herman Goring, as recorded in “The Nuremberg Diary”
of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war… But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Lately I hear we’re being threatened by Iran, and that those who oppose military action are exposing the country to danger.

War can be legitimate sometimes, but let’s show extreme prudence before marching on to the next one shall we? Let’s not allow war to become an easy decision for the government, as portrayed in Goring’s quote.

 

[Onegin]

He was pretty effective in shedding light on the FED. Something no politician has ever done.

Precisely. And an institution most Americans know little to nothing about.

Just the way the FED likes it.

 

[rlg94086]

Given he has been able to pass exactly one piece of legislation in his two decades in congress i wouldnt hold out much hope that this will pass. in fact he will probably vote no out of habit if it does reach the floor.

 

[scipio337]

With atheists, I often encounter the argument that 9/11 was the natural outcome of religion. With others I often encounter the argument that 9/11 was the outcome of a specific religion. I am opposed to both.

Now I can understand why people are inclined to believe that terrorist hate our decadence. On a certain level it’s logical to assume that they attacked us because of an inherent property of Radical Islam and Jihad was indeed the means that were used to attack us.

You bring up a good point:

After 60 plus years of “occupation” and “empire” in Germany, how many disaffected former East German residents have flown 747s into US skyscrapers?

The progenitor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ideological founder of al Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb preached hate towards the US well before any Saudi Airbase, Iraq Sanctions, or US financial and military support for Israel.

Islamist Pirates from an Ottoman proxy attacked us well before 1948.

A US airbase in a nation on friendly terms (at their behest, no less) does not cause terrorism.

Radicalism does.

 

[Cascadian]

You bring up a good point:

After 60 plus years of “occupation” and “empire” in Germany, how many disaffected former East German residents have flown 747s into US skyscrapers?

The progenitor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ideological founder of al Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb preached hate towards the US well before any Saudi Airbase, Iraq Sanctions, or US financial and military support for Israel.

Islamist Pirates from an Ottoman proxy attacked us well before 1948.

A US airbase in a nation on friendly terms (at their behest, no less) does not cause terrorism.

Radicalism does.

While I’ll maintain that 9/11’s inherent political motives must not be ignored, I’ll concede that it’s reasonable that terrorist attacks fueled by pure religious zeal can certainly happen.

While we ought to keep our guard up for such attacks, I’m also inclined to believe that our foreign policy will only make it worse. Our military’s actions in Germany and the Middle East are different. Many middle easterners, certainly don’t see our bases there at their behest, and if our bases were perceived to be leading to the deaths of thousands in Germany then it wouldn’t be surprising to find that terrorism had arisen there as well.

Sayyid Qutb may have preached hate, but he did not plot terrorist attacks, nor did he fly any planes into our buildings. One must wonder if the momentum he produced would’ve gotten as far without our aggressive policies in the area.

You also mention the Barbary Wars, which also had an inherent political character to them. They were attacking us to get tribute, we went in there took care of the problem and left.

Military action is a matter of prudence, regardless of our good intentions we ought to evaluate what will actually happen as a consequence, and change our plans accordingly. Perhaps we can’t eradicate radical Islam, but we ought to pursue the policies that minimize it rather than aggravate it.

I think ultimately we both want the same thing here, which certainly helps to put the discussion into perspective.

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

In only a few more months, I will no longer have to hear about Paul’s presidential aspirations, nor will I be hectored any longer by his fanatical supporters.

That thought gives me great joy.

 

[pnewton]

In only a few more months, I will no longer have to hear about Paul’s presidential aspirations, nor will I be hectored any longer by his fanatical supporters.

That thought gives me great joy.

You can have that option now. Simply put anyone on ignore that you view as fanatical. Until then, at the rate things are going, there may be a continued disturbance in the political discussions. Then, it will be back to business as usual, probably with Obama still in the White House.