Ron Paul Can't Win

#528
#528
That Beinart article is very interesting and the take on an isolationist GOP versus the neocons of the 90's and the Bush administrations, verging on imperialist in their thinking, is very apt. And it will be interesting to see whether the GOP returns to its roots on the issue or continues to promote a world view that is based on American military dominance.

One thing not discussed in the article is the relationship between the neocon view and the rise of the military industrial complex. There are a whole lot of very powerful people out there that would not want to see the US of A return to the Coolidge-Paul view of US military might.

Another way in which Paul splits the GOP is of course on the social issues, and particularly individual liberties. If one believes in, in the words of the article, making the government irrelevant in daily life, then one must also necessarily believe in legalizing a whole lot of things that the TPers might have a problem with. There is certainly a major division brewing there, as well. Has been for a long time.
 
#529
#529
Some interesting analysis that suggests Paul is not a Republican choice

'Mischief' voters push Paul to front of GOP race | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.
Click to expand...

Paul tops the field when pollsters ask Republicans which candidate they are certain not to support. "When you ask people which candidate they are least likely to vote for, Ron Paul is pretty high, because most Republicans here really don't want to vote for him," says Smith. "His support is not coming, by and large, from Republican voters."
Click to expand...
 
#531
#531
lawgator1 said:
bham, why do you think that is? The Iran answer? The crazy uncle persona? Or the social stuff?
Click to expand...

Part of each - he is kind of RINO in a different way.

Ultimately, he's libertarian and pretty heavy libertarian WRT to federal government.

To me, he is the prototypical 3rd party candidate - some from each group (R, I, D) like him but the majority of each group doesn't.
 
#532
#532
As Ronald Reagan said, "at the very heart of conservatism is libertarianism", but the Republican party is no longer conservative, so I'd take "RINO" as a compliment.
 
#533
#533
I think there is no doubt that he runs either a third party candidate (Libertarian Party) or as an independent. Either one will hurt the GOP far more than Obama in the Presidential election.
 
#534
#534
PKT_VOL said:
I think there is no doubt that he runs either a third party candidate (Libertarian Party) or as an independent. Either one will hurt the GOP far more than Obama in the Presidential election.
Click to expand...

He's been pretty adamant that he will not. Gary Johnson on the other hand is rumored to be switching from R to L and running for the L nomination/stamp of approval.
 
#535
#535
volinbham said:
He's been pretty adamant that he will not. Gary Johnson on the other hand is rumored to be switching from R to L and running for the L nomination/stamp of approval.
Click to expand...

I have heard that too. Seems to be more GOP talking points to me. I just think given his poll numbers (both GOP, independent, and moderate democrats) and the fact that the GOP establishment refuse to give him a fair shot at the nomination, he will change his mind. He has an almost cult like following. Those who support him are far less likely to casually switch to whomever the eventual nominee is.

As a Paul supporter, if he did indeed decide not to run, I would vote for Johnson in a heartbeat over Obama or the eventual GOP nominee (Romney). However, I am not like other Paul supporters I know. They would rather write in Ron Paul then vote for someone else.
 
#537
#537
Question for the Paul supporters - What is your reaction to the racial commentary in his newsletters? His 9/11 truther comments?
 
#538
#538
volinbham said:
Question for the Paul supporters - What is your reaction to the racial commentary in his newsletters? His 9/11 truther comments?
Click to expand...

He didn't write the commentary. He is far from a 9/11 truther. Plain and simple.

How come no one ever attacks his record?
 
#539
#539
So he didn't read the newsletter with his name on it? Didn't he suggest Mossad may have had some role in 9/11?

(For the record, I don't see the above as disqualifiers but it seems they should at least be acknowledged by his supporters).

What is his record? Did I hear correctly that he's never put forward a bill that became law? Hasn't he taken a lot of pork for his district?
 
#540
#540
RON PAUL SLAPS DOWN 911 TRUTHER QUESTION DURING S.C DEBATE - YouTube

The video at the top on the page tells me all I needed to know about the newsletters.
As far as his record goes, I would much prefer a congressman work to eliminate government than try to create more. That's just me.
Sure, he took some pork home for his district, how else would he get re-elected if he didn't?
The guy is consistent and that is rare in Washington.
 
Last edited:
#541
#541
volinbham said:
Question for the Paul supporters - What is your reaction to the racial commentary in his newsletters? His 9/11 truther comments?
Click to expand...

As far as the commentary in the news letters, I have to take his side of the story. There is too much litterature that is actually attributed to Paul over the last 30 years that suggests that Paul is not a racist. Also, the media seems to be focusing on a half dozen or so excerpts from all of those news letters. It is entirely possible and within reason that Paul could not have possibly been able to read every item, every word, every quotation in the letters over the 10 or so years they were published. Is that something that he probably should have a closer eye on? Perhaps... you can make that argument I suppose. But if you do that, than you should put the same amount of pressure on congressmen and senators that I am almost certain have not read the complete text of every law they have voted on. Not saying 2 wrongs make a right, but I'm saying lets have some proprtionality.

As far as the 9/11 truther stuff you mentioned, I have no idea what item in particular you are talking about, but I assume most of what has been thrown out there consists of comments he has made about the Bush admin. being gleeful about 9/11 and the opportunity to go to Iraq and all of that. In that case, to me, that is a trivial and nearly non-issue. Let Congress make do their jobs and declare war if they see fit and Ron Paul's opinion or beliefs about our involvement in overseas activities can be stymied. I really don't understand why most so-called conservatives have such a big issue with Paul suggesting that we follow Constitutional procedure. How can you on the one hand wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution and call yourself a conservative, yetopenly support candidates that violate the constitution or come out and openly threaten to damage the checks and balances of our 3 branches of govt (Newt threatening to impeach the 9th Circus Court)?

If Ron Paul critics on the right were smart, they would rally around Paul and simultaneously ride his coattails with more fiscally conservative "war hawks" in the house and senate. That way, they could get their cake in Paul with regards to domestic policy and eat it too when it comes to foreign policy in the house/senate.

It just makes too much sense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#542
#542
I have a hard time seeing Ron Paul be a racist given his libertarian views on so many issues.

I can see him being against affirmative action. I can see him being critical of political correctness. Certainly he is against any sort of social spending, but that is regardless of who is getting it.

But pure racial intolerance? Doesn't seem likely.
 
#543
#543
Rasputin_Vol said:
As far as the commentary in the news letters, I have to take his side of the story. There is too much litterature that is actually attributed to Paul over the last 30 years that suggests that Paul is not a racist. Also, the media seems to be focusing on a half dozen or so excerpts from all of those news letters. It is entirely possible and within reason that Paul could not have possibly been able to read every item, every word, every quotation in the letters over the 10 or so years they were published. Is that something that he probably should have a closer eye on? Perhaps... you can make that argument I suppose. But if you do that, than you should put the same amount of pressure on congressmen and senators that I am almost certain have not read the complete text of every law they have voted on. Not saying 2 wrongs make a right, but I'm saying lets have some proprtionality.

As far as the 9/11 truther stuff you mentioned, I have no idea what item in particular you are talking about, but I assume most of what has been thrown out there consists of comments he has made about the Bush admin. being gleeful about 9/11 and the opportunity to go to Iraq and all of that. In that case, to me, that is a trivial and nearly non-issue. Let Congress make do their jobs and declare war if they see fit and Ron Paul's opinion or beliefs about our involvement in overseas activities can be stymied. I really don't understand why most so-called conservatives have such a big issue with Paul suggesting that we follow Constitutional procedure. How can you on the one hand wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution and call yourself a conservative, yetopenly support candidates that violate the constitution or come out and openly threaten to damage the checks and balances of our 3 branches of govt (Newt threatening to impeach the 9th Circus Court)?

If Ron Paul critics on the right were smart, they would rally around Paul and simultaneously ride his coattails with more fiscally conservative "war hawks" in the house and senate. That way, they could get their cake in Paul with regards to domestic policy and eat it too when it comes to foreign policy in the house/senate.

It just makes too much sense.Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That is the problem.
 
#544
#544
volinbham said:
So he didn't read the newsletter with his name on it? Didn't he suggest Mossad may have had some role in 9/11?

(For the record, I don't see the above as disqualifiers but it seems they should at least be acknowledged by his supporters).

What is his record? Did I hear correctly that he's never put forward a bill that became law? Hasn't he taken a lot of pork for his district?
Click to expand...

Concerning the the record of him only getting one bill to become law in 30 years... I mean really? You know his views, bham. They are not mainstream liberal or neo-con views. Does that really surprise you? If anything, it is an indictment on his peers in congress. He has been proven correct about his predictions concerning the direction of this country and he is made out to be to kook and outsider. Meanwhile, the mainstream thought has driven us to where we are right now. If anything, Paul could campaign on the fact that he has no blood on his hands regarding where we are right now. Can Newt say that? Santorum?

And I love the people that try to kill him on the earmarks. How else is he supposed to bring money back to his district? Or better yet, what way would you prefer?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#545
#545
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
RON PAUL SLAPS DOWN 911 TRUTHER QUESTION DURING S.C DEBATE - YouTube

The video at the top on the page tells me all I needed to know about the newsletters.
As far as his record goes, I would much prefer a congressman work to eliminate government than try to create more. That's just me.
Sure, he took some pork home for his district, how else would he get re-elected if he didn't?
The guy is consistent and that is rare in Washington.
Click to expand...

Consistent? The guy requests more pork than anyone else in congress, then votes against the spending bill. Thats consistent?
 
#546
#546
lawgator1 said:
I have a hard time seeing Ron Paul be a racist given his libertarian views on so many issues.

I can see him being against affirmative action. I can see him being critical of political correctness. Certainly he is against any sort of social spending, but that is regardless of who is getting it.

But pure racial intolerance? Doesn't seem likely.
Click to expand...


Most reasonable post I've ever seen from you.
 
#547
#547
Rasputin_Vol said:
Concerning the the record of him only getting one bill to become law in 30 years... I mean really? You know his views, bham. They are not mainstream liberal or neo-con views. Does that really surprise you? If anything, it is an indictment on his peers in congress. He has been proven correct about his predictions concerning the direction of this country and he is made out to be to kook and outsider. Meanwhile, the mainstream thought has driven us to where we are right now. If anything, Paul could campaign on the fact that he has no blood on his hands regarding where we are right now. Can Newt say that? Santorum?

And I love the people that try to kill him on the earmarks. How else is he supposed to bring money back to his district? Or better yet, what way would you prefer?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking him - I was told to look at his record. What is his record? He was right about some things but is that a "record"?

I don't consider him to be racist at all. I just don't think he's done a good job explaining the newsletter thing.

Overall, I only judge him on his views. Some I agree with and some I don't.
 
#550
#550
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Consistent? The guy requests more pork than anyone else in congress, then votes against the spending bill. Thats consistent?
Click to expand...

In most of the cases I've seen, it is just the opposite. He votes against the spending bills first. Then, they end up passing anyways. Now, there is this money available that he didnt request. Now what should he do? Should he fall on the sword and refuse the money for his district, only for so other representative to come in and spend the money anyways? Or should he at that point not leave the money on the table and make an attempt to bring the district's money back from Washington somehow?

I really want to know what the correct answer is on this. The money is going to be spent anyways once the bills are passed. Should he let it sit on the table or bring it home? Or is there a 3rd option that would be more acceptable? I would really like to know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top