Ron Paul Can't Win

#76
#76
MystifyingVol said:
Do I believe he is unelectable? No, I don't.

Do I believe Maxine Waters is unelectable, yes.

Can't remember where I read this, but I think there is a lot of truth to it. There are a lot more Ron Paul supporters in this election cycle than there were four years ago. Whoever has "got" Ron Paul will never vote for phoney Politicians again. And from the point of view of an RP-supporter, Perry, Romney and Bachmann are phoneys. Therefore, if RP is not nominated, his supporters' votes will be missing in the end count and Obama will continue to be president.

Do you think the other Republicans will stay away from the polls if Paul is the nominee? No, they'll support him to just get Obama out.
Click to expand...


So the RP supporters are gonna whine because their guy didn't win and just not show up and support Romney or Perry? No way.

Now, their support might be lukewarm, but anybody who is interested enough in politics to have followed and found RP to be an acceptable candidate will absolutely show up and vote GOP next November.

Donate to the campaign? Get their neighbors excited to vote? No. But show up and pull the lever for the guy with the "R" next to his name, absolutely.



Rasputin_Vol said:
The conservative movement is at a crossroads. They can either force feed us the 2012 version of John McCain and make Obama a 2 term president, or they can stop stonewalling Ron Paul and send Obama back to Chicago. Because seriously, anybody they run out there outside of Paul is going to split the GOP vote.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

First, a sizeable contingent of the GOP simply hates Obama so much that they'd vote for the GOP candidate, regardless of who it was, just to register their personal hatred for Obama.

Second, for those less partisan but at least mildly interested, if the economy still sucks they will show up to vote for change, even if a bit fuzzy on the details.

Third, once the nominee is selected, the Hannity/Fox/Limbuagh/Colter machine will go into full "He's the best guy!" mode, even if they don't really believe that simply because all of them fall into the first category mentioned above.


HSVol said:
If conservatives are serious about getting BHO out of office, they need to choose the lesser of two evils, no matter who the nominee is.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, regardless of your individual ideology.
Click to expand...

That's correct. And whoever the GOP nominates, be it Perry or Romney, will become quite centrist knowing full well that, no matter how much he doesn't excite his base with harsh anti-Obama rhetoric, it doesn't matter because they will show up to vote against Obama no matter what, anyway, and its the lukewarm middle where the election is won or lost.

Given this economy, the WORST thing that the GOP could do is stand on principle and nominate someone who would make them feel all good about themselves, but who would lose that middle.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
So the RP supporters are gonna whine because their guy didn't win and just not show up and support Romney or Perry? No way.

Now, their support might be lukewarm, but anybody who is interested enough in politics to have followed and found RP to be an acceptable candidate will absolutely show up and vote GOP next November.

Donate to the campaign? Get their neighbors excited to vote? No. But show up and pull the lever for the guy with the "R" next to his name, absolutely.
Click to expand...

Do you know RP supporters? It's not about "whining" that "our guy didn't win", it's about the fundamental direction of the country. Romney, Perry, Obama, they're all the same, just moving us at different speeds.

RP is the only candidate that offers something different than the establishment candidates (regardless of the R or D after their names).

I'd say if someone was a RP supporter in 2008 and he isn't the nominee, they'll stay home. The newer converts? You might have a point.
 
#79
#79
MG1968 said:
the version of Al Gore that Rick Perry supported in 1988 is a far cry from the Al Gore of 2011.
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm not sure Gore believes half the crap he says but the global warming angle makes him millions of dollars.
 
#80
#80
MystifyingVol said:
Do you know RP supporters? It's not about "whining" that "our guy didn't win", it's about the fundamental direction of the country. Romney, Perry, Obama, they're all the same, just moving us at different speeds.

RP is the only candidate that offers something different than the establishment candidates (regardless of the R or D after their names).

I'd say if someone was a RP supporter in 2008 and he isn't the nominee, they'll stay home. The newer converts? You might have a point.
Click to expand...

Dead wrong.
 
#82
#82
HSVol said:
If conservatives are serious about getting BHO out of office, they need to choose the lesser of two evils, no matter who the nominee is.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, regardless of your individual ideology.
Click to expand...

According to my individual ideology I am a perfect candidate! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
Just polled my Google+ circle, they're staying home. Not scientific :).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#85
#85
Hey, please guys, don't stay home! Vote for a third party. The game is rigged against them and they need every vote they can get. Without some support they can never be a factor. You want change? Be the change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#86
#86
RespectTradition said:
Hey, please guys, don't stay home! Vote for a third party. The game is rigged against them and they need every vote they can get. Without some support they can never be a factor. You want change? Be the change.
Click to expand...

I'll pull the L lever as long as it isn't Bob Barr again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#87
#87
I will write Dr. Paul's name in, just like I did in 08.
I can not and will not hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Hopefully, its a non issue :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#88
#88
RespectTradition said:
Hey, please guys, don't stay home! Vote for a third party. The game is rigged against them and they need every vote they can get. Without some support they can never be a factor. You want change? Be the change.
Click to expand...

I did that in 2000 and 2004. There were no good 3rd party options in 2008. (Bob Barr was the Libertarian candidate in 2008, remember).
 
#90
#90
Ron Paul's "looney" foreign policy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjwaExW6-Fg&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]
 
#91
#91
comparing Ron Paul to Reagan is about as looney as comparing Palin to Reagan.

Reagan never would have used the tortured line of reasoning that it's ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons because the Soviet Union had them and they never attacked the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
MG1968 said:
comparing Ron Paul to Reagan is about as looney as comparing Palin to Reagan.

Reagan never would have used the tortured line of reasoning that it's ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons because the Soviet Union had them and they never attacked the US.
Click to expand...

So your concern is not their actions would be similar, it's that their rhetoric would be different? Reagan might have voiced disapproval about Iran, but ultimately he wouldn't have done anything. Reagan initiated one ground attack (Grenada) in 8 years of presidency. Ron Paul is a lot closer to Reagan than any Neocon is.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. - Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

Neocons have taken the liberty out of conservatism. Did you watch the video?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
I agree somewhat with Baker here. Many people assume cons are pro-liberty because that's what they are supposed to be - but this, in many cases, could not be further from the truth.
 
#95
#95
nbakerld said:
So your concern is not their actions would be similar, it's that their rhetoric would be different? Reagan might have voiced disapproval about Iran, but ultimately he wouldn't have done anything. Reagan initiated one ground attack (Grenada) in 8 years of presidency. Ron Paul is a lot closer to Reagan than any Neocon is.



Neocons have taken the liberty out of conservatism. Did you watch the video?
Click to expand...

Reagan had a very adversarial stance toward Iran. There's a reason why the US Embassy hostages were released shortly after Reagan won the 1980 election and it's not because Iran thought he would roll over and give them what they wanted. He also fought a proxy war with Iran via Iraq. So maybe he didn't put boots on the ground, but there wasn't any doubt that if you messed with the US, Reagan would not sit back and take it (a harsh lesson learned after the fiasco in Beirut).

Ron Paul's stance toward Iran would be seen more as weakness than any sort of "live and let live" policy. You saw what happened in 2009 when Obama said that the US wouldn't lend vocal support to the Iranian protesters.
 
#96
#96
MG1968 said:
Reagan had a very adversarial stance toward Iran. There's a reason why the US Embassy hostages were released shortly after Reagan won the 1980 election and it's not because Iran thought he would roll over and give them what they wanted. He also fought a proxy war with Iran via Iraq. So maybe he didn't put boots on the ground, but there wasn't any doubt that if you messed with the US, Reagan would not sit back and take it (a harsh lesson learned after the fiasco in Beirut).

Ron Paul's stance toward Iran would be seen more as weakness than any sort of "live and let live" policy. You saw what happened in 2009 when Obama said that the US wouldn't lend vocal support to the Iranian protesters.
Click to expand...

How did that work out? We ended up fighting 2 wars with Iraq after training and arming them. Ron Paul took the good from Reagan and left out the bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
nbakerld said:
That's what I say when people talk about ensuring national security by spreading democracy and winning hearts and minds through invasion.
Click to expand...

does Ron Paul have any policy regarding preemptive military action? Suppose he pulls back all overseas US troops (and by extension, all intelligence gathering operations) but receives credible information (including who is responsible and where they are located) regarding an imminent attack on a major US city? Does Ron Paul take a reactive or proactive approach? Does he sit on his hands and potentially allow thousands of Americans to die knowing he could have prevented a catastrophe or does he take action?

The decision of POTUS to engage the US military is never a simple one. Ron Paul and his sycophants make it sound as though war is some antiseptic action performed in a vacuum.

Obama once thought that he could do just what Ron Paul wants to do, he found out that it's easy to armchair quarterback from the comfortable confines of a congressional office, but the view is quite a bit different once you have access to ALL of the information.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top