Ron Paul Can't Win

#1,301
#1,301
Factcheck is a neat website. If you think Obama lies far more than they indicate, then you can submit quotes you suspect to be lies to them and it will drive his percentage down. That's how the site works.
 
#1,302
#1,302
milohimself said:
Factcheck is a neat website. If you think Obama lies far more than they indicate, then you can submit quotes you suspect to be lies to them and it will drive his percentage down. That's how the site works.
Click to expand...

why bother? When Obama signed that omnibus spending bill in 2009 he claimed that the bill was free of earmarks when in fact there were over 3000 earmarks in it.

the man is as incapable as Bill Clinton of telling the truth, perhaps even less so
 
#1,305
#1,305
416818_3159835168080_1631325217_2775729_505523054_n.jpg
 
#1,307
#1,307
All great empires collapse under their debt, Russia being the best recent example.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dete8i0GDHM[/youtube]
 
#1,309
#1,309
His domestic policy is spot on. His foreign policy is flat out wrong. He is running as a republican to get what little publicity he can ( he deserves a lot more then he has gotten), and considering that he is not a republican in his beliefs and platform, he will not win. I like a lot of what he says and despise just as much. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and for that reason...he will not be nominated. A president no....but he would make a hell of a vp.
 
#1,310
#1,310
barknoxbrawler said:
His domestic policy is spot on. His foreign policy is flat out wrong. He is running as a republican to get what little publicity he can ( he deserves a lot more then he has gotten), and considering that he is not a republican in his beliefs and platform, he will not win. I like a lot of what he says and despise just as much. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and for that reason...he will not be nominated. A president no....but he would make a hell of a vp.
Click to expand...

So he's a fraud while the other candidates who promise extensive tax cuts (with no real reform to boot) and military expansion are the real deal?
 
#1,311
#1,311
That's one reason I wouldn't mind seeing the balanced budget amendment passed -- any and all blame for all deficits forever could be laid squarely at the feet of the hawks.
 
#1,312
#1,312
milohimself said:
So he's a fraud while the other candidates who promise extensive tax cuts (with no real reform to boot) and military expansion are the real deal?
Click to expand...

No. He is not a fraud. But he is not a republican and he is running as one which is his downfall. Like him or not, trying to fit a square plug ( paul) in a round hole ( republican platform) will not work for him.
 
#1,313
#1,313
barknoxbrawler said:
No. He is not a fraud. But he is not a republican and he is running as one which is his downfall. Like him or not, trying to fit a square plug ( paul) in a round hole ( republican platform) will not work for him.
Click to expand...

you're assuming every Repub must fit the mold you want. Just because you claim he's not one doesn't make him a fraud. Maybe he's the only real one :question:
 
#1,314
#1,314
barknoxbrawler said:
No. He is not a fraud. But he is not a republican and he is running as one which is his downfall. Like him or not, trying to fit a square plug ( paul) in a round hole ( republican platform) will not work for him.
Click to expand...
I think he's making a perfectly good case as to why having to choose between a Democrat and a Republican really is like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich every couple years.

We may or may not need more parties, but we do need more choices than a couple of big government corporate shills.
 
#1,315
#1,315
utvolpj said:
you're assuming every Repub must fit the mold you want. Just because you claim he's not one doesn't make himam a fraud. Maybe he's the only real one :question:
Click to expand...

Mold i want? The mold as a republican has been set for many years. One man with different views is not going to sway the whole party. Especially views as off from the republican norm. He is a libertarian. Not a republican. Hence why he will not be elected as one.
 
#1,316
#1,316
barknoxbrawler said:
Mold i want? The mold as a republican has been set for many years. One man with different views is not going to sway the whole party. Especially views as off from the republican norm. He is a libertarian. Not a republican. Hence why he will not be elected as one.
Click to expand...

I think the Republican mold has been in constant metamorphosis for the last thirty years. If Reagan were still alive and in politics, he'd be the most moderate Republican in Washington.
 
#1,317
#1,317
barknoxbrawler said:
Mold i want? The mold as a republican has been set for many years. One man with different views is not going to sway the whole party. Especially views as off from the republican norm. He is a libertarian. Not a republican. Hence why he will not be elected as one.
Click to expand...

he will not be nominated as one because the GOP voters are just fine with their ridiculous choices that will get them killed in the general election. Was W a Repub?

How would you define the Repub "mold"?
 
#1,318
#1,318
milohimself said:
I think he's making a perfectly good case as to why having to choose between a Democrat and a Republican really is like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich every couple years.

We may or may not need more parties, but we do need more choices than a couple of big government corporate shills.
Click to expand...

Oh i agree. Im just stating that him running as a republican is the only way to get his views on the mainstream. Agree or not, he has done a wonderful job getting his views across even with the media ignoring him like he is gate c4 at the airport. He is not a republican and republicans will not vote him in. Its that simple.

The problem in washington is career politicians. Not the system. The system works wonderfully. Its the corrupt men sitting in office for years ruining this country. If we could go back to the gentlemens agreement type of government from 1776, we would be in much better shape. 2 terms and out. Another new face...with new views appears.
 
Last edited:
#1,319
#1,319
barknoxbrawler said:
The problem in washington is career politicians. Not the system. The system works wonderfully. Its the corrupt men sitting in office for years ruining this country. If we could go back to the gentlemenzs agreement type of government from 1776, we would be in much better shape. 2 terms and out. Another new face...with new views appears.
Click to expand...

When you get five hundred some odd people in the capitol and damn near everyone of them is corrupt and/or inept, the system is definitely broken. You just said term limits are an issue, that's a systemic problem right there, and one of many I think need to be addressed.
 
#1,320
#1,320
milohimself said:
When you get five hundred some odd people in the capitol and damn near everyone of them is corrupt and/or inept, the system is definitely broken. You just said term limits are an issue, that's a systemic problem right there, and one of many I think need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The system as it was meant to be in 1776 was the most free pure form of government. Its a shame that times change and the only ones that can make the change are the ones which have their pockets lined with gold in washington.
 
#1,321
#1,321
barknoxbrawler said:
Agreed. The system as it was meant to be in 1776 was the most free pure form of government. Its a shame that times change and the only ones that can make the change are the ones which hav their pockets lined with gold in wshington.
Click to expand...

the idea was pure but humans are corrupt. Not really that much difference
 
#1,323
#1,323
milohimself said:
When you get five hundred some odd people in the capitol and damn near everyone of them is corrupt and/or inept, the system is definitely broken. You just said term limits are an issue, that's a systemic problem right there, and one of many I think need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm thinking 4 terms in HoR, 2 as senator, 1 as POTUS, and 10 years for SCOTUS.
 
#1,324
#1,324
nbakerld said:
Yeah, I'm thinking 4 terms in HoR, 2 as senator, 1 as POTUS, and 10 years for SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I am against term limits. We already have a good option: elections.

However, if you are going to have them, 10 yrs for scotus allows for way too much turnover. Could you imagine the constant reevaluation and reversals that would happen? Horrid.
 
#1,325
#1,325
RespectTradition said:
I am against term limits. We already have a good option: elections.

However, if you are going to have them, 10 yrs for scotus allows for way too much turnover. Could you imagine the constant reevaluation and reversals that would happen? Horrid.
Click to expand...

Incumbents have a huge advantage as they are established. Meaning they have strong political ties with powerful special interest, and maybe just as important is they have a recognizable name. With the popular election of senators, campaign finance reform, and the general direction of things, defeating bad incumbents will only get harder and harder. Since there are only a handful of good incumbents, this does not work in our favor.

And for the record, I'm not strongly opinionated when it comes to SCOTUS. You may be right. If we would just acknowledge that nullification is a legitimate check/balance on federal tyranny I wouldn't give a damn how the SCOTUS is structured. That'd be enough to keep them in line.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top