Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest surfohio

Ron Paul

Recommended Posts

Okay, if Rick "The Prayer Warrior" gets his own thread, this thread should help counteract it.

 

Once a fringe candidate, Paul shaping 2012 race

 

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Ron Paul, once seen as a fringe candidate and a nuisance to the establishment, is shaping the 2012 Republican primary by giving voice to the party's libertarian wing and reflecting frustration with the United States' international entanglements.

 

The Texas congressman placed second in a key early test vote Saturday in Ames, coming within 152 votes of winning the first significant balloting of the Republican nominating contest. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota won the nonbinding Iowa straw poll, but Paul's organizational strength and a retooled focus on social issues set him up to be a serious player in the campaign...

 

Still, Paul finds himself outside the bounds of traditional Republicans. His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan defines him as a dove. His skepticism toward the Federal Reserve has spooked Wall Street. And his libertarian views on gay rights draw the ire of social conservatives.

 

Read the complete article here:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I see you already found and posted The Daily Show's piece on the media virtually ignoring the Ron Paul campaign over in "The Big GOP Primary Thread".  But like you said, it is hilarious.  And it's right on topic for this thread - so here's the link to the video at The Daily Show website below.

 

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier

Even when the media does remember Ron Paul, it's only to reassure themselves that there's no need to remember Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't seen that video until just now, but it was great!  I had been wondering where this top tier came from when the biggest cheers during the debate came for Paul and he did, after all, finish 2nd in the poll.

 

It seems at this point, Americans are fed up with the government in general - Republican or Democrat - and Paul offers a solution to that...get the government out of the way as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems at this point, Americans are fed up with the government in general - Republican or Democrat - and Paul offers a solution to that...get the government out of the way as much as possible.

 

I believe you are mixing two issues here.  People are fed up with the partisanship and bickering.  A very small segment of society is fed up with government in general and truly do want government to essentially diminish to its bare minimum.  A much, much, much, much larger segment of society is fed up with government they simply don't like.

 

This whole 'get the government out of my way' attitude ignores the fact that government ensures that your 'way' is available in the first place.

 

For those that really have that attitude, I would suggest going and living on one of those planned 'libertarian islands'.  When you get invaded, tough shite.... buy a helmet.  When you get wiped out by a tsunami, don't come crying for help.... buy a helmet.  When your fresh water supply runs out.... I hope you like the salty stuff.... buy a helmet and prop it up to catch the rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems at this point, Americans are fed up with the government in general - Republican or Democrat - and Paul offers a solution to that...get the government out of the way as much as possible.

 

I believe you are mixing two issues here.  People are fed up with the partisanship and bickering.  A very small segment of society is fed up with government in general and truly do want government to essentially diminish to its bare minimum.  A much, much, much, much larger segment of society is fed up with government they simply don't like.

 

This whole 'get the government out of my way' attitude ignores the fact that government ensures that your 'way' is available in the first place.

 

For those that really have that attitude, I would suggest going and living on one of those planned 'libertarian islands'.  When you get invaded, tough sh!te.... buy a helmet.  When you get wiped out by a tsunami, don't come crying for help.... buy a helmet.  When your fresh water supply runs out.... I hope you like the salty stuff.... buy a helmet and prop it up to catch the rain.

 

With partisanship and bickering being the norm of government, I think there is a view of "let's not involve them where we don't have to".  Sentiments like:

 

I don't want the government in charge of health care because I don't think they can efficiently operate it.

I don't want to give the government more tax revenue because they can't effectively manage what we give them now.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we move to an anarchy, remove the military, or eliminate basic government services that allow the country to operate.  Medicare, medicaid, Social Security...conceptually they are all pretty good ideas.  But they're poorly managed and are going bankrupt.  Fix those - and other things we have in place - before we start trusting you with other social responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government is not in charge of healthcare... at present or under HCR.  Sorry, but it is a little late in the game for the right wing to continue this nonsense by saying there wasn't enough time to read the bill.  It has been over a year and the same lies keep getting tossed around.

 

It was non-partisan Politfact's "LIE OF THE YEAR" for f^(k's sake!  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

 

Personally, I think you need to stop thinking of government as an "us vs. them" thing.  Government is us and we are government.  For the people and by the people.... that's still the way we operate.  That hasn't changed in the past 200+ years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said government was in charge of health care?  I said sentiments exist along the lines of "I don't want the government in charge of health care because I don't think they can efficiently operate it."  Do you think that sentiment doesn't exist?

 

And while the HCR bill didn't put the government in charge of health care, if provided significantly more regulations and oversight.  I don't see the government as competent enough at the moment to be able to make those types of decisions around what regulations and oversight to put into place.  If they were doing a bang up job managing medicare and medicaid, then maybe I would think "hey, maybe the government should step in here and fix this issue".  But that's not the case now is it?

 

Which is where Ron Paul I think becomes appealing.  His view is the government has tried to get involved in many things and either not helped at all or made it worse.  So let's stop asserting ourself until we can get our own house in order.  I don't think the government has done a good job representing the people in quite some time so I'd be happy to vote someone in office who limits the government's ability to represent us until those we elect can prove they can do a better job of what we elected them to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hts, because you elect to stand in defiance of my bro Ron, I am elevating both shs and rider to "Top-Tier Poster" status here on urban ohio. But not you.  :wave:

 

Your pal always,

 

Drudge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen here, Matty..... I like Ron-dawg just fine.  I don't stand in defiance to him just because I don't worship the ground he walks on and don't take everything he says as gospel.  There are a lot of devils in the detail of what Paul advocates and I don't think many of his ideas would work well in application even if they look good on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Right, a lot of the changes Paul wants would theoretically take generations to be realized. And really, the president can only do so much.

 

One thing that inspires me about Dr. Paul is his anti-war stance. I think this, above all else, is the reason he is persona non gratis with the Republican establishment.

 

Anyhow, anyone want to guess which candidate who by far gets the most military support?

 

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/20/ron-paul-campaign-raises-most-donations-from-military/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in terms of approach, consistency, and rhetoric. I like him. I am not sure he'd make a good President. I wonder who he would nominate to the Supreme Court.

 

Paul thrives because he is a dissident. What's sad is that he's the only one willing to stand up and say we're engaged in losing, expensive conflicts overseas and devolving into a military-industrial welfare state. It *shouldn't* require an extreme libertarian to counteract that sort of policy. But who else is willing to be that frank, and who else is credible enough to go forward with their campaign promises? That's why Paul gets a loyal following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul wins California straw poll

By the CNN Wire Staff

September 18, 2011 11:49 a.m. EDT

 

(CNN) -- Texas Rep. Ron Paul won a California straw poll, the state Republican Party announced in a statement Saturday night.

 

A total of 833 ballots were cast during the straw poll, the statement said.

 

Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes.

 

Congressman Paul  has gained momentum in the race for the White House in recent weeks, according to the latest CNN/ORC International Poll. Among current GOP candidates, Paul placed third in the poll with 13%, following Romney in second place with 21% and Perry in first with 32%.

 

Cont. here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, I agree that when the government gets involved in things, they usually spend more money than they need to and don't run things efficiently. That is why the post office is going bankrupt but UPS is thriving. However, I am on the fence about health care. I have another 10 years before I qualify for Medicare and I am in that segment of the population who doesn't get employer healthcare. We have a minimal private plan that only pays for surgeries and hospital stays and yet it is our single biggest expense. When we get sick we can only afford the walk-in clinic. If we need a specialist and a MRI we won't be able to pay our daughter's college tuition, because she doesn't qualify for financial aid, although it seems like everyone else does. I don't know what the solution is. Health care is too expensive, but I don't think the government has a good track record in running things so I can't imagine a government plan would be any better.

Gary Johnson has no chance at all because he is a Libertarian.

Ron Paul is an interesting choice because even though he might lose some Republican support because of his Libertarian stance on some issues, I think he might pick up some democratic support for his stand on social issues and the war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but something is definitely going on here. Unbiased sources have proven that Ron Paul is getting much less debate time than the other candidates. By far. Why is that? Are the major networks really being influenced to sway the election toward "establishment" candidates?

 

As much as I would love to experience an honest, intellectual national political debate, it seems our country is more suited for ten second sound bytes and very very shallow address of the important issues. Sort of like that prophetic documentary, Idiocracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

 

Then again, maybe things were always this way. Maybe it's naive to think that things were ever any different than they are today. 

 

 

Paul Brings 89 Seconds of Sanity to Republican Debate

 

Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 18:56 Edited by Tony Rutherford from Multiple Reports

 

Cries of debate “fixing” have ruptured again from the Ron Paul camp following the CBS Republican foreign policy debate, Saturday, Nov. 12. As the cries of too much war have taken hold amongst the American populace, Texas Representative Paul has the strongest philosophy for withdrawing troops from foreign involvement.

 

Paul’s campaign manager, John Tate, “It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election… The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.”

 

Actually, a posted comment yields a strong summation of what the debates have become: “MSM (MainStream Media) has turned these Republican debates into another American Idol search for the morons that can’t distinguish the two… an intelligent , decent true public servant like Ron Paul will most certainly be ignored by people who aren’t paying attention,” the constituent of the Texas Congressman wrote.....

 

more here:

 

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/13348

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New poll shows 4-way tie in Iowa as Ron Paul moves to top tier

 

By Stephanie Condon CBS News

 

The Iowa caucuses are just seven weeks away, but Republican voters in the nation's first presidential nominating state seem as torn as ever over the GOP field.

 

A new Bloomberg poll of likely caucus participants shows a four-way tie in Iowa, with Rep. Ron Paul joining Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain in the top tier of candidates. Underscoring the uncertainty in the race, 60 percent of respondents said they could be persuaded to back someone other than their first choice for the nomination.

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324938-503544/new-poll-shows-4-way-tie-in-iowa-as-ron-paul-moves-to-top-tier/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul was always supposed to do well in Iowa.  That's been part of his main strategy.  But for him to make any noise, he will need to ramp it up in NH, SC, and Florida where he is not faring nearly as well.

 

In the end, Paul just needs to come to the realization that he is not a Republican... at least not the modern version.  He doesn't "fall in line".  Republicans are very unified and very concrete in their views at the moment.  Take a look at Romney and how he has effectively switched his position on anything that would be controversial during this primary.  That is the only way to win.  Paul either needs to join the Democratic party political tent (where his differering views would go virtually unnoticed until he gets the Dennis Kucinich treatment on Fox News) or, more appropriately, he should start a Libertarian Party and we can finally break out of this two party system we are stuck in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul was always supposed to do well in Iowa.  That's been part of his main strategy.  But for him to make any noise, he will need to ramp it up in NH, SC, and Florida where he is not faring nearly as well.

 

In the end, Paul just needs to come to the realization that he is not a Republican... at least not the modern version.  He doesn't "fall in line".  Republicans are very unified and very concrete in their views at the moment.  Take a look at Romney and how he has effectively switched his position on anything that would be controversial during this primary.  That is the only way to win.  Paul either needs to join the Democratic party political tent (where his differering views would go virtually unnoticed until he gets the Dennis Kucinich treatment on Fox News) or, more appropriately, he should start a Libertarian Party and we can finally break out of this two party system we are stuck in.

 

Hts121, the Nostradamus of UO!

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/17/the_gops_third_party_nightmare_scenario/singleton/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you don't like Ron Paul, I simply ask you to check this. I'm 40, but I don't ever remember a serious presidential candidate ever taking such straight forward, anti-war positions:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul conveniently talks around the recent history that the US has killed Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and is suppressing the Al Qaeda allied groups in Yemen and in Africa.  Quit instantly?  Is that was the Republican wants??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul conveniently talks around the recent history that the US has killed Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and is suppressing the Al Qaeda allied groups in Yemen and in Africa.  Quit instantly?  Is that was the Republican wants??

 

Boreas, don't take this the wrong way, but that kind of thinking would have us still fighting in Vietnam. Our foreign policy empowers Al Qaeda, read the CIA report on their motivations for 9-11. If Yemen or the countries in Africa are in danger from terrorists, then I'd say it should be the U.N. that fights if they cannot defend themselves. We can no longer afford to be Team America: World Police. And with the 5,000+ U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many Al Qaeda leaders have been killed?  Of course we cannot know for sure, but I'm certain this is a ratio that does not look good and can no longer justify the lives of our soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate Barack Obama: "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as Bush was careless getting into Iraq".

 

Caution applies to getting out of Afghanistan also.  What Congressman Paul is advocating is reckless.  President Obama inherited a foreign policy that was FUBAR.  Hardly surprising from the government who didn't even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni Moslems.

 

Recall that the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen and that those regions in East Africa were where Osama Bin Laden organized Al Qaida. 

 

In response to your question:

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS358&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=how+many+Al+Qaeda+leaders+have+been+killed%3F

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Al-Qaeda-leaders-who-have-been-killed-and-arrested/Article1-551687.aspx

Thanks for asking!  :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure the President inherited a bad situation.  This doesn't explain his "careful" approach to Yemen and Libya. But it's fair game to question whether carrying on these mostly covert military operations are at all Constitutional. The president is following a precedent where the definition of "war" is like Bill Clinton's definition of "sex."

 

To sacrifice more lives and waste more money on the corrupt culture in Afghanistan is unconscionable. Not one sane person believes the U.S. can install a functional economy or governing body there.

 

Libya? WTF. Do you feel safer now with Qaddafi gone? I'm sure sleeping better at night knowing we're $1 billion poorer because of that. It's fine. Our perpetual economic superiority can support that lol.

 

Endless wars that are not "wars." That's what we have to look forward to.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was all the Republican skepticism about Afghanistan in the last decade?  The "President" took the intelligence services out of Afghanistan and moved them to Iraq.  That is why he failed to get Osama Bin Laden when Bin Laden fled to Pakistan. 

 

There was no Republican skepticism.  Even the Congressman Ron Paul and his followers were more happy having Bush in office.  He politicized the wars to win elections by calling the Democratic skeptics unpatriotic.  The Republicans were happy that Bush was in office to appoint two new justices to the Supreme Court so that they could complete the corporate takeover of government in the "Citizens United" case. 

 

Are you advocating an instantaneous withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boreas you're obviously mistaking me for someone who wants to have the same old Republican vs. Democrat debate.

 

Sorry, that's not me. 

 

I merely want to point out how Paul is simply much much different than the other GOP candidates. Paul cannot be tied together with Bush and the Republican establishment.

 

Re: Afghanistan...how and when to withdraw- that's a worthwhile question where reasonable people can differ.

 

Me personally?

 

I think Cheney and McCain are way off base with their long term ideas.

 

I have little faith that we can change their culture, at least not through military force. The future of that country must be in their own hands. The sooner we get away from Afghanistan the better. Of course I'm not omniscient and can't know for sure. But immediate withdrawal will finally limit the death count of our people over there to zero and I'm all for that.

 

 

Where was all the Republican skepticism about Afghanistan in the last decade?  The "President" took the intelligence services out of Afghanistan and moved them to Iraq.  That is why he failed to get Osama Bin Laden when Bin Laden fled to Pakistan. 

 

There was no Republican skepticism.  Even the Congressman Ron Paul and his followers were more happy having Bush in office.  He politicized the wars to win elections by calling the Democratic skeptics unpatriotic.  The Republicans were happy that Bush was in office to appoint two new justices to the Supreme Court so that they could complete the corporate takeover of government in the "Citizens United" case. 

 

Are you advocating an instantaneous withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I merely want to point out how Paul is simply much much different than the other GOP candidates. Paul cannot be tied together with Bush and the Republican establishment. ...

I just tied them together.  Ron Paul would be the worst President to deal with foreign policy.  He demagogues the issue with bumper sticker slogans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul would be an isolationist/non-interventionist regardless of how we spent the last decade.  Just because his ideology lines up with more Americans today than had we spent the last decade at relative peace doesn't make him a demagogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I merely want to point out how Paul is simply much much different than the other GOP candidates. Paul cannot be tied together with Bush and the Republican establishment. ...

I just tied them together.  Ron Paul would be the worst President to deal with foreign policy.  He demagogues the issue with bumper sticker slogans.

 

Boreas you are truly in the minority if you think Paul and Bush are similar. Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

By the way, here's your bumper sticker slogan...

 

Ron Paul raises more military donations than any other candidate BY FAR.

 

So are these military forces stupid for supporting Ron Paul, or do you think maybe they know a little more direct knowledge on the subject than you or I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, I agree that when the government gets involved in things, they usually spend more money than they need to and don't run things efficiently. That is why the post office is going bankrupt but UPS is thriving.

 

The United States Postal Service is privately run. UPS charges 2-3X as much to ship smaller, lighter packages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USPS is going broke because of email.  It was/is a volume based business and the volume of its bread and butter, smaller letters, is dropping drastically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul leads in Iowa

 

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa.  He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

 

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row.  His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%.  And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

 

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa.  22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa.  Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

 

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest.  Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.  He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.  Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

 

More at:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is fabricated or true, but I came across this chart too:

 

166933_523440080539_81800106_30550818_233242978_n.jpg

 

Military selecting their commander and chief for ya? haha

If that's what the military is trying to do, they need to do better.  $63,463 combined from the military still pales next to the $354,700 Romney got from Goldman Sachs alone.  And it's miniscule next to the $1,067,500 donated to Romney from the five Wall Street financial firms listed in the graphic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is fabricated or true, but I came across this chart too:

 

166933_523440080539_81800106_30550818_233242978_n.jpg

 

Military selecting their commander and chief for ya? haha

If that's what the military is trying to do, they need to do better.  $63,463 combined from the military still pales next to the $354,700 Romney got from Goldman Sachs alone.  And it's miniscule next to the $1,067,500 donated to Romney from the five Wall Street financial firms listed in the graphic.

 

Enlisted Military salaries are not that much btw...budgets become very regimented for them, and commonly become month to month, especially soldiers with families.  I'm personally impressed soldiers would have donated that so far, when the first primary hasn't even happened yet.

 

Remember, this is not military funding money as it almost sounds you may be referring to.  This money is from a soldier's pay check.

 

EDIT: It's also surprising to see such a strong support for one candidate from the service members.  Many who serve in the armed forces are surprisingly non-political.  When I was overseas, the common view was "F^@% Politics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...