Never paid him any attention before but all it took for me was one commercial and one quick look at him in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
-
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?
- Thread starter DRE
- Start date
- Status
He definitely has his own appeal. Though I question how effective he could be as president. He wants drastic change and he isn't exactly a team player. That combination usually leads to political gridlock and then nothing gets done. He also doesn't strike me as being a strong leader which is necessary to rally people around big policy changes.
I put even odds that he will be the Republican nominee. I base that on his recent surge in popularity weighed against Mitt's deep pockets. (Plus, though not a central issue, I think Mitt's hardline immigration stance will hurt him with Latino voters, which is a demographic that is important).
As for a head to head Newt-Obama race? Obama wins by a large margin. Obviously, polls are not dispositive, and opinions (and votes) can change, but my cursory search shows Obama ahead by 12% over Newt in a head to head.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012...than-2-to-1-margin-20120117?mrefid=mostViewed
It will be exceedingly hard for the GOP candidate, whoever that may be, to beat President Obama in the general election.
As for a head to head Newt-Obama race? Obama wins by a large margin. Obviously, polls are not dispositive, and opinions (and votes) can change, but my cursory search shows Obama ahead by 12% over Newt in a head to head.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012...than-2-to-1-margin-20120117?mrefid=mostViewed
It will be exceedingly hard for the GOP candidate, whoever that may be, to beat President Obama in the general election.
Oh, but, I do like a lot of Paul's positions, especially as to scope of US interventionism, power of Federal government, etc. Unfortunately, I think he has some questionable positions on several policy issues. I don't attribute the statements to him directly, but he has stumbled in explaining some racist comments in early newsletters and his stance on abortion seems strange, especially given his overall libertarian positions.
Oh, yeah, and his view that government should not help out with medical care is basically a death knell for his winning anything, given senior's strong voting and money (vis a vis AARP, etc.).
Oh, yeah, and his view that government should not help out with medical care is basically a death knell for his winning anything, given senior's strong voting and money (vis a vis AARP, etc.).
If I were eligible to vote in the US, Paul would prolly get my vote. I consider myself libertarian, and Paul is as close to that as it gets. Other than that, the rest of the Republican candidates scare the bejeepers out of me, mostly due to their religious beliefs and their willingness to turn the clock back decades in the blink of an eye.
I like Obama as a person. He seems genuinely interested in making things better, but I disagree with the way he approaches it, and with his handling of foreign policy. That said, I still think he might win, simply due to the lack of a better candidate coming forward in the GOP.
I like Obama as a person. He seems genuinely interested in making things better, but I disagree with the way he approaches it, and with his handling of foreign policy. That said, I still think he might win, simply due to the lack of a better candidate coming forward in the GOP.
I think he should be more agreesive in certain cases. Shortly after he took office, a whole range of countries took the opportunity to perform some tests (Iran, N-Korea and China all tested missiles), and no response came. In Libya, the US was not a leader, but more a follower. France actually led things there. Same thing in Ivory Coast (I might be off with that one, but there was one of the African countries where the US did nothing, and France ended up interfering).
Particularly in the case of Iran, I'd also think a stronger signla might be required.I certainly can understand it might be sensitive after just pulling out of Iraq, but unless the US (and heck, definitely Europe as well) takes a stronger stance there, not only will it make the world less safe, but I cannot help but feel that will come back to bite Obama before the elections.
Particularly in the case of Iran, I'd also think a stronger signla might be required.I certainly can understand it might be sensitive after just pulling out of Iraq, but unless the US (and heck, definitely Europe as well) takes a stronger stance there, not only will it make the world less safe, but I cannot help but feel that will come back to bite Obama before the elections.
Interesting...this sounds like you support more US military action. This is pretty much the opposite of what Ron Paul stands for (he is against almost all US military involvement overseas).
As for Libya, I would tend to disagree. Yes, that was a "NATO" action...but, the US was pretty much running the show in terms of support with drones, intelligence, and behind the scenes.
All that said, you are pretty much spot on- the American People are not very keen for foreign intervention unless clearly necessary for our national interest. The cost (blood and treasure) is seen as too high.
In addition, I know some disagree with this, but President Obama was standing watch when Bin-Laden was killed, and (to the consternation of many liberals) his prosecution of the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been much closer to Bush policies than ever projected. His use (and expansion of use) of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been a fairly "muscular" bit of military foreign policy.
As for Iran...let's wait and see.
As for Libya, I would tend to disagree. Yes, that was a "NATO" action...but, the US was pretty much running the show in terms of support with drones, intelligence, and behind the scenes.
All that said, you are pretty much spot on- the American People are not very keen for foreign intervention unless clearly necessary for our national interest. The cost (blood and treasure) is seen as too high.
In addition, I know some disagree with this, but President Obama was standing watch when Bin-Laden was killed, and (to the consternation of many liberals) his prosecution of the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been much closer to Bush policies than ever projected. His use (and expansion of use) of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been a fairly "muscular" bit of military foreign policy.
As for Iran...let's wait and see.
Well, I don't think anyone will find a single candidate that completely reflects his/her wishes. I am aware Paul wants to close a lot of military bases abroad, and I think that's actually not a bad thing. They might have had their use decades ago, but the theatre changed, and there's different needs now.
I do agree with you and believe Obama is doing a good job going after Al Quada, most noticably with the Osama hit, as well as the other high ranking ops afterwards.
But yeah. Iran. Shame. The Iranians I know are very warm and friendly people. It's also pretty much where civilisation as we know it started. It'd be a real shame to see the country getting involved in another war, but as things are now, it (in my opinion, anyway) poses the single biggest threat. It's also a great disturbance to its neighbours, and that will somehow have to be dealt with sooner or later.
I'm hoping that Obama will not go the way the last Dutch government went (which was just shoving any important decision back on the agenda for the next government to deal with) for the sake of his re-election. In Holland, that policy had grave consequences, and the issues there were far less dangerous than here.
I do agree with you and believe Obama is doing a good job going after Al Quada, most noticably with the Osama hit, as well as the other high ranking ops afterwards.
But yeah. Iran. Shame. The Iranians I know are very warm and friendly people. It's also pretty much where civilisation as we know it started. It'd be a real shame to see the country getting involved in another war, but as things are now, it (in my opinion, anyway) poses the single biggest threat. It's also a great disturbance to its neighbours, and that will somehow have to be dealt with sooner or later.
I'm hoping that Obama will not go the way the last Dutch government went (which was just shoving any important decision back on the agenda for the next government to deal with) for the sake of his re-election. In Holland, that policy had grave consequences, and the issues there were far less dangerous than here.
I don't know any Iranians, but I am sure they are, like most people in the world, fine people. Their leadership do them a disservice by pursuing unwise policies. I just hope that the outcome is not war or unnecessary death or destruction.
As far as their security threat, there have been quite a few recent reports of stepped up covert action, including the assassination of nuclear scientists. American officials have disavowed any knowledge/participation in these activities, and I think the common view is that this is Israeli action. I say all of this to put my best guess into context. I would strongly suspect that Israel would take action (unilateral if there is no international support, multilateral if they can get it) if Iran embarks on/gets closer to being nuclear capable. I don't think there will be a protracted military action, more targeted military strikes, if diplomacy/sanctions do not work. The wildcard, I think, is if the Strait of Hormuz is closed off; in that case, I think we may see more conventional military action, at least to keep shipping lanes open.
Let's hope peace prevails!
As far as their security threat, there have been quite a few recent reports of stepped up covert action, including the assassination of nuclear scientists. American officials have disavowed any knowledge/participation in these activities, and I think the common view is that this is Israeli action. I say all of this to put my best guess into context. I would strongly suspect that Israel would take action (unilateral if there is no international support, multilateral if they can get it) if Iran embarks on/gets closer to being nuclear capable. I don't think there will be a protracted military action, more targeted military strikes, if diplomacy/sanctions do not work. The wildcard, I think, is if the Strait of Hormuz is closed off; in that case, I think we may see more conventional military action, at least to keep shipping lanes open.
Let's hope peace prevails!
Just read this: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/01/22/world/africa/AP-AF-Somalia-Drone-Strike.html?hp
This is what stumps me about the thought that President Obama has not had "strong foreign policy" (inclusive of military action). Under his administration, the United States has pursued an exceptionally strong policy of targeted killings and use of drones to execute military/foreign policy goals. It is probably among the most "muscular" use of American capabilities under any President. I just don't really understand the argument that he has not been a strong President in the military/foreign policy arena.
This is what stumps me about the thought that President Obama has not had "strong foreign policy" (inclusive of military action). Under his administration, the United States has pursued an exceptionally strong policy of targeted killings and use of drones to execute military/foreign policy goals. It is probably among the most "muscular" use of American capabilities under any President. I just don't really understand the argument that he has not been a strong President in the military/foreign policy arena.
That's funny!
I guess our world views are all warped depending on where we live and what we expose ourselves to.....
Ron Paul is ALL of our favorite crazy uncle. He says some thing we know are true (regarding war, etc.), yet in the real world of politics would get absolutely zero done. BOTH parties would gang up on him in Congress to keep their gravy train going. Remember your civics classes? The Presidential veto can be over-riden and it would be...but this is all speculation since he will get no closer to the white house than Ralph Nader (who I voted for, BTW....Ross Perot too!).
Newt has every possible fault a man and candidate could have. He'd be in jail if he was just a regular guy (he was censored and disciplined for funny business..but his own party, too!)
But let me be the first to congratulate him - at least he pays his taxes! Good for him! He therefore has the platform to run his mouth. Romney does not, IMHO - being as he has been avoiding taxes and paying less than 1/2 Newts rate....
But all of this is being ginned up to give the media something to report on. Mitt is the "blessed" nominee of the party and I will be very surprised if Gingrich gets the nod. Very.
Doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm just playing the large percentages.
I guess our world views are all warped depending on where we live and what we expose ourselves to.....
Ron Paul is ALL of our favorite crazy uncle. He says some thing we know are true (regarding war, etc.), yet in the real world of politics would get absolutely zero done. BOTH parties would gang up on him in Congress to keep their gravy train going. Remember your civics classes? The Presidential veto can be over-riden and it would be...but this is all speculation since he will get no closer to the white house than Ralph Nader (who I voted for, BTW....Ross Perot too!).
Newt has every possible fault a man and candidate could have. He'd be in jail if he was just a regular guy (he was censored and disciplined for funny business..but his own party, too!)
But let me be the first to congratulate him - at least he pays his taxes! Good for him! He therefore has the platform to run his mouth. Romney does not, IMHO - being as he has been avoiding taxes and paying less than 1/2 Newts rate....
But all of this is being ginned up to give the media something to report on. Mitt is the "blessed" nominee of the party and I will be very surprised if Gingrich gets the nod. Very.
Doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm just playing the large percentages.
He's a nut with a dangerous foreign policy outlook. Isolationism ended in the early 1900s. The world has become smaller, not larger and it isn't a viable option any longer. Withdrawing from all treaties and organizations, erecting philosophical fences along the borders will make America more at risk, not safer.
He's an isolationist? That's new to me. Last time I checked he didn't want sanctions, wanted talk and trade to anyone that wanted to, etc. Also, the U.S.A. is $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, so if you think our continued policing of the world is realistic, you are in lala land. Just because he doesn't want to enforce America's will on everyone with force, which in effect costs lives (domestic and foreign), money, and the peoples opinion in that said country towards the U.S.A.
Also, what "philosophical" fences will he be erecting? As far as I'm concerned, there will be much less fences, as he's not picking and choosing who we put sanctions on just because they don't agree with us.
As for us being less safe, how is that so? He'd continue to spend the same amount as we do on national defense (which is more than four times that of China), along with putting bases back in America, where they can actually DEFEND the U.S.A., and not be in other countries medaling with their internal affairs. How would you like if other countries had military bases on our soil? Don't you think that would cause some sort of blow back?
Also, what "philosophical" fences will he be erecting? As far as I'm concerned, there will be much less fences, as he's not picking and choosing who we put sanctions on just because they don't agree with us.
As for us being less safe, how is that so? He'd continue to spend the same amount as we do on national defense (which is more than four times that of China), along with putting bases back in America, where they can actually DEFEND the U.S.A., and not be in other countries medaling with their internal affairs. How would you like if other countries had military bases on our soil? Don't you think that would cause some sort of blow back?
I snipped the above quote because it applies to anyone in office.
Politicians say what people want to hear. I don't say that is wrong. After all, they are politicans.
But people also have to understand just because they say so, doesn't mean it's going to happen.
The current administration inherited a mess. I guess depending on your point of view, every incoming president inherits a mess.
Why is flip flop considered a negative term? If you are heading into a brick wall, you don't blast your way through just because you can't admit that it is the wrong direction.
I want a president who can reaccess the situation and make decisions based on new information. Not stick to one plan. The end does not justify the means.
And insiders are bad. In politics you need to know the system. An 'outsider' isn't going to get anything done. Does someone really think they can change a 200 year old system in just 4 years?
Seems the only way to get decisions passed is when the house and senate are the same party as the president.
Of course it is hardly ever what the other party wants. Bi-partisan politics just doesn't seem to work.
Back to Ron Paul.
Seems he was the first to embrace the internet with viral advertising. I don't quiet understand why his videos appear in every forum I participate in.
Some of his statements scare me, others make sense.
I am undecided.
Politicians say what people want to hear. I don't say that is wrong. After all, they are politicans.
But people also have to understand just because they say so, doesn't mean it's going to happen.
The current administration inherited a mess. I guess depending on your point of view, every incoming president inherits a mess.
Why is flip flop considered a negative term? If you are heading into a brick wall, you don't blast your way through just because you can't admit that it is the wrong direction.
I want a president who can reaccess the situation and make decisions based on new information. Not stick to one plan. The end does not justify the means.
And insiders are bad. In politics you need to know the system. An 'outsider' isn't going to get anything done. Does someone really think they can change a 200 year old system in just 4 years?
Seems the only way to get decisions passed is when the house and senate are the same party as the president.
Of course it is hardly ever what the other party wants. Bi-partisan politics just doesn't seem to work.
Back to Ron Paul.
Seems he was the first to embrace the internet with viral advertising. I don't quiet understand why his videos appear in every forum I participate in.
Some of his statements scare me, others make sense.
I am undecided.
- Status