Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?

Status
Not open for further replies.
you guys better shut up with this ron paul stuff and focusing on Americas development economically, Isreal just called, they need a stuxnet update asap, and a third party to hassle the IAEA on their behalf seen as the never ratified a damn thing ever, or made their own nuclear stockpiles known. Isn't ignorance wonderful? lol America, USSR called you a wolf, Isreal calls you sheep
 
BamaStangGuy said:
the healthcare bill he did pass was half assed and part of the new debt. It was not paid for with reduced spending anywhere.
Click to expand...
It's a long conversation in itself, but first of all, the bill was weak because of who?
That's right, because of 100% of the Republicans who want us to continue having the most expensive health care in the world. They are unabashedly protecting 2.5 trillion in windfalls.....

Secondly, health care reform...even the bill that is weak, is projected to save money - or, if you really want to nitpick - be revenue neutral - as compared to the status quo. Remember, the status quo is double digit increases almost every year, so that is the only comparison you can make. (see the CBO estimates for the savings).

All that said, it's not Obamas health care law. It's not Obamacare. It's really similar to what we have in Ma - Romneys plan, which is actually doing quite well.

I think if you step back and consider that the only real solution is universal national health care....that we are slowly on our way there. To the extent that we are not is due to the do-nothings.

As to what Ron Paul would do in the same situation - I think he'd whistle Dixie...meaning do nothing.

Accomplishments can only be measured by what you are up against. As an example, Fred will surely tell us how winning the war in Grenada was an amazing Reagan accomplishment that guaranteed cheap nutmeg for us forever!

When it all comes down to it, the real question is whether anyone else could do better against an opposition (GOP) who have sworn, at the expense of the country and everyday business, to destroy him. Yes, it's that bad...I wish it were not.
 
D.O.A. said:
you guys better shut up with this ron paul stuff and focusing on Americas development economically, Isreal just called, they need a stuxnet update asap, and a third party to hassle the IAEA on their behalf seens as the never ratified a damn thing ever or made their own nuclear arsenals known. lol America, USSR called you a wolf, Isreal calls you sheep
Click to expand...

Please don't ruin this thread with this crap.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
Now you can argue that this is because Republicans fought him and you would be right. This is why this country is so screwed up though. The two party system results in nothing but hate. I will not be voting for Obama, Newt or Romney because I refuse to support this two party system that keeps dividing this country and ripping it apart.

Plus, I vote in Alabama, so its not like I could actually change anything anyways with the electoral system existing. Alabama has gone Republican since before I was born and that won't change under the current system.
Click to expand...
And that about sums it up right there.
BamaStangGuy for President :)

People really want change.

It's just that it seems impossible to change government, peacefully.

The American Political system of countless checks and balances is failing the people. Gridlock is the inevitable result.

I still believe in Americans, just not their politicians and their political system.
 
Ron paul seems like a guy who speaks from his heart, that's all that matters to a guy like me. He's pretty open with his thoughts and ideas, and doesnt see reason to become involved in others squabbles for gains. Why is he not president already? Now that's a loaded question.
 
The first thing people need to realize when you hear Ron Paul talk about us needing a free market system and capitalism, is that what we have now is not even close to a free market system or a capitalistic country.

Just because the US screams capitalism does not mean we have one. What we have right now is both parties obtaining power and then melting in with corporate America. This is not capitalism or a free market. This is Government sponsored economics.

So with that said, Ron Paul wants to put us in a true capitalistic, free market system, where corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE and corporations have to answer for their horrible business practices (Wall Street).

How does this play into healthcare? Even if Obama had gotten EVERYTHING he had wanted in his healthcare bill, he would have still not done away with big, for profit insurance companies. His public option would have taken tax payer money and pushed it into the big insurance corporations pockets.

Sure, those that could not have afforded insurance would have gotten it discounted or free, but the burden of that would have fallen on the middle and upper class of America. A middle class that is already dwindling and already heavily taxed.

Ron Paul served as a doctor and never once accepted Medicare. He also practiced during a time when there was no Government in healthcare, at the beginning of his career. So he has seen how both systems work.

With the Department of Health, Medicare, medicaid, and now this healthcare bill, one thing has remained consistent in this country: Our debt becomes higher, our government larger and yet our citizens, year after year, become more unhealthy. This is not going to be solved by the Government.
 
D.O.A. said:
you guys better shut up with this ron paul stuff and focusing on Americas development economically, Isreal just called, they need a stuxnet update asap, and a third party to hassle the IAEA on their behalf seen as the never ratified a damn thing ever, or made their own nuclear stockpiles known. Isn't ignorance wonderful? lol America, USSR called you a wolf, Isreal calls you sheep
Click to expand...

Where's my giant foam finger when I need it?
;)

Israel is the real estate where all we American Holy Folks are gonna go for the rapture. As such, we gotta protect it or we won't have our stairway to heaven.
What? No Stairway?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
Ron Paul served as a doctor and never once accepted Medicare. He practiced during a time when there was no Government in healthcare.
Click to expand...

We have a medicare system in our little country of 20 million (australia), people take it for granted from birth, and only now are we seeing private insurance really offer up deals to lure us away from it. Anyway, in a few decades, we're screwed.
Since 1999, the public health scheme has been supplemented by a Private Health Insurance Rebate, where the government funds at least 30% of any private health insurance premium covering people eligible for Medicare. Including these rebates, Medicare is the major component of the total Commonwealth health budget, taking up about 43% of the total. The program is estimated to cost $18.3 billion in 2007–08. [1] In 2009 before means testing was introduced by the Labor Government the private health insurance rebate was estimated to cost $4 billion, around 20% of the total budget. The overall figure is projected to rise by almost 4% annually in real terms over the next few years.
Click to expand...
 

Ron Paul has no chance at the nomination. After March 6th, his campaign is over. His son has already said he won't run as a third party candidate.

Anyone who would vote for Ron Paul and then votes for Obama doesn't know what the hell their even voting about. Both Romney and Gingrich are closer to Paul politically than Obama, who is on the opposite spectrum.

In fact, I'll predict it right now. When Ron Paul drops out of the race, he will endorse Gingrich.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who wins the Republican nomination because any one of them will beat Obama handily.
 
Fred Sherman said:


At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who wins the Republican nomination because any one of them will beat Obama handily.
Click to expand...

Fred,

I agree with everything else in your post...but am curious about this last statement. Though polls are not the end all and be all (and have certainly been wrong before), the numbers are not lopsided in the least. Suppose it depends on what you mean by "handily," but other than your views, do you have some evidence that this is the case?
 
I'll let this Washington Times (hardly the bastion of conservatism) article make the case: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...dismal-state-of-the-union/?page=all#pagebreak

  • The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent...
  • ...fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000...
  • The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.
  • Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years.
  • Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually
  • Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.
  • ...food-stamp use has increased 46 percent.
  • Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years...
  • ...nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.
  • America’s annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion — and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue.
  • America’s total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion.
  • Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term — more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
By every estimate, his presidency has been a failure.
Obamacare?
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) recently released its annual report on medical cost trends for 2012, and it is revealing.
The report shows health care costs and premiums continuing to rise—and uncertainty increasing for employers who offer insurance to their workers. Health care spending increased by 7.5 percent in 2010 and will grow by 8 percent this year. In 2012, it will rise again by 8.5 percent. This is exactly the opposite of the President’s promise that his health care plan would reduce premiums by $2,500 per person.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden?
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-h...panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

Operations in Libya against Gaddafi were a violation of federal law at best. Beyond that, he was no threat to the US and was actually cooperating with all international nuclear agencies and had abandoned any nuclear ambition after Saddam had been taken out.

The withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan will prove destabilizing and disasterous. You may not like invading a country. Hey, thats fine. people of good conscience can disagree on those things. But once you do, you have a moral responsibility to leave behind a stable, effective government - not cut and run for political expediency. That is morally reprehensible.
 
Well, there sure is a lot there you posted, Fred. Though, I disagree with almost all of it as being attributable to the President (and some of it on factual basis), but I know that some folks will pin the rose on him as he is the current President.

That said, the polling numbers seem to stack up in Obama's favor whether its Mitt or Newt.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

My only reservation about these numbers is that I assume the polling is national based on self-described "likely voters" (a common methodology). I would have some concern if there is a shift in outcome based on electoral votes (which could skew either way). All this said, I don't think either potential GOP nominee wins "handily."

We'll have to see who's right in next ten months.
 
I don't concern myself with polling data. That proves to be wrong more often than its right. We've had no presidents names Gore, Dole, Hart, Kerry, Mondale, Giuliani or a female Clinton. Carter wasn't reelected and Ford was. There has only been one president named Kennedy. None of that should be based on polls.

What I do know is what has always been true. People vote their wallet. The simple question is are you better off today than four years ago. The answer for the vast majority is a resounding no. When you ask likely voters if they think the country is going int he right direction, the answer again is no. People understand debt and they understand spending too much. And we have all learned about tightening our belt, unlike Washington.

That is why he will lose. Thats the millstone hanging around his neck and now he can't blame Bush.
 
Fred Sherman said:
Bin Laden?
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-h...panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/
Click to expand...
Wow, that article is literally unbelievable. In that, there is little to believe. It is unclear who is the source for the "information" but, in order to believe it, you have to believe that General Petraeus, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, and Hillary Clinton (at a minimum) both engaged in a temporary coup d'etat, but also violated the National Security Act.

I hope you don't really believe that this occurred. Of course, you are free to believe what you like, but the article is implausible.
 
Fred Sherman said:
In fact, I'll predict it right now. When Ron Paul drops out of the race, he will endorse Gingrich.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Now that right there, is comedy. I know not to take you seriously from here on out.

First off, Ron Paul has every intention of campaigning until the convention, just like he did in 2008 ;)

Second off, he has refused and will continue to refuse to endorse establishment candidates, especially those with serious past ethic violations.

You are quite the character.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
First off, Ron Paul has every intention of campaigning until the convention, just like he did in 2008 ;)

Second off, he has refused and will continue to refuse to endorse establishment candidates, especially those with serious past ethic violations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I need to retract my agreement that Ron Paul will drop out or that he will endorse Newt. I do still agree that his candidacy is effectively over (as being a serious contender for the GOP nomination), but I was wrong about the other parts. Now, I think Paul's candidacy is more about his desire to shape the conversation and therefore, he will stay in as long as he has money (personal or donated) to do so. Makes him sincere; but I think he is off the wall on many points.
 
We can disagree about his points but people like Fred just derail the conversation with their baseless crap.

Ron Paul has been building up Campaign For Liberty since the Republican primaries ended in 2008. As far as his progress, this is all you need to see:
paul.webp


Whether people like Fred like it or not, Ron Paul is not going away. His support has grown tremendously and it will continue to, whether it be for him or his son Rand Paul.

The GOP is in trouble, Fred can ignore that all he wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom