Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?

[SchmitzIT]

If you had studied history a little more fully, you'd know that the mess int he Middle East was create by British post-WWII as they abandoned colonial holding around the world. Iran did not become a problem until the Sha was overthrown in 1979 by shiite clerics who opposed modernization.

The whole region was unstable even before the Brits claimed it.

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.

This, I agree with fully, though. I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified, at least not using the terms as they were presented back then. However, pulling out for the sake of pulling out is essentially the same as abandoning the Iraqi people to whoever turns out to be the biggest bully. They are no better off than they were when Saddam was still in power.

 

[jadmperry]

Aside from internal US politics, the Iraqi government effectively showed us the door by not agreeing to a Status of Forces Agreement. They don't want us, we have to go.

 

[Sadik B]

Hmmm interesting conversation... If I could vote in the US, I would have voted for Ron Paul. It is surprising that so many people say that yes he is right but we can't vote for him because he won't get anything done or idealism doesn't work etc. Sure, he may not get anything done, but what do the other candidates promise?

I have several friends in the US and just recently a friend of mine was saying how it has become nearly impossible for small business men to survive... You guys are in serious economic problems and you refuse to acknowledge it. It's really amazing. Iran is a problem as many say, but can you afford another war? And it's not like Iran or anyone else in the world has either the nerve or capability to inflict any kind of damage on US soil, so why spend billions overseas when you could help common middle class folks save some taxes? And people criticize Ron Paul for saying he doesn't support aid to Israel. I saw one his videos and he says, he doesn't support aid to anybody. You guys give several times more aid to Israel's avowed enemies than israel and claim to be their friends. How does that make sense? And what about all these totalitarian laws your govt is passing? Indefinite Detainment by the army without trial? Assassination of anyone anywhere, even in US, Locking up young kids with hardened criminals on petty drug related crimes, Shutting down sites without due process, proposed censoring of the internet? Doesn't feel like a free country to me.

Overall If Ron Paul is not the GOP candidate, Obama will win. Mitt would possibly give him good competition due to his extremely deep pockets but Obama has accomplishments he can project, which Mitt cannot.

 

[SchmitzIT]

I'd say Mitt's biggest issues are the fact he's a Mormon (no offense to any Mormons intended. I just think a lot of Americans would be turned off by that), and that he appears to be the personification of the "1%" and so far refused clarity about his taxes.

 

[MilesDB]

... and so far refused clarity about his taxes.

He finally caved in to the public pressure.

Mitt Romney will make public his tax returns on Tuesday, the candidate announced on Sunday, one day after getting swamped by Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina Republican primary, in part based on Gingrich's attacks on Romney's business track record and wealth.
http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-release-tax-returns-165607985.html

 

[SchmitzIT]

My goodness. I just saw the video from Gabby Giffords.

Now she's a Democrat I'd vote for. What an incredibly brave and strong woman.

(I know little to nothing about her voting record, or her beliefs and what not, but I have an incredible admiration for the strength and courage she has shown).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

​

 

[Ranger375]

I must be missing something. Many of the above "Ron Paul will win!" posts suggest he is leading in any polls. How many primaries has he won so far?

How many of you Paul supporters previously voted for Obama? The Kool Aide seems to be the same with regards to all the "hope and change."

 

[ArnyVee]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama, because he pulls more independents and Democrats than Romney can dream of.

Any one of them will beat Obama. None of them are ideal candidates. Romney is a squishy conservative like George H. W. Bush. Gingrich is brilliant, but also a bit of a nut. plus there is a certain node-holding factor voting for someone to occupy the White House whom you would not want to have in your own home. Paul is a loon, but even if he damages US foreign policy, he wouldn't reek the constitution damage Obama has done. Santorum is the only level headed conservative of the bunch. He's the best candidate and the least likely to win the nomination.

Take polls as you wish, but all indications are (quote below by Ron Paul supporters) that Obama still 'leads' in most polls with Romney, Paul and Gingrich (in that order) being the best competition to Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/now-ron-paul-finishing-last-south-carolina-230200641.html

His supporters are quick to point out that in terms of who does best in a mock matchup with Barack Obama, Paul comes in second among the four – losing to Obama by 5 percent compared to 2 percent for Romney and 11 percent for Gingrich, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Overall If Ron Paul is not the GOP candidate, Obama will win. Mitt would possibly give him good competition due to his extremely deep pockets but Obama has accomplishments he can project, which Mitt cannot.

Would you list among those accomplishes the greatest single accumulation of debt of any president, the loss of the US S&P AAA rating, and a country that hasn't run on annual budgets but a string of continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases?

This election is going to be about one issue and one issue only: the economy. On that, Obama has failed and everyone feels the results of that failure. He can't run from it, blame it on Bush or blame it on Congress.

And if he has such a great list of accomplishments, why is his reelection strategy to run against Congress?

You can take it to the bank. Any of the four GOP candidates wins in a landslide. We'll see in 9 months, 2 weeks, 11 hours and 49 minutes, not that I'm counting.

 

[RastaLulz]

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.

Should we have also continued to fight in Vietnam or kept are troops in Lebanon in 1984? The answer is obviously no, as it wasn't worth the lives (foreign and domestic), money, and the blowback.

We are in all of these countries killing their citizens, and you don't think that will have consequences? How would you like it if China or Russia came here to enforce their values on us (the United States)? Of course we'd retaliate. This idea of American exceptionalism is so far fetched and wrong; the idea that we can go around the world and change countries by force, while at the same time slaughtering their citizens and hoping they will like us. But if you seriously think that continuing a war that has gone on for about ten years now (that has no end in sight) is a good thing, you can't. We are $16,000,000,000 in debt, and that number keeps on climbing. But apparently leaving a country where the citizens can (and should) rise up against their Governement is a lot more destabilizing and dangerous than a world wide economic collapse (if we keep spending like we do). Not to mention the fact that Iraq basically kicked us out, and that Pakistan may soon look else where (China) due to us thinking that we can do anything we like inside of their country. I also like how you make the notion that war is morally good.

But hey, don't worry about the blowback caused by all these wars now, that would just be silly.

 

[Sadik B]

Would you list among those accomplishes the greatest single accumulation of debt of any president, the loss of the US S&P AAA rating, and a country that hasn't run on annual budgets but a string of continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases?

This election is going to be about one issue and one issue only: the economy. On that, Obama has failed and everyone feels the results of that failure. He can't run from it, blame it on Bush or blame it on Congress.

And if he has such a great list of accomplishments, why is his reelection strategy to run against Congress?

You can take it to the bank. Any of the four GOP candidates wins in a landslide. We'll see in 9 months, 2 weeks, 11 hours and 49 minutes, not that I'm counting.

Fred, there are two questions that come to my mind reading your opinion.

One, Do you honestly not realize that winning a US election is about projecting an image and not about reality?

And two, Do you honestly think Mitt or Newt or even Rick would be any different from Obama in their policies?

 

[jadmperry]

Would you list among those accomplishes the greatest single accumulation of debt of any president, the loss of the US S&P AAA rating, and a country that hasn't run on annual budgets but a string of continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases?

You do realize that the debt existed before Obama, right? That the stated reason for S&P lowering our rating was,
"that the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also develop a 'credible' plan to tackle the nation's long-term debt.In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: 'The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.'
S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. 'The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.' " http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/?iid=EAL
So, the problem was that we did not agree to RAISE our debt ceiling, a thing you have argued against, while dealing with long term debt at the same time. This was a mutual problem of the Administration AND Congress not coming to a better agreement. Not a "unilateral" Obama problem.

This election is going to be about one issue and one issue only: the economy. On that, Obama has failed and everyone feels the results of that failure. He can't run from it, blame it on Bush or blame it on Congress.

Your not going to like or agree with this, but: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/krugman-is-our-economy-healing.html

And if he has such a great list of accomplishments, why is his reelection strategy to run against Congress?

Whom else should he run against, with no GOP candidate in place?

You can take it to the bank. Any of the four GOP candidates wins in a landslide. We'll see in 9 months, 2 weeks, 11 hours and 49 minutes, not that I'm counting.

Really? Santorum or Paul wins in a landslide? Not in this lifetime.

 

[Paul B]

Please keep it civilised and avoid resorting to personal attacks and insults.

Any such posts will be (and have been) deleted.

 

[Fred Sherman]

You do realize that the debt existed before Obama, right?

Not to the extend that it exists now. a 50% increase in the national debt in three years?
America’s total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion.

That the stated reason for S&P lowering our rating was,
"that the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also develop a 'credible' plan to tackle the nation's long-term debt.In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: 'The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.'
S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. 'The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.' "http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/?iid=EAL
So, the problem was that we did not agree to RAISE our debt ceiling, a thing you have argued against, while dealing with long term debt at the same time. This was a mutual problem of the Administration AND Congress not coming to a better agreement. Not a "unilateral" Obama problem.

The real problem is that we have no fiscal discipline. The political discourse centered around increasing the debt ceiling in exchange for a commitment to reduce spending. Had republicans not taken that approach, the ceiling would have been increased with no commitment to reduce spending. It would have been like handing a shopaholic a credit card with no limit and then complaining about the bill.

This administration has no fiscal discipline and no plan. We continue to run the government on continuing resolutions, instead of an annual budget, violating over 230 years of precedence.

Besides, I remember the last time the economy was starting to improve in an election year. Lets see if it lasts before we declare victory. And lets home to God that no one realizes that the commercial real estate market is worse off that the residential market was before it went bust.

Your not going to like or agree with this, but:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/krugman-is-our-economy-healing.html

Thats like saying an alcoholic has finally reach rock bottom and made the decision to stop drinking. Good news, but there is still so much damage that needs to be repaired.

Whom else should he run against, with no GOP candidate in place?

When you have nothing to run on, you have to find something to run against.

Really? Santorum or Paul wins in a landslide? Not in this lifetime.

An empty suit wins in a landslide.

 

[jonsidneyb]

If you had studied history a little more fully, you'd know that the mess int he Middle East was create by British post-WWII as they abandoned colonial holding around the world. Iran did not become a problem until the Sha was overthrown in 1979 by shiite clerics who opposed modernization.

On the mess in the Middle East, it seems to me that it has never had the time to competely stabalize and I don't think we can put this in the laps of the Brits. We could go further back but wasn't it Salim of the Ottoman Empire that finally got control of the Middle East in the early 1500's and then the area was governed by them until the end of WWI? That would put the Arabs out from under Ottoman rule by 1918. They WW2 was underway by 1939 so there was 21 years in the pervious 400 years and it was pretty rocky before those 400 years. Oh in 1928 Hasan al-Banna started the first fundementalist movement with the Sunni's. During the occupation there was triabalism and other issues, as well as a problem dating back to the 4th caliph and his heirs and then the inman vanished creating a divide as some thought there was no legitimate leader of the faith. Some felt there had to be a direct decendent while others did not think this was the case. We have fractured area on tribal and religious grounds while being ruled by outsiders. WW1 shakes things up a bit, then the Ottoman Empire vanishes and we have tribal disputes, a short period of time passes and the world is at war again making a big mess then more tribal conflict. Our British friends might have actually made things better, what if they had not intervened? I think it is hard to say how things would have worked out, I do think some of the Brits thought they where helping.

Sorry about the really big paragraph with no proof reading. It is no wonder there are problems there, I think any group of people would have problems with all that has happened in the region with very little break.

 

[Slavik]

I find the whole US election system perplexing, debating issues like "abortion" and such.

When I vote here in the UK, I vote for the party I consider has the best strategy to fix our broken economy. Not whether they support women having abortions or not.

 

[craigiri]

I'll let this Washington Times (hardly the bastion of conservatism) a.

Probably closer to Fascism than Conservatism - Fred, surely you know that paper is created and financed by the Moonies cult? No one except folks like you (echo chamber) reads it.

I'm not sure you care - but in case you do...
"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published inWashington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon"

" Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.""

"The Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing the Times."

C'mon, Fred - doesn't it embarrass you to push a foreign cult backed newspaper which never made a dime?
"Moon has claimed, and it is generally believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished missio"

 

[DRE]

People claim he is a racist because he doesn't want the Federal Government dictating morality. Because, you know, when the Federal Government has to do that, it means you have larger issues. Much in the same way you don't spread democracy at the end of a gun barrel.

I understand that. I would rather States had more power and choice over stuff than the Federal Government. That's the main reason I support Ron Paul. Under his leadership, if we get mad about something that a State decided on, we can always move to a different state. With the previous and current Presidents, when we get mad about something, it's usually the Federal Government to blame and we'd might as well move to a different country.

 

[DRE]

This really is a Ron Paul vs Obama election

Why?

Alone, neither Mitt Romney, nor even Newt Gingrich, has the election votes to take on Obama. And every Ron Paul supporter that I have talked to in person or the hundreds online, have all agreed that they'll do one of the following, no matter what....

Vote for Ron Paul as a 3rd party
Write in Ron Paul's name
Vote for Obama

Simply put, we hate everything about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. They represent everything we don't want in a President.

So look at it this way, Ron Paul voters are either future Ron Paul voters or future Obama voters.

This really is a Ron Paul vs Obama race for The White House

I agree. If Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich didn't suck so bad, I wouldn't have even paid attention to that Ron Paul commercial.

 

[DRE]

Not saying you (or anyone) has to like or support Obama as President. But, I do not get this comment.

ObamaCare is still law and has time yet to be fully implemented. So, I don't see how that counts as a fail. Under Obama, we withdrew from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, killed Khadafi, have taken out numerous other terrorists. We are making progress in drawing down in Afghanistan. The economy, while certainly not good, is in better shape than when he got into office.

Not everyone will agree that he has done a great job. But, I don't think its accurate to say he has done "nothing" either. Another point, I have heard several times, most recently from the RNC chairman, that he is doing too many appearances and he is the "Campaigner-in-chief." This seems to be the exact opposite criticism of the one you seem to level. Though, if you mean he should more to publicize his victories, I agree. The Democrat party has an awful habit of not marketing the good things they do.

Either way, I don't think the Republican nominee (whoever that may be) has a chance. It may not be a blowout, but there are many potential chinks in the armor (Mitt- taxes, history at Bain Capital, some people's discomfort with Mormon religion, alienation of Latino voters. Newt- style issues, like huge line of credit at Tiffany's, weird doings with some of his non-profits, infidelity issues which will turn off some voters, lack of discipline within campaign, and a penchant for going off the rails). I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

I don't care about ObamaCare, Osama, Khadafi, just lower the gas prices and fix this economy. It stinks. I think more and more Americans are caring less about what happens in other countries than ever before.