Ron Paul the flunkie

[ArfinGreebly]

No Chance

I get this sense that it doesn't matter who would do the best job or who most nearly reflects the views of those who have an interest.

Somebody somewhere ran a "poll" and this is a barometer of the "electability" of the candidates.

Suddenly, our principles don't matter as much as "winning" at least in name. We don't want to "waste" our vote. We want to salvage at least something from the election.

And since someone "important" has already told me that MY choice "can't" win, then I'd better abandon that principled stand and vote for some "lesser evil" rather than see [evil politician] win.

Self-fulfilling political prophesies suck.

There's this little-known concept where you actually rally people and spread the good word about a worthwhile candidate, despite the slings and arrows of "experts" and pundits.

You would be amazed at the number of people who would vote a principled choice if they felt they weren't alone.

And if we TELL them, then they'll know.

 

[Prince Yamato]

hooray! It's another Ron Paul thread. Here's the cliff's notes to this week's thread.

* "I love Ron Paul, three cheers for his stance on gun rights! Who cares if his campaigning sucks and he was no stance on other issues! Ron Paul for president!"

* "I hate Rudy. He's a gun grabber blah blah blah. I'll stay home rather than vote for Rudy. Then Hillary can win, that will show those gun grabbers they can't get my vote."

* "Guys, if we don't give Ron Paul a chance and vote for him, we'll never get our rights back."

* "I for one am voting Libertarian. They have a snowflake's chance in hell of winning, but it's still a better shot than Ron Paul."

* Illegal alien comment that manages to cross the line into cultural slur against Mexicans.

* "I'm voting for Bill Richardson, because even though he's a Democrat, I hear he's good on gun rights."

* Comment bashing GW on gun rights, possibly bitching about his father too.

 

[STAGE 2]

<sigh> I love people that cherry pick their rights. You either support the Constitution or you dont. You dont get to decide which parts you like and toss the rest in the garbage, thats what antis do. If you dont see where the Unpatriotic Act violates the BOR then you havent read it close enough.

No one is cherry picking anything. I don't have a problem with the patriot act to the extent I have read it. Have I gone over the entire thing with a team of lawyers, no. Have I seen any posts from people that oppose it that contain any justification other than "it violates my rights", no.

NONE of this matters however. As this poll shows, the candidate's that would be "ideal" to most of us WILL NOT win. The choice of who gets the office is between a relatively select group of candidates. You can either have the person that respects most of what we believe in, or the person who has made it their lifes work to dismantle everything we value.

Thats not much of a choice to me.

 

[Autolycus]

I will be voting for the Libertarian party for the first time next year. I am very excited.

If Ron Paul does get on the ballot and is a contender I will vote for him in a heartbeat. Richardson, Guiliani, Hunter, McCain, and Bloomberg will not get my vote.

Dont worry about what others say... vote your conscious. If enough Americans do that then we will start to see new political parties taking the white house.

 

[STAGE 2]

If enough Americans do that then we will start to see new political parties taking the white house.

Wont ever happen. As gun owners we need to stop living in fantasy land and start living in the real world. You can't win against people who fight dirty by living in the clouds.

 

[LAK]

If Ron Paul does not have a chance - it is because the media protecting the current status quo will block him from coverage. I had a tv around one night at a jobsite recently and was treated to a series of repeated CNN reports through the night featuring "a look at the other candidates running against Hillary".

Of course they plugged Mr Brownbeck; who they described as a sort of ultra conservative because of his "anti abortion" stance or such like. But Brownbeck, along with anyone else they plug is not a threat to the status quo, or the global geo-political agenda in progress. Thus, they will perhaps be allowed into the ring and enter the televised debates - the key to getting "elected".

While the "flunkies" may not actually get into the WH, don't kid yourselves; any candidate endorsed by the current status quo is not going to steer this country anywhere but further down into the global village. Regardless of their "party" and their present "official" views on "gun control".

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[skinnyguy]

Ron Paul may not stand a chance of winning today, but we are 20 months from the election. If the election were today, I hate to say it, but some gal named Clinton would get it. Why? Because it's a name that is KNOWN, and that is how people will vote - the best known name.

Ron Paul is not known to most people, myself included until joining this forum. So, I learned about Ron Paul, and if he is not on the ballot, I will write his name in. Maybe others will do the same, because we have 20 months to make his name known, letters to the editor, look at being a guest columnist in a local paper, post flyers around town. MAKE his name known, then look at "poll results". If the polls are honest (which I doubt), and we do OUR job, we just might have a flunkie for president. And that's not a bad thing.

If we do nothing else, we vote our conscience, and make a statement that we want a change from the carbon copy dems and repubs that have been in that office for decades now.

 

[STAGE 2]

Keep making all the excuses you want. Hunter came in 2nd in front of both Romney and McCain with NO national media coverage. He's not as obscure as Paul, but is certinaly not an insider by anymeans.

My offer still stands. 5K if Paul wins the nomination. Any takers.

 

[Glockfan.45]

NONE of this matters however. As this poll shows, the candidate's that would be "ideal" to most of us WILL NOT win. The choice of who gets the office is between a relatively select group of candidates. You can either have the person that respects most of what we believe in, or the person who has made it their lifes work to dismantle everything we value.

Thats not much of a choice to me.

translation: You can sell out your beliefs and vote for whats thought to be the lesser of two evils, or you can piss your vote away by voting for the guy who you really respect. Sorry but I will be pissing my vote away for who I believe in. I will not sell myself out by voting for a man I dont like because "at least hes not as bad as Clinton/Obama". News flash McCain, and Rudy are every bit as bad as the alternative. I would rather vote for Clinton over either of the RINOs the Reps look like they will be fielding. At least Hillary is true to what she claims to be. McLib and Gouliani are liars and frauds.

 

[hoji]

Only a loser votes for who they think will win vs. who they think is the right choice.


If you vote for Guliani { or whomever}so you will "feel" like a "winner" then you should do the world a favor and check out.:banghead:

 

[Titan6]

Repub Apologists

It is always the same...

- Compromise away our rights a little at a time

- Pick and choose what parts of the constituion they want to follow

- Better than the alternatives of the evil wicked witch of the east or the bogeyman

- Believe character comes in a sound byte

I come very close to feeling sorry for them because they are just following the lead of their masters. Then I realize that it is they who choose not to look too closely and give the issues any real thought and therefore don't even deserve pity.

 

[Igloodude]

A "flunkie"?

Anyway, here's some Duncan Hunter stands that I happen to categorically disagree with:

# Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
# Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
# Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005) [aka RealID]
# Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
# Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

Taken together, these positions indicate a social conservative - someone who won't necessarily grab my guns, but will support the War on Drugs, will support security at the expense of liberty, and will seek to impose his moral code via the police and court system. Sorry, he would get my vote on pro-RKBA grounds but then lose it on other equally significant constitutional issues.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Probably so. The repubs are in big trouble and need to consolidate their base. Unfortunately they are trying to get the proles to back the wrong horse and are so doomed to failure.

+1. They are putting forward an anti-gun, pro-illegal, pro-choice candidate
who will crumble the base faster than a sledgehammer will smash a dirt clod.

RG is not a conservative, but that's who the so-called conservative national
orgs are trying to foist on us:

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070226pr.htm

"As Mayor of New York City from 1994 through 2001, Rudy Giuliani installed the management principles of efficiency and effectiveness in city government, reducing crime, reforming welfare, cutting taxes 23 times and reducing the size the City bureaucracy. Through his efforts, the city’s historic deficit was transformed into a multi-billion dollar surplus," said American Conservative Union Executive Vice President J. William Lauderback. ACU is the lead sponsor of CPAC.

But, Bill, what about RG's lawsuit against the gun industry?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2000a/pr238-00.html

"This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people," Mayor Giuliani said. "What's worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed."

 

[Flyboy]

Quote:

If enough Americans do that then we will start to see new political parties taking the white house.

Wont ever happen. As gun owners we need to stop living in fantasy land and start living in the real world.

Darn right!

That reminds me, who are the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Union, and Whig parties running this year?

As for your $5K challenge, allow me to present a counter-challenge: I'll match anything you can give to Dr. Paul's campaign, up to $2K (I've already given $300, and the limit on contributions is $2300 per cycle).

Anybody else want in on the action? Offer to match, or offer to contribute, as you prefer.

 

[Dravur]

<EYES BUG OUT>>>>

Hillary is true to her beliefs???? I almost had a heart attack at that. She is clouding her true beliefs every chance she gets, one day supporting abortion to one group and another day, not.

Now, as to Republican vs Democrat.... Each one has a tent of supporters Each group has to pull in enough electorate of various types to win. If they cannot, they lose. This means both sides court "The Center". This means there will never be a total extreme from either party. Dennis Kucinich will never win and neither will Ron Paul.

People in this country will likely never vote in a third party candidate, for various reasons.. The most obvious is... The one issue groups cannot bring wenough people into their tent to get elected...

The Green Party... Cannot bring enough people into it as people want jobs, like living in wooden houses and like to wear leather coats.

The Libertarian party will never win as the people like to vote themselves cash from the people and most are not willing to live by principles that they would find too "Harsh" Most of the sheep like being spoon fed.

Constitution party.... See Libertarians. Again, most sheep like the government handouts.

The Communis party. Well, at least most people aren't this stupid. Most can see that communism cannot work, etc and these whackos are thankfully not a threat.

So, that leaves us with Big R and Big D. the only 2 choices on the national level. Each has a big tent approach. The Big R attracts conservatives, the religious Right, Libertarians, gun owners and people who are individualists first. The big D likes to include labor unions, collectivists, liberals and hippies.

This is the way things are. Until you can get a third party to attract enough voters of various interests, you will not get anywhere.

So, you have to ask yourself, which of the 2 parties do I want to see in power? Single issue voting can get you alot of things, like Hildabeast in the white house. If Guiliani wins, at the very least, he is more responsive to our cause than hillary. If we get the Republicans back in control, at least the AWB etc won't make it out of committee.

If you dont think having your coalition in power means anything, would the Demos have let the AWB1 sunset? Maybe Bush would have signed it, maybe he wouldn't have, but at least with the R in power, he never got to see it.

 

[Biker]

I don't care for the center. Many don't. If we *all* voted for a true conservative candidate, that candidate would win.
It is that simple.
I will back Paul.
If y'all believe in Paul but don't vote for him, you deserve RG or Hillary.
End of story.

Biker

 

[Titan6]

My coalition???

'If Guiliani wins, at the very least, he is more responsive to our cause than hillary.'

Yeah, maybe he will finnally be successful at suing all of the American gunmakers out of business. Then everyone will have to buy Glocks and AKs.

 

[ambush]

Here then, pass some of these around to your friends.

Some Ron Paul links:

Lou Dobbs interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF37-9OGblw

Paul is the most tech friendly candidate in the race according to Cnet
http://news.com.com/Technology+voter...3-6131719.html

breakfast interview with Paul
http://www.nhinsider.com/ed-naile/20...-ron-paul.html

Paul's book "Freedom under Siege" will be available for free download
http://thenewliberty.com/?p=50

Ron Paul can win
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012378.html

Ron Paul, the real republican
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...2/posts?page=1
(I'm surprised at some of vehemence of some of the anti-Paul comments at freerepulblic)

Paul's votes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...3/votes/page1/

Michael Badnarik endorses Paul
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007...rses-ron-paul/

Paul scores perfect 100 on constitutional index
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/0...itution-index/

Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html

John Stossel says Paul's problem is he is too boring for media coverage and soundbites
http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/02...-coverage.aspx

Ambush

 

[poor_richard]

I don't care for the center. Many don't. If we *all* voted for a true conservative candidate, that candidate would win.
It is that simple.
I will back Paul.
If y'all believe in Paul but don't vote for him, you deserve RG or Hillary.
End of story.

Biker

+1 on that. I find it interesting that people who claim "a vote for RP is a wasted vote" turn around and wasted their vote on someone like RG or GWB. Those were votes that got us things like the UnPatriotic Act, and if you don't think that those acts are a threat to liberty then you haven't been paying attention to all the "examples" being made, and the rising police state that they are ushering in.

Ron Paul is the best candidate, and a wasted vote is one that is for someone other than him.

Or, you could keep voting for the same thing, and keep getting it.

It's telling how the Republicrat shills feel so threatened by Ron Paul. Proof that he is having some effect.

Also, Ron Paul is a viable candidate. He wins elections by landslides, even after redistricting.

And don't try telling me that nonsense that "a vote for RP is responsible for any future gun ban". I would be much more accurate to say that "a vote for someone other than RP is responsible that any possible future gun ban" since it is nothing more that a vote for "business as usual" (see above). Ron Paul is THE strongest supporter of our rights, and we need leaders like him.

 

[Dravur]

hmmmmm

I don't care for the center either as I think Moderate is a bland social statement of people who have no opinions.

However. There is a big chunk of sheep in the center with voting rights. Both parties have to court this group to get into power. It may not be great, but hey, that's what it is.

You can proudly vote for the Goofball party of your choice, but they dont have a chance. You can say "My vote is for principles!" and watch the hildabeast run away with your guns... but you have your principles, right?

Unfortunalty, we, in the US form our coalitions before the elections. We do not have a parliamentary system where coalitions are worked out afterward. So, keeping that in mind and keeping reality in mind, pick a party.

the best you can do is get involved with your party and at the roots level, get the people into the primaries that you support. So, Work for Ron Paul to get the nomination. I will vote for him. But, if it is a toss up between Guiliani/McCain and Hildabeast/Obama, then im still voting for G and M. Will I like it? nope, but it is better than the alternative.

Party trumps person in alot of respects.

Oh, and to the people who think that if we all banded together as gun owners and voted en masse, we could put anyone into the white house.... sorry, we arent that big of a block and we aren't monolithic. there are other issues people care about.

 

[Biker]

Paul is a Republican. Any more objections?

Biker

 

[Dravur]

Nope...

I never said I objected to Paul. Im fully in favor of him. I would be fully in favor of him as a Libertarian. If he gets the nomination, I would gladly vote for him. I am saying that a third party does not have a chance.

And Titan, before I forget..... would the Hildabeast be any better? At least with the Republicans in power, guiliani would not see any of that legislation hitting his desk. Also, Guiliani has to be somewhat responsive to his national coalition and they are largely against Gun Control. Hillary's coalition is the one fighting for more gun control. Which would you rather see?

Now, my coalition is Republican as they support my ideas moreso than do the Democrats. Are they perfect? No. Do I support every decision? Nope. Do I have hope that we can get more conservatives in? Yes.

So, as said before, work on the primaries to help Ron Paul or Hunter, but when it comes down to it and the rest of the R coalition votes for Guiliani as their choice, do we support him and get some of our wants, or do we let the Hildabeast in for her round of whackiness?

 

[Biker]

When all is said and done, I see little difference between Hillary and RG. I might get a bit more mustard on my crap sandwich with RG, but the content remains the same.
Meanwhile, I will continue to write my local Pols and tell them what it will take for the Pubs to win back my vote.

If you vote for RG, Romney or McCain, you deserve what you get.
Let the games begin...

Biker

 

[Titan6]

Actually no....

'Also, Guiliani has to be somewhat responsive to his national coalition and they are largely against Gun Control.'

Why would he? GWB dosen't care about polls or supporters, only his own ideas. While I admire him for his determination some of his ideas have been shown by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

If you are in favor of Paul why not support him? The election is still a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then.

I ask the same question every time we come to this point: If the election were held today and you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt due to these 'polls' everyone is always pratteling on about that RG could not win, no way, no how would you still vote for him?

 

[glummer]

Titan

Then everyone will have to buy Glocks and AKs.

Rudy will let me buy Glocks & AKs??!! He's not as bad as I thought.