Ron Paul the flunkie
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
With all due respect, it sounds more like you follow politics as presented by the mainstream media. I’ve been a member of this site for less than a year, and I knew about him and his liberty coalition years ago. I’m not a member of the Libertarian party, and my knowledge of him has been through pro RKBA boards, and pro freedom boards. IOW: I found out about him because I got interested enough to find someone who represented my ideals (someone who will actually uphold their oath of office). That you didn’t know about him means only that he doesn’t have as much exposure as the other candidates, voters who are motivated and committed do know about him and have for years. It’s true that the people who don’t take the time to research such things (and just rely on the MSM for their info) won’t know about him. However, that also means that the more committed voters who do know about him will be more active. That could well make a difference in the primary. Either way, most of the people who actively support Ron Paul would not vote for the likes of Mitt Romney, RG, or even some of the Dems.STAGE 2 said:
We know fairly well that there were many unsatisfied conservatives who either didn’t vote, or voted against Republicans in the last election. That was enough to swing the election away from Republicans in spite of the conservative undercurrent of that election. Those are just the sort of people who Ron Paul might relate to.
Interesting theory however, in view of the reign of GWB it just doesn’t pan out. If he had behaved as if he had “some sense of debt towards conservatives on other issues”, then the Republicans wouldn’t have been booted on the last election. The Dems have more reason to be concerned about conservatives since even Bill Clinton credited gun owners with taking congress from the Dems in ’94. He credited their defeat with the first AWB.taursowner said:
Mind you, I am not suggesting that anyone vote for any Dem. However, I don't see much difference between them and the RINOS, and your reasoning just doesn't sound logical (fear of the greater of two evils is an emotion) given their history.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Mathematics also wants me to believe it.
2004 election results:
50.7% Republican, 48.3% Democrat. 1% everyone else combined.
2000 election results:
48% Republican, 48% Democrat. 4% everyone else combined.
1996 election results:
40.7% Republican, 49.2% Democrat, 10.1% everyone else combined
1992 election results:
37.4% Republican, 43% Democrat, 18.9% Perot, .3% everyone else combined.
Interesting side note about those 1992 results. If even half of the people who voted for Perot voted for the GOP instead, there would have been no such thing as President Clinton.
Voting third party got us at least 4 years of Slick Willie. And it's going to get us at least 4 years of Obama or Hillary.
2004 election results:
50.7% Republican, 48.3% Democrat. 1% everyone else combined.
2000 election results:
48% Republican, 48% Democrat. 4% everyone else combined.
1996 election results:
40.7% Republican, 49.2% Democrat, 10.1% everyone else combined
1992 election results:
37.4% Republican, 43% Democrat, 18.9% Perot, .3% everyone else combined.
Interesting side note about those 1992 results. If even half of the people who voted for Perot voted for the GOP instead, there would have been no such thing as President Clinton.
Voting third party got us at least 4 years of Slick Willie. And it's going to get us at least 4 years of Obama or Hillary.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
g5, why are you such an *******?
Titan6
member
Taurus
Like I said. I can't help you.
Just like the Bradys you just don't get it.
And you won't.
Not till it is too late.
Like I said. I can't help you.
Just like the Bradys you just don't get it.
And you won't.
Not till it is too late.
Man I cant belive I just spent the last hour and a half reading this thread
mostly telling me that one man is unelectable over 1 insignificant straw pole
2 years before any elections,talk about jumping the gun [pun intended].
Anyway Ron Paul for president.
mostly telling me that one man is unelectable over 1 insignificant straw pole
2 years before any elections,talk about jumping the gun [pun intended].
Anyway Ron Paul for president.
Titan6
member
Stage 2
What will be your excuse when you help elect RG and he takes away your guns?
What will be your excuse when you help elect RG and he takes away your guns?
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
maasenstodt said:
Here’s another quote for you (it is equally as appropriate for the this threads subject matter):
Samuel Adams said:
And another one:
Mel GibsoN as William Wallace said:
GHWB should have been fired. Don't blame Perot and his supporters (I confess that I misstakenly did at the time), blame GWHB for breaking from his base, and selling out the conservatives.
Another interesting thing to add to that is that GWB has done much more damage to this country than Bill Clinton could have only dreamed of. Take the Homeland Security bill that the RINOS so loudly touted. As pointed out by David Reagan, Bill Clinton tried to get that bill passed when he was in office, and the Republicans stopped it. Interesting how he quoted John Ashcroft as one of the more vocal opponents to the bill as being unConstitutional. I’ve often noted (since GWB has been in office) how Bill Clinton’s agenda was ineffectual because the Republicans in the legislature opposed him. To bad the same hasn’t been true with GWB.
Or, maybe he’s just a Star Wars fan. Slinging mud only validates your opponent, and can offend some us fellow SW fans.g5reality said:
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
STAGE 2
You took my statement out of context. I understood when I wrote it that doing so (taking just a segment of the statement) would illustrate your point, but you should at least put up the rest of the paragraph to show that you aren't trying to spin what I said. You can easily point to the specific comments within that paragraph by emphasizing those specific comments with either Italics, or bold print.
You took my statement out of context. I understood when I wrote it that doing so (taking just a segment of the statement) would illustrate your point, but you should at least put up the rest of the paragraph to show that you aren't trying to spin what I said. You can easily point to the specific comments within that paragraph by emphasizing those specific comments with either Italics, or bold print.
gc70
Member
If you are concerned about an electable candidate with guaranteed MSM attention, will you be voting for Rudy or Hillary?
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
Something else to ponder:
If your so concerned about getting a Republican elected then you might consider RP as the most viable candidate. As STAGE 2 and a few others are so adamantly pointing out, many Americans only know what the MSM tells them. However, if Paul wins the nomination, then the MSM will be forced to give him the exposure to put him over the top. Once (and I realize this is just a hypothetical) he makes it into the spotlight, all those people who reject the leftist actions of the RINOS will sit up and take notice. It could be the sort of landslide reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Even more interesting since Ron Paul wins elections by landslides (even after the redistricting in Texas).
If your so concerned about getting a Republican elected then you might consider RP as the most viable candidate. As STAGE 2 and a few others are so adamantly pointing out, many Americans only know what the MSM tells them. However, if Paul wins the nomination, then the MSM will be forced to give him the exposure to put him over the top. Once (and I realize this is just a hypothetical) he makes it into the spotlight, all those people who reject the leftist actions of the RINOS will sit up and take notice. It could be the sort of landslide reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Even more interesting since Ron Paul wins elections by landslides (even after the redistricting in Texas).
Titan6
member
It used to strike me as crazy that the repubs keep pushing candidates that are just Democrats in conservative clothing. All you have to do is look at the PA and there are all the answers right there.
After 4 April hopefully we will see a move in the right direction. Otherwise it might not matter.
After 4 April hopefully we will see a move in the right direction. Otherwise it might not matter.
Prince Yamato
Member
Ron who?
Vote for my write in candidate for the Imaginary Party, "Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh". Said candidate (Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh) is pro-gun and will look out for your issues. Stand up to the Republican machine who clearly isn't looking out for you. Let's send those Republicans another message in 2008. Vote for Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh.
Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh 2008... stands a better chance at getting votes than Ron Paul.
Vote for my write in candidate for the Imaginary Party, "Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh". Said candidate (Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh) is pro-gun and will look out for your issues. Stand up to the Republican machine who clearly isn't looking out for you. Let's send those Republicans another message in 2008. Vote for Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh.
Akjhkjsd Fjhkjh 2008... stands a better chance at getting votes than Ron Paul.
I will need no excuse. If RG signed a bill then its guaranteed that his democratic counterpart would hvae also. If RG is in office that means he won the nomination. If he won the nomination, that means Paul lost..... probably by a very sizable margin. Even if I voted for Paul in the primary, once he loses there is no point in voting for him. Thus I need no excuse.
The question is, what will your excuse be of Obama or Madame Hillary gets in office. All of the people that bash Bush for his "sweeping" infringements on rights have no idea what is in store if either of these two sits in the oval office. Gun rights are just the beginnning.
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
Don't be so sure. Your points of comparison have nothing to do with it. If RP is the prez nominee then all those people who either sat at home, or voted for Dems instead of RINOs in the last election could vote for RP and widen the gap. It's got nothing to do with President Reagan's celebrity status. If Ron Paul is nominated, then the people like you will vote for him just because he is the Republican nominee. People who have walked away from the Republican party because of the RINO's will probably also vote for him, because most of us have already known about him (his entrance into the race has already drawn some back who will vote for him in the primary). People who either didn't vote, or voted against the RINO's in the last election could quite possibly be tempted to vote for him because he actually represents their beliefs.
Besides, when President Reagan was running the first time, people used his actor status as a mark against him. When he ran for the second term people said he was too old.
Besides, when President Reagan was running the first time, people used his actor status as a mark against him. When he ran for the second term people said he was too old.
Sure they do.
I don't really disagree with anything you said. Of course all of that rests on the assumption that Paul has a snowballs chance of winning the nomination. He doesn't. Because of the particular nature of this election, Paul lost the race before it even started. He doesn't have anywhere near the necessary amount of money to contend with the other candidates.
As an aside, the fact that you assume I only vote party is an indication that you really haven't been reading anything I have written. I care about my rights, and I want to maximize my vote. Sometimes this means casting it for the front runner, sometimes this means casting it for the person that closest represents your views. The circumstances of this election are such that my rights will benefit more if I vote against a particular person as opposed to vote for a particular person.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. Reagan was nationally known years before he ran for president. Whether or not people were talking abuot his age or his acting career is irrelevant. What is important is that they were talking. Paul has no such notoriety. He is a single blip on the radar. The comparison just isn't valid.
publius
Member
He seems to have your attention.
When people read what he has to say in his Texas Straight Talk columns, they seem to like him.
The money is a huge problem, and there are others. If he acted as President like he votes in Congress, he'd wear out a veto pen every week. I wish America would send him to the White House to do just that, but we won't.
That said, your voting strategy is oversimplified, and may not apply to everyone here. I'm a Floridian, and Florida is a swing State with lots of electoral votes. I plan to change my registration back to Republican (again) to vote for Dr. Paul in the primary. He won't win, and I'll probably change it back (again) in disgust (again).
But my opinion will have been registered. 
In the general election, I don't know what I might do. I might write in Dr. Paul. In Florida, it might matter, or my vote might be involved in numerous recounts. <insert "chad" joke here>
In some States, it won't matter. As previously noted, if you live in Taxachussetts, your electoral votes will be going to the Democrat, whether you vote for the Republican or not. Might as well write in Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse, if that's the way you feel. Your opinion will have been registered.
Titan6
member
Stooge 2
'If RG is in office that means he won the nomination. If he won the nomination, that means Paul lost..... probably by a very sizable margin. Even if I voted for Paul in the primary, once he loses there is no point in voting for him. Thus I need no excuse.'
You have said over and over again that we need to get out of fantasy land and back an electable candidate of the repubs because they will some how help us poor gun owners. Well here is your front runner big guy. A solid anti with a proven record. More so than HC or BO. And guess what? Gun Owners would be absolutely insane to vote for him the general election because he will do his best to repeal the 2A or make it ineffective by any means possible because that is what he did when he is Mayor.
You need to help the repubs get out of fanatsy land and figure out that freedom loving people will not tote any party line for the repubs.
Go back to your masters and let them know. It will not happen. Are we done here? I am....
'If RG is in office that means he won the nomination. If he won the nomination, that means Paul lost..... probably by a very sizable margin. Even if I voted for Paul in the primary, once he loses there is no point in voting for him. Thus I need no excuse.'
You have said over and over again that we need to get out of fantasy land and back an electable candidate of the repubs because they will some how help us poor gun owners. Well here is your front runner big guy. A solid anti with a proven record. More so than HC or BO. And guess what? Gun Owners would be absolutely insane to vote for him the general election because he will do his best to repeal the 2A or make it ineffective by any means possible because that is what he did when he is Mayor.
You need to help the repubs get out of fanatsy land and figure out that freedom loving people will not tote any party line for the repubs.
Go back to your masters and let them know. It will not happen. Are we done here? I am....
SolaScriptura139
Member
Wow, that was Low Road....
Titan6
member
Dang it you are right
Should have called him a flunky same dif....
Should have called him a flunky same dif....
Flyboy
Member
And what are you doing to make him electable? The leading candidates--McCain, Romney, Giuliani--are all pretty bad choices. You mentioned Hunter and Tancredo, neither of whom are getting the big-time attention that the big three are seeing. So, what are you doing to make your candidates electable? Or are you just going to roll over and take it from whichever of the big three gets elected?
Hrm. In that case, I think you might find Reason very enlightening. And others, but that's the first one to come to mind.
You're right, it's not like he's going to be on the debates, carried live on CNN or anything.
Oh, wait, what?
- Status
