Ron Paul to Run for US Prez!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has he officially said he he is running
Click to expand...

He's formed an exploratory committe... like Clinton has... to see if its worth even running. I'm a Libertarian and he's the only Republican i could ever see myself voting for. Heres hoping that Ron will be president... though in all fairness i doubt someone like him would win. Besides, if the Democrats have a brain in their head... if... they'll slap together Clinton and Obama and give whomever they are up against a serious run for their money. The threat of that really would probably make the Repubs want to go for a more mainstream moderate choice, since i'm sure Clinton would get jealous if there was another "radical" running for office.
 
Here is a Republican candidate I can vote for.
Click to expand...
Actually, he is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian candidate that is running as a Republican.

I wish there were a few dozen Libertarians running as Republicans, but no, they have to run as Libertarians on third party tickets, which makes them guarenteed losers.

Come on Libertarians, John Birch, American Constitution Party member, see the light. Run as Republicans so you can be elected.
 
waitone said:
I see no evidence he understands the need for compromise to effect change.
Click to expand...

Maybe because "compromise" usually results in the erosion of our freedoms...:eek:

Here is a snippet of some writing that this guys has done.

There are precise goals Congress should work for, even under today's difficult circumstances. It must preserve, in the best manner possible, voluntary options to failed government programs. We must legalize freedom to the maximum extent possible.

1. Complete police protection is impossible; therefore we must preserve the right to own weapons in self-defense.

2. In order to maintain economic protection against government debasement of the currency, gold ownership must be preserved - something taken away from the American people during the Depression.

3. Adequate retirement protection by the government is limited, if not ultimately impossible. We must allow every citizen the opportunity to control all his or her retirement funds.

4. Government education has clearly failed. We must guarantee the right of families to home school or send their kids to private schools and help them with tax credits.

5. Government snooping must be stopped. We must work to protect all our privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the National ID Card, and to stop the development of all government data banks.

6. Federal police functions are unconstitutional and increasingly abusive. We should disarm all federal bureaucrats and return the police function to local authorities.

7. The army was never meant to be used in local policing activities. We must firmly prohibit our presidents from using the military in local law enforcement operations which is now being planned for under the guise of fighting terrorism.

8. Foreign military intervention by our presidents in recent years, to police the American Empire, is a costly failure. Foreign military intervention should not be permitted without explicit congressional approval.

9. Competitions in all elections should be guaranteed, and the monopoly powers gained by the two major parties through unfair signature requirements, high fees, and campaign donation controls should be removed. Competitive parties should be allowed in all government sponsored debates.

10. We must do whatever is possible to help instill a spiritual love for freedom and recognize that our liberties depend on responsible individuals, not the group or the collective or society as a whole. The individual is the building block of a free and prosperous social order.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, he is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian candidate that is running as a Republican.
Click to expand...
A Republican (upper case R) is a member of the Republican party. He is certainly that. Or are you suggesting that he is not a republican (lower case r), i.e., one who believes that the Founders established a national republic, NOT a democracy? If so, you are badly mistaken. He believes very strongly that the Founders established a national republic, NOT a democracy. This is not mutually exclusive with being a libertarian. In fact, quite to the contrary, the two go hand in hand.
 
One way to help would be to join and participate in the RLC. Take a look at the Texas page, they call themselves "The Ron Paul Republicans".

If Libertarians and their ilk (along with disgruntled Democrats, remember, the party left you, you didn't leave the party) would register as Republicans and participate at the grass roots level under the RLC banner, there might be enough traction to change things in the GOP.
 
I'm 110% Ron Paul, and as soon as I get a reply back I'll hopefully be helping him with his capaign here locally.

But I'm somewhat concerned. If a leftist like Wonkette can support him, then I wonder how it'll impact demographics.

I personally do not think the right wing christian conspiracy is nearly as large as the media wants us to think, but it is substantial. (though, it also seems that they're much more socialist/social-intervention than the media will let you think, either, and i htink many vote Democrat - save the children, schools, helping widows and the poor, etc.)
 
I personally do not think the right wing christian conspiracy is nearly as large as the media wants us to think, but it is substantial.
Click to expand...
They are very substantial. Why else would the Dems be trying to stop them from speaking up on the issues before the elections?
 
They are very substantial. Why else would the Dems be trying to stop them from speaking up on the issues before the elections?
Click to expand...

Large enough that I bet in the next 50 years the Dems will start courting religous conservatives. Organized religion and socialist ideas are natural bedfellows, and it is only a metter of time before we start seeing more left-wing conservatives a la Orson Scott Card.
 
Organized religion and socialist ideas are natural bedfellows
Click to expand...
I disagree. Socialisim takes from the people by, force if necessary, and distributes it as they please. Usually to the big shots first and if there is anything left, they give to the working people
Religious people voluntarily give to help others. There is no gun gun to their head or threat of jail if they don't give.
That is a big difference.
 
If Ron Paul ends up as the republican candidate, and Hillary the Democrat, Ron Paul will win.

Many, many voters in this country (Democrat and republican alike) will not vote for a woman, for no other reason than she's a woman; politically correct or not.

Not saying I'm one of them (I won't vote for her for other reasons), but there are large numbers of voters who are still stuck in the "women are inferior" mindset, even if only subconsciously.
 
The establishment of neither party will not allow someone like Ron Paul to upset the status quo.

He will be discredited in the primaries like Buchanan was. If that doesn't work, he will follow in the footsteps of Bobby Kennedy and George Wallace.

-Lone Gunman

I sincerely believe there is time for a perfect storm within the Republican Party. Because Paul is pro-life, and anti-war, I see him able to sway moderates in a way no one we ever thought could. Mainly because moderates agree that the war needs to stop, and needs to stop now.

I think Paul could get the nomination. Because every time the media tries to paint Paul as an extremist, they will be supporting him. Paul's stance on the border will be brought up to discredit him, but will only help him shore up the Conservative base. His stance on pro-life issues will only help him with the religious right. And when they talk about the war, it will help him win independents.

He can win the nomination with enough stupidity about what Americans are really thinking and wanting by Karl Rove, the DNC, and the major media. The DNC and the media totally misunderstood the midterm election results, and the Republicans just didn't seem to care about their meaning as long as Bushie continues the stupid little war.

Paul can eack out a win. But, if he does, Lone Gunman is correct. Paul will die tragically from an assassin's bullet, a tragic plane crash, or a heart attack (although he is in fantastic shape for a man of his age).

The question then becomes, if foul play is discovered as the cause, which politicians will have to run for their lives.

I don't know. I still do believe no matter what, Paul has an incredibly hard time ahead if he wants nomination. But, if he is nominated, if I were him, I'd watch out carefully. It is likely someone would try to take him out.
 
I disagree. Socialisim takes from the people by, force if necessary, and distributes it as they please. Usually to the big shots first and if there is anything left, they give to the working people
Religious people voluntarily give to help others. There is no gun gun to their head or threat of jail if they don't give.
That is a big difference.
Click to expand...

First off, I said socialist ideas, not socialism. And I was speaking more to the conform or burn, mindless obedience to authority, nerf the world, soccer-mom, all-you-need-is-love, the powers that be are ordained by god, what have you got to hide, let's all share everything, anti-individual, sheeple mindset that is so pervasive amongst the faithful.

Now before anyone gets their pants in a twist and/or the thread gets closed for the topic, I am not saying or implying that ALL believers of a given faith are like this, (Plenty aren't) but many are, and you can hear these ideas being preached from the pulpit on any given Saturday or Sunday, (Or Friday, I guess for the crescent moon crowd.) I am not saying religion=communism, but the authoritarian mindset of socialism blends quite well with organized religion, and I know plenty of believers who vote left/blue.

Also, in spite of supposedly being champions of 1st amendment rights, Democrats will hop right on the decency bandwagon every chance they get. The very use of the term progressive indicates a "one-way" religious zeal that isn't too far from legislating morality. The Dems have remade themsleves before; how many current Dems would support thier party's Antebellum positions? (With the obvious except of the one vestigal platform they have clung to from that era, gun control.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Ron Paul fundraising in NH update
Replies
1
Views
2K
308nato
3
S
  • Locked
Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand!
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
F
  • Locked
Reason #5,345 NOT to vote for Ron Paul
Replies
6
Views
738
geekWithA.45
G
C
  • Locked
NYT to do Sunday "hit piece" on Ron Paul and his supporters
Replies
1
Views
646
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
MI GOP Leader Wants to BAN Ron Paul from Debates
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
3K
eric_t12
E
Back
Top