True.
Good idea. Encourage Libertarians by not voting for them! :idea:
:doh:
toldailytopic: What do you think of Ron Paul?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:doh:
Cleekster
Active member
Nah.....i vote for the man not the party....if i found a plain jane conservative or dems for that matter that espoused enough of my views i would consider voting for them but the commies(Progressives) have infiltrated both parties. besides most conservatives see us as radicals or so it seems.:sigh:
have you noticed any libertarians running as democrats?
I respect Paul for his honesty, and willingness to say what he thinks, regardless of the people he's talking to.
Some things he'd do as president would probably make me unhappy, but I know exactly what he would do, because he's blunt as a hammer about it.
I can trust him. And who else in politics is like that?
I'll probably write him in, if he's not on the ballot.
Some things he'd do as president would probably make me unhappy, but I know exactly what he would do, because he's blunt as a hammer about it.
I can trust him. And who else in politics is like that?
I'll probably write him in, if he's not on the ballot.
Quincy
New member
If the system wasn't broken and what he wants to do, could actually happen, I'd vote for him. I really like him. I have no patience or faith in government and politicians anymore though. I say abolish the whole thing and stop putting faith in wannabe rockstar polticians to fix/change things.
drbrumley
Well-known member
There is alot of what Santorum said to Paul in that debate on foreign policy that was plain stupid!!!!! Ole pal blowhard Rick says:
Probably the dumbest thing he said all night. And there was a bunch of dumb things he said. Paul ONLY had 30 seconds of response. This debate requires abit more than that. I am going to assume you agree 100% with this quote above.
"He sees the world exactly as Barack Obama sees it," Thats the first LIE. Santorum is a LIAR. Is this guy serious? As Obama sees it. Really? Who started the War in Libya? Thats right, Obama. Is that something Ron Paul would have done....NO! Who continues the Bush doctrine and speaks of it in glowing terms? Not Ron Paul, but Obama. First insult to my intelligence debunked.
First, whats funny and sad at the same time is Ron Paul never said to apologize. Secondly, is Santorum that stupid? Iran was free before 1979? Sigh, the stupidity is thick in this quote. Does the Shaw and the goon squad known as SAVAK ring any bells for you Rick? Also, Iran had one free government since it became Iran from the British Empire, and we and our crazy cousins, the Brits, overthrew it. Why, because of oil. Second insult to my intelligence debunked.
For further facts,
Iran and the West: A History of Violence among many others I can share.
And Knight, the people of Iran don't seem to have a problem with the government they selected. Paul's answer was right, Iran may want a weapon, and might one day get one. What gives us the right to make that determination for them? Everyone else has one. Pakistan, Israel, India, etc... I hate nukes. To many innocents die for what? Their government leaders? Lousy reason in my estimation.
Cleekster
Active member
No.....i was referring to blue dog democrats i've seen a few i was ok with over the years.....you've got to keep in mind though that i'm a social liberal with very few exceptions.
someone accused me of being a hypocrite since i vote
and at the same time am disillusioned w/ both R and Dems. i told "lesser of two evils.."
if a person is a Rep and not disillusioned w/ the Republican party..
i say s/he isnt a Republican
My definition of a true Republican
is pro life
keeps taxes reasonable
doesn't expand governemnt
doesn't want the gov to control every aspect of our lives and make as many dependents on same as possible
belives in helping business so that business can help the poor (rather than the gov taking care of the porr, which is not really taking care of anyone... but gov employees)
according to that definition, i wonder how many Republicans are really Republicans??
not many
and at the same time am disillusioned w/ both R and Dems. i told "lesser of two evils.."
if a person is a Rep and not disillusioned w/ the Republican party..
i say s/he isnt a Republican
My definition of a true Republican
is pro life
keeps taxes reasonable
doesn't expand governemnt
doesn't want the gov to control every aspect of our lives and make as many dependents on same as possible
belives in helping business so that business can help the poor (rather than the gov taking care of the porr, which is not really taking care of anyone... but gov employees)
according to that definition, i wonder how many Republicans are really Republicans??
not many
zoo22
Well-known member
I like Ron Paul a lot. As most people who like him, there's also a lot I don't like. He's never going to get a really wide Presidential vote because his ideas spread too far out in different directions, economically and socially. Someone who says say, heroin should be legalized just isn't going to get a massive support. I think most people who like him like some of his ideas but not others. It's a problem Libertarians will face for a long time. I think his state rights stance is too extreme.
I like that he's opened up political debate to different areas. But I think it's turned into chaos more than cohesiveness.
I like that he's opened up political debate to different areas. But I think it's turned into chaos more than cohesiveness.
That is also one of the main reasons I like Paul.
Ironically, Paul could actually win, but because he won't be controlled by the guys who bankroll the process, he hasn't got a chance of being nominated.
Buzzword
New member
Since leaving the Democrat side of the spectrum in favor of cynical centrism, Dr. Paul's been the only politician I would even CONSIDER voting for, at any level of government.
I'd rather have an extremist state-side politician than an extremist federal-side one any day.
Dr. Paul was the first presidential candidate to be interviewed for YouTube in a college dorm room, and raised millions in online contributions alone.
Though getting up in years, I believe he speaks to the growing number of political cynics in my generation, who like me have bounced back and forth across the political spectrum for years, only to eventually conclude that the whole thing is bunk.
He's never been anything but a straight shooter regarding his policies and opinions, and has never wavered because of peer or public pressure.
...thus he will never get higher than the House, no matter how consistently he votes or how much Internet following (and funding) he gets.
I'd rather have an extremist state-side politician than an extremist federal-side one any day.
Dr. Paul was the first presidential candidate to be interviewed for YouTube in a college dorm room, and raised millions in online contributions alone.
Though getting up in years, I believe he speaks to the growing number of political cynics in my generation, who like me have bounced back and forth across the political spectrum for years, only to eventually conclude that the whole thing is bunk.
He's never been anything but a straight shooter regarding his policies and opinions, and has never wavered because of peer or public pressure.
...thus he will never get higher than the House, no matter how consistently he votes or how much Internet following (and funding) he gets.
zoo22
Well-known member
Don't you think Paul votes for candidates at various levels?
Do you think Paul thinks "the whole thing is bunk?" If so, I'd expect he'd sitting at home in his boxer shorts, maybe typing out "it's all bunk" on the interweb.
I think people use candidates like Paul in ways he wouldn't want. I don't think he'd want people to toss everything away in a cynical heap.
It's a new world.
One can hope.
Buzzword
New member
Yes, but what does that have to do with my statement?
No, but again, what does that have to do with my post?
Okay, you apparently seriously misunderstood my post.
I'm not saying I like Ron Paul because he EMULATES my and many of my peers' attitude toward politics.
I'm saying I like Ron Paul because I trust him in SPITE of my and many of my peers' attitude toward politics.
I still think the whole system isn't worth two farts in a burping contest, and many of my fellow mid-20's-ers feel the same way.
BUT Dr. Paul has given me hope that not everyone who participates in the American game of thrones is out to screw over the you's and me's of the world.
Ted L Glines
New member
Be it ever so difficult, I try not to think about Ron Paul.
zoo22
Well-known member
I just think that while he in many ways has come to represent a cynicism towards politics and politicians for many people (understandable, and I also happen to be one of those people), I just don't believe that he's about it all being bunk. He's in the system, working hard to change things. He's not tossing everything away.
I was disappointed in this last debate that he didn't give a straightforward answer to being asked about partisan politics and gridlocks, and how he might approach it (instead he talked about deficit and isolationism).
I wish candidates in debates would answer questions more directly, instead of answering questions they want to be asked. There ought to be some kind of "you're answering a different question" buzzer.
lain:Yes, I get that. I don't think I misunderstood. Again, I simply think that he often gets heralded as an "it's all bunk" figure, he's really very involved, in the system that folks shun. I think he'd want people to vote, whether he were a candidate or not, and personally, I consider that when I think of him.
Sure (though why single out 20-somethings?). But consider that he's in the system, isn't he? I have issues with the "he's the ONLY candidate I'd vote for, otherwise I don't care" thing... I don't think that's what he stands for. Maybe he'll be a candidate to vote for. Maybe not. But if not, I don't see it as a reason to throw everything else on the garbage heap, and I'd expect that he doesn't either.
That's great.