PDA

View Full Version : Obama vs Paul?


Draco
11-12-11, 19:11
It is looking more and more likely by the day.

Cochrane
11-12-11, 19:58
Is it really looking more and more likely? I was always under the impression that Paul running was kind of a republican in-joke, considering how often he failed to be nominated. But I don't follow the US campaigns that much, so I have no idea.

I've said it before: The republican lineup has nobody who appeals (or even wants to appeal) to Obama's core supporters. The road to winning for the republicans is to hope that Obama's supporters are not enthusiastic enough about Obama and the election, while finding someone that the core republican supporters will really, really love. Looking at Ron Paul, I think he does not meet those criteria:

- Obviously he does not even try to appeal to those who like e.g. universal health care.
- His libertarian views are quite extreme; Obama's campaign should be able to vilify him enough that support for Obama will rise in comparison.
- His views are also quite outside the republican mainstream. Yes, there is a lot of overlap with the tea party, but I'm not sure that he could gain their full support, let alone that of non-tea-party republicans.

I think that makes him a less-than-ideal candidate for the republicans, and if he ran against Obama, his chances would be not that great.

Mr.Burns
11-12-11, 19:59
Is it? How's Paul's poll standings right now? I haven't heard much from him lately of course mainstream media has shunted him aside for the most part.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:07
What makes you think it's looking more and more likely?

If he ever did win the Republican nomination though, I could see him losing pretty heavily.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:16
Just a sample, but there is a comment there with some interesting details:

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/can-ron-paul-win-gop

Ron Paul has never been the flashy choice, which is why he has been overlooked. I mean who really wants an honest educated freedom loving President?

Newt is a DoA, too many issues with his personal life. Mitt might be a contender, but he tends to deflate under pressure.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:18
What makes you think it's looking more and more likely?

If he ever did win the Republican nomination though, I could see him losing pretty heavily.

This isn't the 2008 campaign, people know that Obama is doing the wrong thing for the country.

Three things got Obama elected: He wasn't Bush, He wasn't Republican, and He wasn't White.

Now the voters can see none of that made any difference. Elect the candidate that is right for the country.

Mr.Burns
11-12-11, 20:23
Problem is Draco, that what you and I would deem as the right candidate, others wouldn't. To be honest, I'd be shocked ****less if he got the nomination. Happy but shocked.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:26
This isn't the 2008 campaign, people know that Obama is doing the wrong thing for the country.

Three things got Obama elected: He wasn't Bush, He wasn't Republican, and He wasn't White.

Now the voters can see none of that made any difference. Elect the candidate that is right for the country.I never said Obama was doing well. You probably won't hear this from an outsider very often but I don't think he's doing a good job at all.

However, that doesn't mean Ron Paul would win or even come close during a presidential election. Regardless of how great you think he is, he just wouldn't be able to appeal to a broad enough base. Not that I think he should have to, but that's the way politics works.

I really think you let your own opinions of him cloud your judgement. He may be the perfect candidate to you, but how many other Americans feel that way? Not many by the looks of it.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:27
Well if people realize that the radicals are the ones that have been in power since the 1920s, he won't look so out there.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:28
Well if people realize that the radicals are the ones that have been in power since the 1920s, he won't look so out there.Care to elaborate?

Draco
11-12-11, 20:29
I never said Obama was doing well. You probably won't hear this from an outsider very often but I don't think he's doing a good job at all.

However, that doesn't mean Ron Paul would win or even come close during a presidential election. Regardless of how great you think he is, he just wouldn't be able to appeal to a broad enough base. Not that I think he should have to, but that's the way politics works.

I really think you let your own opinions of him cloud your judgement. He may be the perfect candidate to you, but how many other Americans feel that way? Not many by the looks of it.

That is because there are so many Americans who have no idea who he is or what he represents. Ask 100 Americans who Obama is and 99 of them will actually know who he is. Ask 100 who Paul is and maybe 20 of them will even know he exists at all.

But young people are the fuel for the Ron Paul fire, and that number is only increasing.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:32
Care to elaborate?

Big Government, Big Spending, Big Brother.

All of those are radical ideas that have merely gained enough tolerance to be forgotten as such.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:33
Doesn't change anything Draco. He just doesn't have the appeal to get elected president. He has a very fanatic support base but that's about it. Outside that he doesn't seem to be that popular. The polls back this up.

Big Government, Big Spending, Big Brother.

All of those are radical ideas that have merely gained enough tolerance to be forgotten as such.Why the 1920s? The US government was anything but big in the 1920s.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:34
Doesn't change anything Draco. He just doesn't have the appeal to get elected president. He has a very fanatic support base but that's about it. Outside that he doesn't seem to be that popular. The polls back this up.

We will see, all he needs is to go head to head in a real debate against Obama. Obama wouldn't survive it.


Why the 1920s? The US government was anything but big in the 1920s.

That is exactly my point.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:38
That is exactly my point.But you just said the "big government radicals" have been in power since the 1920s? :confused:

Draco
11-12-11, 20:41
But you just said the "big government radicals" have been in power since the 1920s? :confused:

It takes a long time to make a big government, especially if you want the people to accept it.

Mr.Burns
11-12-11, 20:43
We will see, all he needs is to go head to head in a real debate against Obama. Obama wouldn't survive it.




That is exactly my point.


Actually, even if he (and he would) cream Obama in the debate, as we've seen before, debates don't always make or break a person. Kerry creamed Bush in the debates but he lost. Nixon was far more on top of his answers vs Kennedy's but because Nixon was sweating and it showed on the camera, he came off as nervous and Kennedy nailed him in the polls. Sadly it's more of a matter of who is more charismatic and shiny, than actual substance. Paul has some good, solid ethics, but he's not charismatic and that's a problem. I've seen him speak, he can get the younger voters going but I don't think he can use those same tactics on the older voters, which do still make up a substantial base.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:45
Obama isn't exactly a stellar speaker either. He is just good at making nonsense sound good.

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:46
Image undoubtedly is a huge factor. However, even if Ron Paul was "shiny", I still couldn't see him winning. As I said, he's just too extreme.

Draco
11-12-11, 20:55
Image undoubtedly is a huge factor. However, even if Ron Paul was "shiny", I still couldn't see him winning. As I said, he's just too extreme.

Well he isn't extreme, that is the sad part. When did it become extreme to honor the Constitution of the United States of America?

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 20:58
Well he isn't extreme, that is the sad part. When did it become extreme to honor the Constitution of the United States of America?I'm not saying he's wrong (although I don't really agree with him on much) but he is pretty extreme. It's hard to deny that. A lot of what he wants to do is quite radical.

Draco
11-12-11, 21:03
I'm not saying he's wrong (although I don't really agree with him on much) but he is pretty extreme. It's hard to deny that. A lot of what he wants to do is quite radical.

Like shutting down overseas military bases, bringing troops home from a place they never should have been, getting rid of the Department of Education?

Or were there other examples you had in mind?

Mad Tony
11-12-11, 21:05
Like shutting down overseas military bases, bringing troops home from a place they never should have been, getting rid of the Department of Education?

Or were there other examples you had in mind?Just about everything he proposes is radical. Doesn't mean they're wrong (although I disagree with them).

Cochrane
11-12-11, 21:09
Well he isn't extreme, that is the sad part. When did it become extreme to honor the Constitution of the United States of America?

He completely wants to overhaul the political system of the US, based on only his interpretation of the constitution. Agree with him or not, that is a huge task and not exactly a mainstream position.

Sure, if you ask people "should politicians respect the constitution", they'll say "Yes, totally!" (I believe that may be part of the reason why he appeals to young voters that much: His platform seems very straightforward). But that is really not what Ron Paul stands for. Anything that the supreme court has ever ruled on (or refused to rule on) is by definition constitutional. The things that he claims are unconstitutional really aren't, in any legal sense. If anything, it violates the spirit of the constitution, at least according to his reading of the text. Getting support for that may be a lot more difficult than just getting support for "The constitution is awesome!". And the more the public notices him, the more this problem will become apparent.

DarkHawk
11-12-11, 21:12
Paul is picking up some steam. I hope he gets more in time for the primary. The major Republican candidates left are Romney, Paul, and Gingrich.

The most recent debate went excellent for Ron. They actually asked him a decent amount of questions for once, which he answered very well.

Obama has already lost supports, while Ron Paul is only gaining them. And the more debates he participates in the more conservatives see why he is the best choice. Obama's got strong Rhetoric and public speaking skills, but beyond that he doesn't have much.

Paul is concise and doesn't sugar-coat anything. Which people don't respond to very well, but what he says is actually meaningful. The more he talks, the more people will listen to him. Thats what he needs to do.

Draco
11-12-11, 21:13
He completely wants to overhaul the political system of the US, based on only his interpretation of the constitution. Agree with him or not, that is a huge task and not exactly a mainstream position.

Sure, if you ask people "should politicians respect the constitution", they'll say "Yes, totally!" (I believe that may be part of the reason why he appeals to young voters that much: His platform seems very straightforward). But that is really not what Ron Paul stands for. Anything that the supreme court has ever ruled on (or refused to rule on) is by definition constitutional. The things that he claims are unconstitutional really aren't, in any legal sense. If anything, it violates the spirit of the constitution, at least according to his reading of the text. Getting support for that may be a lot more difficult than just getting support for "The constitution is awesome!". And the more the public notices him, the more this problem will become apparent.

No, not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled a number of things unconstitutional that still take place.

Cochrane
11-12-11, 21:24
No, not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled a number of things unconstitutional that still take place.

Sure. But not everything Paul is attacking falls under that. In fact, most of the things Paul is attacking do not fall under that (including supreme court rulings).

Draco
11-12-11, 21:41
He is attacking the problem: Big Spending.

Which is tied into all the other problems by definition.

Cochrane
11-12-11, 21:52
He is attacking the problem: Big Spending.

Which is tied into all the other problems by definition.

But big spending itself is not unconstitutional, which is sort of my point.

And the way he attacks spending everywhere is… well, it's actually commendable, because it's honest, but it's not something that will make him a lot of friends either among republicans or among democrats. Attacking the military budget is at the very least not a very certain way of winning the republican nomination…

Ward Dragon
12-12-11, 00:24
Attacking the military budget is at the very least not a very certain way of winning the republican nomination…

Yeah, pretty much. A lot of his proposed domestic policies make sense, but his foreign policy is a disaster. We can't go back to post-Revolutionary War isolationism. The world is far too connected to completely ignore everything that happens outside our borders. Also he seems to blame Israel for the existence of conflicts in the Middle East. I don't think he could win the Republican nomination.

Having said that, Obama is a disaster for both foreign and domestic policy, so if it came down to it in the general election I'd vote for Paul and hope that he focuses more on his domestic issues.

patriots88888
12-12-11, 08:37
I believe RP scares a lot of people... and not just those who vote in this country.

patriots88888
12-12-11, 08:46
Three things got Obama elected: He wasn't Bush, He wasn't Republican, and He wasn't White.

And most importantly, he appeared to be genuinely in touch with the American people (as well as those abroad)... something that Bush was severely lacking. In fact, I don't recall a President in my time who was more out-of-touch than Bush and that includes the likes of Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Obama's far from perfect but at least he knows how to cleverly convince the public majority. So at least he's got something going for him.

Draco
12-12-11, 15:56
Yeah, pretty much. A lot of his proposed domestic policies make sense, but his foreign policy is a disaster. We can't go back to post-Revolutionary War isolationism. The world is far too connected to completely ignore everything that happens outside our borders. Also he seems to blame Israel for the existence of conflicts in the Middle East. I don't think he could win the Republican nomination.

Having said that, Obama is a disaster for both foreign and domestic policy, so if it came down to it in the general election I'd vote for Paul and hope that he focuses more on his domestic issues.

It only seems isolationist compared to our current policy of actively sticking our collective noses where they don't belong.

There is nothing isolationist about giving up our global territory empire.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 16:16
Ron Paul is isolationist whichever way you look at it.

Draco
12-12-11, 16:31
Ron Paul is isolationist whichever way you look at it.

He isn't against international trade, so... what makes him isolationist?

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 16:39
He isn't against international trade, so... what makes him isolationist?It's more than just about trade. He wants to pull the US out of the UN for example. I know the UN is pretty useless but what kind of message does that send when you're pulling out of an international organization that even North Korea are members of?

Draco
12-12-11, 17:26
It's more than just about trade. He wants to pull the US out of the UN for example. I know the UN is pretty useless but what kind of message does that send when you're pulling out of an international organization that even North Korea are members of?

He views the UN the same way you view the EU. An affront to sovereignty.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 17:27
He views the UN the same way you view the EU. An affront to sovereignty.Except they are both two very different organizations.

Draco
12-12-11, 17:33
Except they are both two very different organizations.

Not so very different. One is just a natural evolution of the other. In another 50+ years there will be serious thought about a bigger EU... an Earth Union.

The US sends a lot of money to the UN and the vast majority of it is wasted, and so is much of what the UN does. Wasted effort. If Paul doesn't pull the US out of the UN, he will reduce the amount of money sent to it to match other nations proportionally.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 17:59
Not so very different. One is just a natural evolution of the other. In another 50+ years there will be serious thought about a bigger EU... an Earth Union.

The US sends a lot of money to the UN and the vast majority of it is wasted, and so is much of what the UN does. Wasted effort. If Paul doesn't pull the US out of the UN, he will reduce the amount of money sent to it to match other nations proportionally.Trust me, the EU is very different to the UN. The UN is just an international organization. It doesn't really have any power at all. The EU on the other hand has extensive power when it comes to its member states. There's even a European parliament.

You say one is just a natural evolution of the other, but is that really the case? The EU grew out of the EEC, which itself grew out of the ECSC which was first established in the 50s. Both the ECSC and the UN were established around the same time, yet one has become very powerful and more than merely an organization (the ECSC was pretty powerful to begin with), where as the other is still pretty much the same today. What makes you think this will have changed another 50 years down the line?

In short, opposition to the EU is partly based on concerns over the current loss of sovereignty, where as the opposition to the UN is based partly on concerns over hypothetical loss of sovereignty. They're just not comparable.

Draco
12-12-11, 18:18
And the UN being powerless is a reason to keep it going?

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 18:19
And the UN being powerless is a reason to keep it going?No, I was just saying that they're two completely different organizations in response to your post about Ron Paul's objections to the UN being the same as my objections to the EU.

Draco
12-12-11, 18:20
They are still the same objections. The UN is just more symbolic than practical.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 18:22
They are still the same objections. The UN is just more symbolic than practical.No, not at all. If they're the same then Paul needs his head looking at because the things I object to in the EU are not present in the UN.

Eros5th
12-12-11, 18:24
I think Newt will be the candidate. Romney is just sinking by the minute. Everytime he opens his mouth people keep using it against him and he's already unpopular.

First it was his comment "Of course I didn't hire illegals! I'm running for president for god's sake!"

Now it's him betting 10,000 dollars to Rick Perry over something involving his healthcare.

Independents might vote for him but I doubt his own party will put him up.

As for Paul I think he won the Iowa straw poll or something like that awhile back surprisingly. My mom and I are both Democrats but we seem to like him the most out of the bunch.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 18:31
My mom and I are both Democrats but we seem to like him the most out of the bunch.Why's that? He's by far the most right-wing.

Cochrane
12-12-11, 18:59
Draco: I think a big problem with your line of reasoning is the "if people realize…". If large masses of people start to think that a) Ron Paul correctly describes the major problems of the US and b) has adequate solutions for them, then yes, he will win that election easily. But is that actually an ongoing trend? Is the public opinion moving that way, in any sustainable fashion? I have no clue, but I do know that if the majority of the people do not change their views to be more Ron Paul compatible, he will crash and burn.

Draco
12-12-11, 19:24
No, not at all. If they're the same then Paul needs his head looking at because the things I object to in the EU are not present in the UN.

So you don't object to the UN's idea that it can tell country's what to do? Or that it can actively interfere in internal problems inside sovereign territory?

I think Newt will be the candidate.

Even with the marital indiscretion?

Draco: I think a big problem with your line of reasoning is the "if people realize…". If large masses of people start to think that a) Ron Paul correctly describes the major problems of the US and b) has adequate solutions for them, then yes, he will win that election easily. But is that actually an ongoing trend? Is the public opinion moving that way, in any sustainable fashion? I have no clue, but I do know that if the majority of the people do not change their views to be more Ron Paul compatible, he will crash and burn.

Well I know American's are notoriously dense, even about things that should be at the top of our conscious thoughts, but maybe I'm just optimistic.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 19:25
So you don't object to the UN's idea that it can tell country's what to do? Or that it can actively interfere in internal problems inside sovereign territory?I would do if the UN actually did any of those things.

Well I know American's are notoriously dense, even about things that should be at the top of our conscious thoughts, but maybe I'm just optimistic.So in other words, if you don't vote for Ron Paul you're dense?

Draco
12-12-11, 19:27
I would do if the UN actually did any of those things.

If the US pulls out of the UN and it falls apart, so what?

So in other words, if you don't vote for Ron Paul you're dense?

Deliberately taking my words out of context is not debate.

Ikas90
12-12-11, 19:31
Ron Paul wouldn't become the President, even if he had more votes than Obama. The fact that he is freedom loving and honest is what will make his number of votes irrelevant - the people in power will just discard them. You can't beat the system.

Eros5th
12-12-11, 19:32
Why's that? He's by far the most right-wing.

I know but ironically we like him the most simply because he makes more sense than all the other idiots. Like he's opposed to printing out money we don't have and for more responsibility. He's against policing the world and starting wars abroad. He's for the legalization of some drugs I believe. He wants to decentralize government. If he were to take the environment more seriously and not trash the EPA and other essential government agencies then I'd very much like him. And I like he's not so damn religious which I can't stand about the other candidates. And I wonder if he's ok with gay marriage since he's so much about individual freedom.


Even with the marital indiscretion?


I think people will forget about that. All he has to do is say he asked God for forgiveness over and over which he already has.

Draco
12-12-11, 19:34
I think people will forget about that. All he has to do is say he asked God for forgiveness over and over which he already has.

If nothing else Paul won't bring it up. So I guess there is a good chance it will be forgotten.

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 19:40
I know but ironically we like him the most simply because he makes more sense than all the other idiots. Like he's opposed to printing out money we don't have and for more responsibility. He's against policing the world and starting wars abroad. He's for the legalization of some drugs I believe. He wants to decentralize government. If he were to take the environment more seriously and not trash the EPA and other essential government agencies then I'd very much like him. And I like he's not so damn religious which I can't stand about the other candidates. And I wonder if he's ok with gay marriage since he's so much about individual freedom.



I think people will forget about that. All he has to do is say he asked God for forgiveness over and over which he already has.

Ron Paul's view on Gay marriage, as well as on other major issues, is to not define marriage and to leave it up to the States to decide.

EDIT: Also, the EPA is getting a bit whacky...such as trying to regulate Coarse Particulate Matter...or if your not trying to sound smart, simply dust. They're trying to regulate dust...

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 19:42
If the US pulls out of the UN and it falls apart, so what?I guess I'd be indifferent., but you still have yet to prove that the UN has any kind of power.

Deliberately taking my words out of context is not debate.I didn't deliberately take your words out of context. :confused:

Ron Paul wouldn't become the President, even if he had more votes than Obama. The fact that he is freedom loving and honest is what will make his number of votes irrelevant - the people in power will just discard them. You can't beat the system.Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. How would they go about doing this? Who are "they" exactly?

Ikas90
12-12-11, 19:46
Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. How would they go about doing this? Who are "they" exactly?

Don't take my word for it, just look at what happened between Al Gore and George Bush.

And why would you add "I'm afraid" to the end? You're making it sound like what you're saying is 100% truth.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 19:53
Don't take my word for it, just look at what happened between Al Gore and George Bush.That was more to do with the way the electoral college system works than anything else.

And why would you add "I'm afraid" to the end? You're making it sound like what you're saying is 100% truth.It is the truth though. You're the one claiming that no matter how many votes Ron Paul gets in a general election he will lose because the votes supporting him will just be "discarded", yet you provide no evidence of any kind. You haven't even identified who it is exactly that would be capable of rigging such an election, nor have you explained how they'd do it.

Cochrane
12-12-11, 20:04
Don't take my word for it, just look at what happened between Al Gore and George Bush.

You mean the very, very public discussions about inadequacies in vote tallying that led to major lawsuits before the supreme court and later massive initiatives to update and improve voting in the US? What happened in 2000 was shameful, sure, but it is very much not an example of deliberate and systematic vote tampering. That would have been covered up much better.

Ikas90
12-12-11, 20:06
That was more to do with the way the electoral college system works than anything else.

It is the truth though. You're the one claiming that no matter how many votes Ron Paul gets in a general election he will lose because the votes supporting him will just be "discarded", yet you provide no evidence of any kind. You haven't even identified who it is exactly that would be capable of rigging such an election, nor have you explained how they'd do it.

I understand human psychology and I can see how big the window is for people to abuse the system.

In my honest opinion, I think you trust the government way too much. I mean, you don't even see how easy it is for someone in power to bend the rules.

And what do you mean I have to 'identify them'? Who the hell else would I be referring to? A third party?

voltz
12-12-11, 20:08
Ron Paul's view on Gay marriage, as well as on other major issues, is to not define marriage and to leave it up to the States to decide.

And thus TRF's community votes elsewhere.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 20:11
I understand human psychology and I can see how big the window is for people to abuse the system.

In my honest opinion, I think you trust the government way too much. I mean, you don't even see how easy it is for someone in power to bend the rules.

And what do you mean I have to 'identify them'? Who the hell else would I be referring to? A third party?It's not that I trust the government, it's just that you overestimate the power of government. The US is a particularly bad example. Look at Watergate and all the scandals since then. They can't keep anything covered up.

Ok then, so how exactly would Obama rig the vote in his favor? Bear in mind that it was less than two decades ago that George Bush Snr lost his re-election bid in 1992. You stipulate that it's easy for those in power to bend the rules, yet he did not do so, why? He's not the first one-term president either.

voltz
12-12-11, 20:19
Ok then, so how exactly would Obama rig the vote in his favor? Bear in mind that it was less than two decades ago that George Bush Snr lost his re-election bid in 1992. You stipulate that it's easy for those in power to bend the rules, yet he did not do so, why? He's not the first one-term president either.

It all really depends on who has party support. Bush Jr. had support from the CEO of Diebold during elections, if you wanted to count that as rigged, you might have this as a case example.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Ikas90
12-12-11, 20:19
It's not that I trust the government, it's just that you overestimate the power of government. The US is a particularly bad example. Look at Watergate and all the scandals since then. They can't keep anything covered up.

Ok then, so how exactly would Obama rig the vote in his favor? Bear in mind that it was less than two decades ago that George Bush Snr lost his re-election bid in 1992. You stipulate that it's easy for those in power to bend the rules, yet he did not do so, why? He's not the first one-term president either.

And likewise, I think you underestimate it.

I did not say Obama necessarily has to be the one to rig up the votes. As far as I know it's up to the government. Not the person wishing to be president.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 20:22
And likewise, I think you underestimate it.

I did not say Obama necessarily has to be the one to rig up the votes. As far as I know it's up to the government. Not the person wishing to be president.How?

Ok then, if it's up to the government then why didn't John McCain win the 2008 election, for example? How do they go about rigging elections anyway? After all, McCain is a Republican and there was a Republican government in office at the time.

Draco
12-12-11, 20:26
I guess I'd be indifferent., but you still have yet to prove that the UN has any kind of power.

I never said it does have any kind of power. It just has the power we want it to have, which is just about none.

I didn't deliberately take your words out of context. :confused:

Then you need to reread what I wrote. Maybe slower this time.


Anyway, being a non-interventionist (Ron Paul) is a far cry from isolationism.

Some education for you... if you aren't too proud to learn that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 20:28
I never said it does have any kind of power. It just has the power we want it to have, which is just about none.Well then Paul's objections to the UN are not the same as my objections to the EU.



Then you need to reread what I wrote. Maybe slower this time.


Anyway, being a non-interventionist (Ron Paul) is a far cry from isolationism.

Some education for you... if you aren't too proud to learn that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionismWhy would I be too "proud" to read up on it? :confused:

Ikas90
12-12-11, 20:28
How?

Ok then, if it's up to the government then why didn't John McCain win the 2008 election, for example? How do they go about rigging elections anyway?

Because, as I said (and I don't like repeating myself), the people in power can easily bend the rules to get the results they favour. Dishonesty is one of our oldest traits, I don't see it changing any time soon.

I don't think anyone even has to do any "rigging", all they have to do is say who won the election. I'm pretty sure the public doesn't have access to the exact number of votes. And I don't say that it happens in every case.

If Ron Paul loses the election, I will suspect something fishy, and it's warranted.

Draco
12-12-11, 20:30
Why would I be too "proud" to read up on it? :confused:

Because you already know everything about everything... well you talk like you do anyway.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 20:33
Because, as I said (and I don't like repeating myself), the people in power can easily bend the rules to get the results they favour. Dishonesty is one of our oldest traits, I don't see it changing any time soon.I expect there are many in power who would like to get the results they favor, but whether they're capable of it is another matter entirely.

I don't think anyone even has to do any "rigging", all they have to do is say who won the election. I'm pretty sure the public doesn't have access to the exact number of votes. And I don't say that it happens in every case.I think you need to read up on how elections work. It's not simply a case of the president announcing who won the election and that's it. Votes are cast, volunteers count them and once there is a clear winner the loser concedes. Also, both candidates have thousands of their own campaign staff on hand to make sure the elections are held fairly, and there are also independent election monitors as well I think.

Well why would it only happen in some cases? Why would the current US government rig the election in favor of Obama but the previous government wouldn't rig it in favor of McCain?

If Ron Paul loses the election, I will suspect something fishy, and it's warranted.How can you say that before said election has even been held? :confused: Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Because you already know everything about everything... well you talk like you do anyway.Are you describing yourself there?

Draco
12-12-11, 20:38
Are you describing yourself there?

Probably, but I try to avoid trolling my opinion around where it isn't warranted.

But this thread isn't about you in any case.

Ron Paul would be good for America and that is my number one reason for supporting him.

Ikas90
12-12-11, 20:39
I expect there are many in power who would like to get the results they favor, but whether they're capable of it is another matter entirely.

I think you need to read up on how elections work. It's not simply a case of the president announcing who won the election and that's it. Votes are cast, volunteers count them and once there is a clear winner the loser concedes.

Well why would it only happen in some cases? Why would the current US government rig the election in favor of Obama but the previous government wouldn't rig it in favor of McCain?

How can you say that before said election has even been held? :confused: Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Maybe so, but I am not going to be quick to assume that everything you see is exactly the way it is. You can call me cynical or paranoid if you wish, but not ignorant.

I wouldn't say it sounds ridiculous. Just curious.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 20:48
Probably, but I try to avoid trolling my opinion around where it isn't warranted.

But this thread isn't about you in any case.

Ron Paul would be good for America and that is my number one reason for supporting him.Where have I been trolling?

Maybe so, but I am not going to be quick to assume that everything you see is exactly the way it is. You can call me cynical or paranoid if you wish, but not ignorant.

I wouldn't say it sounds ridiculous. Just curious.I think you are a bit paranoid.

I would still however like to know how the government would rig an election and why the current government would do it but not the previous one.

Of course it's ridiculous. You're saying that if the candidate you support doesn't win then you will suspect something fishy. Why is this and why would you not suspect something fishy if Obama lost?

Ikas90
12-12-11, 20:56
I think you are a bit paranoid.

I would still however like to know how the government would rig an election and why the current government would do it but not the previous one.

Of course it's ridiculous. You're saying that if the candidate you support doesn't win then you will suspect something fishy. Why is this and why would you not suspect something fishy if Obama lost?

I would suspect that it's fishy not because I support him, but because he is actually a good candidate. A very good one.

I don't know. Ask them.

Draco
12-12-11, 21:01
Anyway, back on topic:

I think this time around Paul has a real chance. Newt is still beatable.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 21:03
I would suspect that it's fishy not because I support him, but because he is actually a good candidate. A very good one.That's just your opinion though. I expect there are many out there who think Obama is a very good candidate. I think you're being very closed minded here. You're implying that because you think Ron Paul is a good candidate, most other people must feel the same away therefore if he doesn't win there must be some sort of foul play going on. You're failing to take into account one big thing - other people may have different opinions to you.

For the record, I'm no Obama fan either.

I don't know. Ask them.You tell me. You're the one that's claiming elections are so easily rigged.

You still haven't explained how they can be rigged either.

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:08
Anyway, back on topic:

I think this time around Paul has a real chance. Newt is still beatable.

I agree.

I think thats pretty much who its down to right now. Newt vs. Paul. Romeny is 3rd but he's deflating gradually. The rest of them are quickly being forgotten. Except maybe Perry because he does something stupid once in a while.

Ikas90
12-12-11, 21:10
That's just your opinion though. I expect there are many out there who think Obama is a very good candidate. I think you're being very closed minded here. You're implying that because you think Ron Paul is a good candidate, most other people must feel the same away therefore if he doesn't win there must be some sort of foul play going on. You're failing to take into account one big thing - other people may have different opinions to you.

For the record, I'm no Obama fan either.

You tell me. You're the one that's claiming elections are so easily rigged.

You still haven't explained how they can be rigged either.

Well if people want to have another typical dishonest person run for president, that's their problem. I could say they're close-minded as well for not seeing the better option. I don't really think you can bring close-mindedness into the discussion as everyone is going to be close-minded about something anyway.

Pretty sure I did explain it to you already. Just look back a few posts. Three or four should do it.

Eros5th
12-12-11, 21:10
Well they're both creepy looking old men.. so it's not like voters would be swayed by which looked more "presidential" :p lol

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:11
Well they're both creepy looking old men.. so it's not like voters would be swayed by which looked more "presidential" :p lol

lol Ron Paul's actually pretty good looking for his age. He's healthy lookin'. Newt, on the other hand, looks like the Grinch...but this is beside the point :p

Draco
12-12-11, 21:12
Well they're both creepy looking old men.. so it's not like voters would be swayed by which looked more "presidential" :p lol

Maybe they will be swayed by the one that actually practices medicine and holds a PhD.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 21:15
Well if people want to have another typical dishonest person run for president, that's their problem. I could say they're close-minded as well for not seeing the better option. I don't really think you can bring close-mindedness into the discussion as everyone is going to be close-minded about something anyway.But this is all just your opinion! Paul may be the best candidate to you but not everybody's going to agree with you.

For example, during the 2010 Election I couldn't imagine why anyone would not vote Tory and vote Labour instead. I just couldn't get my head round it and still can't today. However, I accept that many people are going to have opinions that differ from my own and that's exactly why the Conservatives never got an overall majority in parliament. There was no election fraud, just a case of many people having differing opinions.

Pretty sure I did explain it to you already. Just look back a few posts. Three or four should do it.No you didn't. You just said "all they have to do is say who won the election", but that's not how elections work.

Maybe they will be swayed by the one that actually practices medicine and holds a PhD.I've heard Paul supporters bring this up a lot, but is it even relevant when running for public office?

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:16
I've heard Paul supporters bring this up a lot, but is it even relevant when running for public office?

Yes.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 21:22
Yes.How so?

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:24
How so?

Think about it.

Draco
12-12-11, 21:24
I've heard Paul supporters bring this up a lot, but is it even relevant when running for public office?

As opposed to being 'just another lawyer in office'... yeah.

Obama made a big deal about his being a lawyer when he was campaigning.

Who trusts lawyers? Almost nobody.

Who trusts doctors? Almost everybody.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 21:25
I have, and my opinion is that it's not relevant, hence why I asked you about it.

As opposed to being 'just another lawyer in office'... yeah.

Obama made a big deal about his being a lawyer when he was campaigning.

Who trusts lawyers? Almost nobody.

Who trusts doctors? Almost everybody.I don't think using someone's profession is a good way to judge how trustworthy they are.

Draco
12-12-11, 21:26
I have, and my opinion is that it's not relevant, hence why I asked you about it.

It doesn't matter if it is relevant to you does it. Everything matters in an election.

I don't think using someone's profession is a good way to judge how trustworthy they are.

I don't either, but I won't mind if they do in this case.

Mad Tony
12-12-11, 21:27
It doesn't matter if it is relevant to you does it. Everything matters in an election.I suspect most people vote for their candidates based on their policies, not on profession. At least I hope that's the case anyway.

Eros5th
12-12-11, 21:30
lol Ron Paul's actually pretty good looking for his age. He's healthy lookin'. Newt, on the other hand, looks like the Grinch...but this is beside the point :p

Lol Newt looks like a pedophile. But yea Ron Paul can just look like some of the old guy presidents we've had.

Maybe they will be swayed by the one that actually practices medicine and holds a PhD.

If only voters thought so intelligently : /

As opposed to being 'just another lawyer in office'... yeah.

Obama made a big deal about his being a lawyer when he was campaigning.

Who trusts lawyers? Almost nobody.

Who trusts doctors? Almost everybody.

Lawyers basically twist the truth for a living. Doctors I trust more.

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:33
Doctors can be snakes too. Especially the ones that try to give you a drug for everything rather than helping you get better...

Eros5th
12-12-11, 21:38
Doctors can be snakes too. Especially the ones that try to give you a drug for everything rather than helping you get better...

yup

and psychiatrists are the absolute worst. I'd wage war with them if I could :mad:

DarkHawk
12-12-11, 21:38
yup

and psychiatrists are the absolute worst. I'd wage war with them if I could :mad:

Right on :vlol:

Draco
12-12-11, 21:42
I suspect most people vote for their candidates based on their policies, not on profession. At least I hope that's the case anyway.

You'd be surprised what people vote based on. Obama is both popular and unpopular because of his relative youth. I know McCain's age was made an issue during the 2008 election. Reagan's was too, but he handled it much better.

"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." - Ronald Reagan 1984

voltz
12-12-11, 22:01
He's not popular with the racial slur removed.

Draco
12-12-11, 22:03
He's not popular with the racial slur removed anymore... :whi:

Obama?

voltz
12-12-11, 22:08
Yeah. Originally Obama was going to be supportive with mexican immigration, but during his term he's done quite a fair deal against that for boarder deference and legal only workers. Now I know it's fair to deny work benefits, rights, etc to boarder hoppers, but the problem is they have too many relatives who support them. This is why Obama only got their support during the first election.

TombRaiderFan.
13-12-11, 01:28
He's not popular with the beaners anymore... :whi:

You're an ass.

voltz
13-12-11, 02:02
You're an ass.

Oh pardon me, boarder-hopping illegal immigrants for being politically correct. Let's not forget the drugs that are passed along, but I guess we got to cut special favors for them also.

TombRaiderFan.
13-12-11, 02:06
Oh pardon me, boarder-hopping illegal immigrants for being politically correct.

By using that kind of language you just exposed yourself for what you are, a racist. That's the same as calling an African American the n-word. I can see you are proud of your bigotry, and for that you're an ass.

DarkHawk
13-12-11, 02:15
By using that kind of language you just exposed yourself for what you are, a racist. That's the same as calling an African American the n-word. I can see you are proud of your bigotry, and for that you're an ass.

Never even heard that word before o__O

TombRaiderFan.
13-12-11, 02:18
Never even heard that word before o__O

Then I dare you to go to LA and walk around the street calling Mexicans beaners.

voltz
13-12-11, 02:23
Just wait till you get to Boston, they refer to it as "Beantown" for a number of reasons.

Btw, I've known myself to be quite the hateful racist for years now and came to terms with it. Are there any other facts about myself I didn't know about you'd like to share or can we get this topic back on track?

DarkHawk
13-12-11, 02:25
Then I dare you to go to LA and walk around the street calling Mexicans beaners.

I'm on the east coast.

Plus i find it interesting that I've never heard that word before...you'd think after 17 years i would've come across it at least once :confused:

oh well...

TombRaiderFan.
13-12-11, 02:51
I'm on the east coast.

Plus i find it interesting that I've never heard that word before...you'd think after 17 years i would've come across it at least once :confused:

oh well...

Then I'm glad you had not come across it. That means you're hanging out with the right kind of people. :) Well, now you know, you learn something new everyday.

Draco
14-12-11, 00:04
'beaner' is a common word where I'm from. It's actually one of the less racist words to call a Hispanic.

TombRaiderFan.
14-12-11, 01:47
'beaner' is a common word where I'm from. It's actually one of the less racist words to call a Hispanic.

Hahaha. Instead of condemning racism, you just say "well, that's not too bad, he could have been a lot more racist." Ya, I should be happy he didn't call them wetbacks on top of that too.

I love the moral and ethic values around here.

Draco
14-12-11, 02:45
Hahaha. Instead of condemning racism, you just say "well, that's not too bad, he could have been a lot more racist." Ya, I should be happy he didn't call them wetbacks on top of that too.

I love the moral and ethic values around here.

As in, it is barely racist.

Alpharaider47
14-12-11, 18:48
Hahaha. Instead of condemning racism, you just say "well, that's not too bad, he could have been a lot more racist." Ya, I should be happy he didn't call them wetbacks on top of that too.

I love the moral and ethic values around here.

I think it sort of loses its potency when Mexicans begin calling themselves beaners and wetbacks, which I heard a lot during my time in California(7+ years). Same goes for African Americans pretty much everywhere I've lived. Even knew a guy who asked everyone(white, black, brown, whatever) to call him "Nigger Jim" lol.

And to contribute to the thread-

I think enough people are sick and tired of Obama now that he's not going to be able to sell everyone the same bull**** he did when he got elected. I figure Paul probably has a chance if he gets the nomination. He's actually the only person I think is remotely worth voting for this time around.

Dennis's Mom
14-12-11, 19:26
Stop with the racial epithets. Surely you have a few grown up words in your vocabulary.

I have a problem with Paul's deciding things are "up to the states."

Really, a show of hands means it's OK to violate civil rights? A show of hands means it's OK to trash the country?

I'm sorry, I think as a citizen of this country that there should be centralized forces at work to insure that every citizen in this country is treated equally.

Mad Tony
14-12-11, 22:08
Interesting how almost every American on the internet seems to support Ron Paul but opinion polls in real life paint a completely different picture. Wonder why that is?

voltz
14-12-11, 22:26
Paul has an internet mime going for him atm. It's not going to hold up for him once we get to the election booth and by that time, we're looking at strong republican support for Gingrich taking a seat.

TombRaiderFan.
14-12-11, 22:34
That's due to the demographic group that he appeals most to, young people. I guess Draco is a bit of an exception to the rule in this case. Most of young people use social networking and forums more than older people. That's my own theory.
I would actually be happy if Paul won the Republican nomination. I find him to be the most serious candidate out of the bunch, the rest just seem to have too much baggage behind them or are jus plain dumb.
It's too bad he doesn't stand a chance.

Mad Tony
14-12-11, 22:35
Makes sense, but why does Ron Paul appeal to young people so much?

DarkHawk
14-12-11, 22:49
It originally was because he had a media-block on him. So his supporters took up post on the internet, where they couldn't block his message/views. Now he's becoming increasingly more mainstream.

Currently, he's got a huge internet following and a slowly increasing media-following.

TombRaiderFan.
14-12-11, 23:06
Also, last time I checked he's the candidate that has the most YouTube subscribers.

Mad Tony
14-12-11, 23:10
Ron Paul isn't the only thing this phenomena applies to though. Take 9/11 conspiracy theories for example. Most people accept the truth of what happened that day yet go on the internet and probably a good half of the people you meet on there believe the conspiracies. I just find it very interesting how certain things are disproportionately big on the internet.

TombRaiderFan.
14-12-11, 23:33
Don't forget the Internet is the home of social outcasts too. ;) That could be part of the explanation for your observation.

Draco
15-12-11, 04:12
I have a problem with Paul's deciding things are "up to the states."

Was there something specific you had in mind or just in general?

Really, a show of hands means it's OK to violate civil rights? A show of hands means it's OK to trash the country?

Is this a comment about Obama?

I'm sorry, I think as a citizen of this country that there should be centralized forces at work to insure that every citizen in this country is treated equally.

Why wouldn't they be treated equally?

TombRaiderFan.
15-12-11, 05:11
Was there something specific you had in mind or just in general?

Some things should not be left to the states, period. Civil rights being the one and most important. Did you know that in some red states it's legal to fire someone if you find out they're gay?

I want an honest opinion from you on these: Do you believe it is OK to reduce the rights of a US citizen based on race, ethnic background, gender, religion, or sexual preference? Would you justify the states that make it OK to fire someone if you don't like their sexual orientation? Do you think gay marriage should be a state issue, and why? Do you think it should be left to the state to decide to implement laws that prevent violation of rights based on racial background? Do you believe in the separation from state and church? (I ask that last one because Republicans are just SO keen on wanting to mix both).

Please do answer them because I want to try to see your point of view from a logical perspective. I want to see if your argument is logical. I'll be more than happy to change my views. :)

As of now, I believe there are things that the federal government simply has to do in order to protect the rights of minorities, where constitutional. If we're going to disregard the constitution state by state, then we might as well just burn it because no one will even be paying attention to it anyways.

Why wouldn't they be treated equally?

He's talking about civil rights, I completely agree with him.

Cochrane
15-12-11, 05:51
I think part of the appeal of Ron Paul to young voters is that he has very, very simple solutions to rather complex questions. Most of his positions can be described in three words or less: Less taxes; small government; state powers - the list goes on.

It is similar to how during the 1960s and 1970s, communism was popular with the younger generations: Simple answers to complex questions, only the questions were different and the answers were coming from a different side in the political spectrum. Of course, Ron Paul does not have the same mainstream appeal that communism had, but the basic idea is the same:

"Our political system is a mess. We need to change it! Let's"
a) "get rid of property and, like, stuff"
b) "get rid of taxes and, like, stuff"



This isn't the only reason why Ron Paul appeals to people, of course, but I think the basic idea of wide-ranging, easily described solutions to problems that are a great deal more complex than many want to deal with is a significant part of why so many random people on the internet like him.

Draco
15-12-11, 06:32
Some things should not be left to the states, period.

Well of course some things should fall under Federal purview, just not to the extent currently.

Civil rights being the one and most important.

Civil Rights in general or specific ones?

Did you know that in some red states it's legal to fire someone if you find out they're gay?

Prove it.

I want an honest opinion from you on these:

The implication that I would forward anything else is rather insulting.

Do you believe it is OK to reduce the rights of a US citizen based on race, ethnic background, gender, religion, or sexual preference?

No.

Would you justify the states that make it OK to fire someone if you don't like their sexual orientation?

No such states exist to my knowledge, but no of course it wouldn't be OK.

Do you think gay marriage should be a state issue, and why?

Marriage is a state issue period and always has been. Gay has zero to do with it.

Do you think it should be left to the state to decide to implement laws that prevent violation of rights based on racial background?

States cannot make a law that is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America... why are you implying otherwise?

Do you believe in the separation from state and church? (I ask that last one because Republicans are just SO keen on wanting to mix both).

Of course I do. And what makes you think I'm Republican?

Please do answer them because I want to try to see your point of view from a logical perspective.

That is a noble thing in an age of inviolate contempt, I wish more people were willing to actually listen.

I want to see if your argument is logical. I'll be more than happy to change my views. :)

I would hope they are, but I can see how some people think they aren't. I seek not to change your views, only the way you view mine.

As of now, I believe there are things that the federal government simply has to do in order to protect the rights of minorities, where constitutional.

The American Civil War clearly established the right of the Federal Government to maintain or prevent civil liberties. Before that it was left up to the states. But yes, the Federal Government is necessary for many things, even with a President Ron Paul.

If we're going to disregard the constitution state by state, then we might as well just burn it because no one will even be paying attention to it anyways.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist first and foremost. He respects the Constitution more than anyone else who is in a position to be President, including the current President.

Cochrane
15-12-11, 06:46
Ron Paul respects his particular Ron Paul interpretation of the constitution. I find it hard to believe that he is the only politician who got it right.

TombRaiderFan.
15-12-11, 07:33
Civil Rights in general or specific ones?

Mostly the ones based on the criteria I listed in my previous post.

Prove it.

http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/images/hp-state_map.gif

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (16 states and D.C.)

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation alone. (5 states)

I also found this (http://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map) website that has a map. I heard about this issue a while back, I'm not aware of its current standing. I have not really followed it enough to give you an in depth post on it.

The implication that I would forward anything else is rather insulting.

I truly didn't mean to imply anything. I guess I placed the word "honestly" there unconsciously, since I'm too often given non-answers rather than straight forward answers.

No.

Well that's great, that means we agree on something.

Marriage is a state issue period and always has been. Gay has zero to do with it.

And that's fine, but what can you say about the states that limit the civil liberties of gays? Why can't they have the freedoms that straight people enjoy? There's obviously something wrong with the system if it is failing to provide equal liberties and rights across the board.

States cannot make a law that is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America... why are you implying otherwise?

Because each state interprets it whichever way it's most convenient for them.

Of course I do. And what makes you think I'm Republican?

You support Ron Paul, correct? He's running as a Republican last time I checked. I'm assuming that makes you partly Republican even though you may or may not be a registered one.

That is a noble thing in an age of inviolate contempt, I wish more people were willing to actually listen.

I've listened to Ron during quiet a few debates--I've seen most of them. I always pay particular attention to when he talks, because I know he's not full of crap like the rest of them. I know he doesn't say thing just to get applauded, but because he believes in what he's saying. The rest of them, it seems, just say thing depending on which way the wind is blowing. I still don't like him because of certain views he has, but I listen.

I would hope they are, but I can see how some people think they aren't. I seek not to change your views, only the way you view mine.

I respect anyone's views, just as long as they don't intrude with my civil liberties. That's my rule, I would say. (I'm not implying anything about your views by the way, I got in trouble with you with my last post, gotta be careful now).

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist first and foremost. He respects the Constitution more than anyone else who is in a position to be President, including the current President.

This country was, above all, founded in search for freedom of religion. Since were talking about respecting the values on which this country was founded, let me ask you a little something that was controversial at the time. Remember that mosque that they wanted to build near ground zero? What was your position on that?

Mad Tony
15-12-11, 09:23
I think part of the appeal of Ron Paul to young voters is that he has very, very simple solutions to rather complex questions. Most of his positions can be described in three words or less: Less taxes; small government; state powers - the list goes on.

It is similar to how during the 1960s and 1970s, communism was popular with the younger generations: Simple answers to complex questions, only the questions were different and the answers were coming from a different side in the political spectrum. Of course, Ron Paul does not have the same mainstream appeal that communism had, but the basic idea is the same:

"Our political system is a mess. We need to change it! Let's"
a) "get rid of property and, like, stuff"
b) "get rid of taxes and, like, stuff"



This isn't the only reason why Ron Paul appeals to people, of course, but I think the basic idea of wide-ranging, easily described solutions to problems that are a great deal more complex than many want to deal with is a significant part of why so many random people on the internet like him.Don't most politicians do this when running for office though?

Cochrane
15-12-11, 10:21
Don't most politicians do this when running for office though?

I'd say not to the same degree. Sure, they all use a lot of simple slogans, but most of those are about goals. But about specific policies, they tend to be rather complex - or not fully formed yet, because it all depends on what the parliament will do.

Karen_Leslie
15-12-11, 13:45
I think part of the appeal of Ron Paul to young voters is that he has very, very simple solutions to rather complex questions. Most of his positions can be described in three words or less: Less taxes; small government; state powers - the list goes on.

In total agreement with this, and that's why, though I respect the fact that he appears to hold his views because he honestly believes in them, I can't support him.

The whole "small government" plan is one of those that works better in theory than in practice IMO; in theory, I agree with it, but in practice it always becomes "More of type of government my group wants, less of the type of government YOU PEOPLE want." No one can agree on what the absolute essential things that government needs to do are, so it always ends up becoming the same power struggle from a slightly different angle; it doesn't solve any problems, just recontextualizes them.

Instead of asking "Is this government policy just/productive/etc." it becomes "should this government policy even EXIST?" But we still have all the same problems.

Draco
15-12-11, 13:59
Mostly the ones based on the criteria I listed in my previous post.



http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/images/hp-state_map.gif

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (16 states and D.C.)

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation alone. (5 states)

I also found this (http://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map) website that has a map. I heard about this issue a while back, I'm not aware of its current standing. I have not really followed it enough to give you an in depth post on it.

The lack of any such laws doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination is ongoing. In fact I'd say the Federal laws are just fine, they already prohibit employment discrimination. If such discrimination is going on, than it is already illegal in every state and territory in the US.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

I truly didn't mean to imply anything. I guess I placed the word "honestly" there unconsciously, since I'm too often given non-answers rather than straight forward answers.

I generally am honest, unless doing so is directly damaging to someone else in extenuating circumstances.

Well that's great, that means we agree on something.

Believe it or not, with exception of the radical extremes, most people do agree on 75% of issues. But we tend to define ourselves by what separates us.

And that's fine, but what can you say about the states that limit the civil liberties of gays?

There are no such states, unless you mean as far as 'marriage' is concerned.

Why can't they have the freedoms that straight people enjoy? There's obviously something wrong with the system if it is failing to provide equal liberties and rights across the board.

It takes time to change things. In 50 years nobody will even remember you couldn't marry the same sex today.

Because each state interprets it whichever way it's most convenient for them.

No, not really. Interpretation of the Constitution is entirely the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The states, and frankly even the Federal Government, can't make an unconstitutional law stand if they have deemed it as such.

You support Ron Paul, correct?

Yes.

He's running as a Republican last time I checked. I'm assuming that makes you partly Republican even though you may or may not be a registered one.

Ron Paul is only Republican by the 19th century definition of Republican. He is a Libertarian and so am I. He knows you have to be Democrat or Republican to ever have a real chance to be elected President. I'm registered Republican because the other parties are a joke and I'd sooner cut my own throat than register Democrat.

I've listened to Ron during quiet a few debates--I've seen most of them. I always pay particular attention to when he talks, because I know he's not full of crap like the rest of them. I know he doesn't say thing just to get applauded, but because he believes in what he's saying. The rest of them, it seems, just say thing depending on which way the wind is blowing. I still don't like him because of certain views he has, but I listen.

I respect that, there are even some things I disagree with Ron Paul about. But he is by far the candidate most inline with my political views.

I respect anyone's views, just as long as they don't intrude with my civil liberties. That's my rule, I would say. (I'm not implying anything about your views by the way, I got in trouble with you with my last post, gotta be careful now).

That is everyone's rule really, we just all have different ones we hold dear.

This country was, above all, founded in search for freedom of religion. Since were talking about respecting the values on which this country was founded, let me ask you a little something that was controversial at the time. Remember that mosque that they wanted to build near ground zero? What was your position on that?

Not exactly, many colonists came to America to be removed from the persecution of their religious views in Europe, but the country was not founded with freedom of religion as the most important factor. Freedom of religious expression is one of the cornerstones of the Framing, but separation of church and state is critical all the same.

As for the mosque, I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually a mosque. I don't see a problem with it personally.

The whole "small government" plan is one of those that works better in theory than in practice IMO; in theory, I agree with it, but in practice it always becomes "More of type of government my group wants, less of the type of government YOU PEOPLE want."

Big government isn't working for us. So I'd say it is better just to have more money to make your own decisions with than to see it needlessly wasted.

No one can agree on what the absolute essential things that government needs to do are, so it always ends up becoming the same power struggle from a slightly different angle; it doesn't solve any problems, just recontextualizes them.

Actually it can be done and was done in a much more difficult time for such things to be done. Somewhere around 1776.

Ward Dragon
15-12-11, 14:13
As for the mosque, I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually a mosque. I don't see a problem with it personally.

Yeah it is. It's a mosque with a connected community center type thing. The guy who was building it made some worrying comments that made it sound like he wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution in the US. Apparently he got taken off the project though (I haven't heard anything about it lately so I just looked it up). I guess the controversy died down once he left.

Draco
15-12-11, 14:22
Yeah it is. It's a mosque with a connected community center type thing. The guy who was building it made some worrying comments that made it sound like he wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution in the US. Apparently he got taken off the project though (I haven't heard anything about it lately so I just looked it up). I guess the controversy died down once he left.

Okay, so other than a single nutter, it's just like any other mosque.

Karen_Leslie
15-12-11, 14:56
Big government isn't working for us. So I'd say it is better just to have more money to make your own decisions with than to see it needlessly wasted.

IMO we're going to have the problem of big government either way, because it's always going to be too big for somebody. So I think we should address the actual issues government is intended to deal with rather than quibble over what "big" and "small" should mean in this context.

Actually it can be done and was done in a much more difficult time for such things to be done. Somewhere around 1776.

Yes and that was clearly a perfect solution that left us with no major problems to discuss to this day:p. Don't get me wrong, in general I approve of the Constitution (what I know if it; I'm not a Constitutional scholar), but I'm leery of the viewpoint that following it is the answer to everything. It's not immune to the same problems of interpretation/bastardization that plague virtually everything else in the world.

Ward Dragon
15-12-11, 15:17
IMO we're going to have the problem of big government either way, because it's always going to be too big for somebody. So I think we should address the actual issues government is intended to deal with rather than quibble over what "big" and "small" should mean in this context.

Fair enough. I'm feeling lazy right now so I won't bother to list all of the government programs that I think should be eliminated or reformed. However suffice it to say that any politician who wants to solve real problems needs to have specific policies in mind and not just general platitudes.

Yes and that was clearly a perfect solution that left us with no major problems to discuss to this day:p. Don't get me wrong, in general I approve of the Constitution (what I know if it; I'm not a Constitutional scholar), but I'm leery of the viewpoint that following it is the answer to everything. It's not immune to the same problems of interpretation/bastardization that plague virtually everything else in the world.

I think most of the problems today were introduced by FDR completely ignoring the Constitution and greatly increasing the power of the federal government above and beyond what it was originally meant to do. The more policies are made at a national level, the greater the disconnect is when trying to implement those policies on a local level. The federal government does need to set some policies, for example ensuring that the Bill of Rights is enforced in all states and adding new amendments if necessary.

However I think most issues, such as education, would be much better handled on a local level. Each state has its own standards of what should be taught and its own requirements for a teacher to get certified anyway, so what's the point of federal involvement? No Child Left Behind was a disaster and if anything it has lowered the quality of public school education in most states. The federal government should only be involved in education to the extent of taking action if a state is discriminating against students due to race, gender, etc. or otherwise infringing on the students' constitutional rights.

Draco
15-12-11, 15:17
but I'm leery of the viewpoint that following it is the answer to everything.

There is no such viewpoint, not really anyway. But the Constitution IS is the schematic our government is supposed to be based on. Currently... our government is well on its way to telling us when we can breathe or not.

Karen_Leslie
15-12-11, 15:55
Fair enough. I'm feeling lazy right now so I won't bother to list all of the government programs that I think should be eliminated or reformed. However suffice it to say that any politician who wants to solve real problems needs to have specific policies in mind and not just general platitudes.

Yeah, I think we pretty much agree. I think the big/small government debate too often distracts from productive questions like "is this program working?" and "Can it be implemented more effectively?", and instead steers the conversation into a largely philosophical area about the ideal role of government that doesn't lead anywhere.

I think most of the problems today were introduced by FDR completely ignoring the Constitution and greatly increasing the power of the federal government above and beyond what it was originally meant to do. The more policies are made at a national level, the greater the disconnect is when trying to implement those policies on a local level. The federal government does need to set some policies, for example ensuring that the Bill of Rights is enforced in all states and adding new amendments if necessary.

This is something I'm going to have to look into, because I know I learned about that at one point but I'm drawing a blank trying to remember. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

However I think most issues, such as education, would be much better handled on a local level. Each state has its own standards of what should be taught and its own requirements for a teacher to get certified anyway, so what's the point of federal involvement? No Child Left Behind was a disaster and if anything it has lowered the quality of public school education in most states.

I don't know whether or not I think education would be better handled on a local level- I guess I don't know enough about it yet. However, I have no words for what NCLB did to our public schools. It's just...heinous. Talking to teachers about what they go through with it leaves me in a state of perpetual disbelief.

Dennis's Mom
15-12-11, 19:26
Was there something specific you had in mind or just in general?

Most advances in civil rights, equal treatment and environmental responsibility have come because of federal intervention, not because states are interested in establishing things like equal pay for equal work or rules against dumping crap into rivers.

Is this a comment about Obama?

*eyeroll* No, it was directed at the idea of dismantling the EPA.

Why wouldn't they be treated equally?

Already people are not treated equally. Where have you been?

Edit: Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Paul for the Republican nomination. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html)

Draco
15-12-11, 19:45
Most advances in civil rights,

Starting with the Civil War.

equal treatment and environmental responsibility have come because of federal intervention, not because states are interested in establishing things like equal pay for equal work or rules against dumping crap into rivers.

I get the impression you think Ron Paul wants to be rid of the federal government, which is a ridiculously silly idea. That would be unconstitutional. Nobody is claiming the federal government is unnecessary or doesn't do any good. We are just saying the federal government's shoes are too big for it to walk effectively without stumbling along and there is NO reason the states of the union can't help with the governing on a more local level. The idea that big government is necessary is a recent one.

*eyeroll* No, it was directed at the idea of dismantling the EPA.

That same organization that thinks outlawing dust is a good idea? :rolleyes:

Already people are not treated equally. Where have you been?

So clearly the federal government is ineffectual at solving the problem.

Ward Dragon
15-12-11, 19:46
Most advances in civil rights, equal treatment and environmental responsibility have come because of federal intervention, not because states are interested in establishing things like equal pay for equal work or rules against dumping crap into rivers.

Especially with the civil rights issues, that's explicitly the federal government's responsibility to add onto and uphold the Bill of Rights. However that doesn't mean the federal government should be responsible for everything. I think a significant percentage of federal regulations end up being harmful overall.

To give an example since you brought up the environmental regulations, why does the government limit pollution in cars based upon the company's average? All that means is that if the company makes enough hybrid cars to lower their average below the federal regulations, they have a free license to make as many gas-guzzling SUV's as they can to bring their average back up to the federal requirement. The limit should be based upon individual car models, not the fleet average (and of course allowances should be made for heavy-duty cars that will be doing towing or other similarly intensive tasks, which would still end up with lower pollution overall compared to the current regulations).

TombRaiderFan.
15-12-11, 20:06
Didn't most of these agencies already exist before Bush's administration? I don't ever hear anyone complain about the 90's, in fact, it seems more often it's looked at as a time when the country was doing great. It looks to me that the second we started defunding everything else in order to pass the Bush tax cuts and fund two wars everything else at home deteriorated. I don't believe the agencies necessarily are the problem, but they're now a shadow of what they used to be. Dismantling the doesn't seem to be the answer from my perspective. (with the exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Goverment should have never gotten involved in the housing market).

Mad Tony
15-12-11, 20:31
The problem with Bush's presidency is that he had so much **** to deal with on an unprecedented level. I actually feel sorry for the guy as he'll go down as one of the worst U.S. presidents in history for no good reason.

Cochrane
15-12-11, 20:45
Especially with the civil rights issues, that's explicitly the federal government's responsibility to add onto and uphold the Bill of Rights. However that doesn't mean the federal government should be responsible for everything. I think a significant percentage of federal regulations end up being harmful overall.

To give an example since you brought up the environmental regulations, why does the government limit pollution in cars based upon the company's average? All that means is that if the company makes enough hybrid cars to lower their average below the federal regulations, they have a free license to make as many gas-guzzling SUV's as they can to bring their average back up to the federal requirement. The limit should be based upon individual car models, not the fleet average (and of course allowances should be made for heavy-duty cars that will be doing towing or other similarly intensive tasks, which would still end up with lower pollution overall compared to the current regulations).

Is that a problem specific to the federal government, though? I don't think it would be different if environmental legislation would be handled at the state level. If this was at the state level, I'm willing to bet insignificant amounts of money that states without car industry would have much stricter laws than states with automobile plants. And then it becomes difficult for businesses (who want to sell everywhere and not have to read fifty individual laws) as well as customers (what if you have a polluting car and move to a cleaner state? What if you want to sell it? And so on).

The problem is not that the federal government is in charge of protecting the environment, but that this particular government isn't doing a very good job when it comes to protecting the environment.

The problem with Bush's presidency is that he had so much **** to deal with on an unprecedented level. I actually feel sorry for the guy as he'll go down as one of the worst U.S. presidents in history for no good reason.

Yeah, really. Like that war in Iraq: A huge, unnecessary mess, that was just forced on him, and that he never wanted. Poor guy.

Mad Tony
15-12-11, 20:49
Yeah, really. Like that war in Iraq: A huge, unnecessary mess, that was just forced on him, and that he never wanted. Poor guy.I think he was merely acting on the intelligence he had at the time.

Ward Dragon
15-12-11, 21:22
The problem is not that the federal government is in charge of protecting the environment, but that this particular government isn't doing a very good job when it comes to protecting the environment.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't more clear. I was trying to show that the federal government is incompetent with a lot of its regulations and that as a country we need to take a serious look at everything and decide first of all should the federal government even be regulating something to begin with? And if so, then how could it be handled better?

The car pollution probably would end up at the federal level anyway because of the interstate commerce (as you pointed out) but we shouldn't take it for granted that the federal government's regulations are a good thing. Federal regulations need to be drastically overhauled so that they make more sense and actually accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish.

Draco
15-12-11, 22:35
Didn't most of these agencies already exist before Bush's administration? I don't ever hear anyone complain about the 90's, in fact, it seems more often it's looked at as a time when the country was doing great. It looks to me that the second we started defunding everything else in order to pass the Bush tax cuts and fund two wars everything else at home deteriorated. I don't believe the agencies necessarily are the problem, but they're now a shadow of what they used to be. Dismantling the doesn't seem to be the answer from my perspective. (with the exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Goverment should have never gotten involved in the housing market).

Well no, not exactly. The economic mess has been a long time coming. Certain events exacerbated it, sure. But the root of the problem is decades old. The popular 'let's pile more on top of the problem and bury it' plan is becoming less and less desirable to the general public and even politicians. Fix it at the source.

TombRaiderFan.
15-12-11, 23:31
On a separate note, I don't mean to perpetuate the issue but it worries me that it's not being addressed as it should. Ward Dragon, am I to assume you just decided to turn a blind eye on what happened on pages 10-11?

patriots88888
15-12-11, 23:41
On a separate note, I don't mean to perpetuate the issue but it worries me that it's not being addressed as it should. Ward Dragon, am I to assume you just decided to turn a blind eye on what happened on pages 10-11?

It appears DM already has...

Stop with the racial epithets. Surely you have a few grown up words in your vocabulary.

TombRaiderFan.
16-12-11, 00:14
It appears DM already has...

Oh thanks for pointing that out! I actually never really noticed DM is a mod for some odd reason; where's my head at haha.

Ward Dragon
17-12-11, 00:48
It appears DM already has...

Indeed :) I saw she already took care of it and I didn't want to bring it back up again.

Dennis's Mom
17-12-11, 12:38
Oh thanks for pointing that out! I actually never really noticed DM is a mod for some odd reason; where's my head at haha.

It's called stealth mode. :pi:

TombRaiderFan.
18-12-11, 06:47
^You blend in with the crowd like Ezio just to come out and get us when we have our guard down. :pi: :vlol:

VMUZIVYuluc&feature=g-logo&context=G2f31600FOAAAAAAAIAA

If the Republicans want to give Obama a hard time winning the White House they have to pick this guy. They're just making it way too easy with the latest flavors. I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes sense when he talks and that's saying a lot from a politician!

Mad Tony
18-12-11, 10:58
If the Republicans want to give Obama a hard time winning the White House they have to pick this guy. They're just making it way too easy with the latest flavors. I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes sense when he talks and that's saying a lot from a politician!I really couldn't see Paul picking up many votes from people who don't always vote Republican. He's easily the most radical of the lot. Why would any of the undecideds or liberals vote for him? He just doesn't seem to have a broad enough appeal. He has a ridiculously large following on the internet but the polls say otherwise. I'm not even sure he'd pick up all of the Republican vote.

Cochrane
18-12-11, 11:15
I really couldn't see Paul picking up many votes from people who don't always vote Republican. He's easily the most radical of the lot. Why would any of the undecideds or liberals vote for him? He just doesn't seem to have a broad enough appeal. He has a ridiculously large following on the internet but the polls say otherwise. I'm not even sure he'd pick up all of the Republican vote.

That probably applies to most of the republican candidates. I think the one who could most appeal to liberals is Mitt Romney, and he is trying to distance himself from that every chance he gets, e.g. when talking about health care reform.

The real danger that Paul and any of the more extreme candidates pose for the republican party is that liberals will see them as too extreme, and then campaign and vote against him. I think there are many people out there who would be willing to do that, even though they might not be that enthusiastic about Obama winning.

Many republicans say that Obama only won because he was not Bush, which is in itself too simple, but probably partly true. There is a real chance that Obama might win again in part because he is not Ron Paul. And I don't the republican party would want that very much.

Ward Dragon
18-12-11, 20:17
That probably applies to most of the republican candidates. I think the one who could most appeal to liberals is Mitt Romney, and he is trying to distance himself from that every chance he gets, e.g. when talking about health care reform.

Yeah, I saw an opinion poll the other day that said that if the election was held now it would be a tie between Obama and Romney (it was 43% vs. 42% which is a tie as far as the margin of error is concerned). Obama did much better in the poll against Gingrich or Paul though.

Cochrane
18-12-11, 21:16
I could imagine that if Romney won the nomination, he'd try to look a lot more moderate than he does right now, so he can use that effect.

Ward Dragon
18-12-11, 23:22
I could imagine that if Romney won the nomination, he'd try to look a lot more moderate than he does right now, so he can use that effect.

Romney already does look moderate. That's why the Republicans don't like him :p

Eros5th
19-12-11, 02:08
I'd vote for Huntsman and I'm a Dem. Only because he actually gives a crap about the environment.

TombRaiderFan.
19-12-11, 05:20
A lot of what Obama has going for him in this elections is that he has managed to look like the adult person in the room, which people like when we have such a dysfunctional Congress.

I'd vote for Huntsman and I'm a Dem. Only because he actually gives a crap about the environment.

I forgot about him. Absolutely, he seems like a serious candidate.

Draco
22-12-11, 03:20
I'll just leave this here:

I8NhRPo0WAo

Ward Dragon
22-12-11, 04:54
^ You just convinced me that I really don't want Ron Paul to get the nomination. He thinks our actions provoked 9/11? Extremists have been murdering innocent people since before the US even existed. It's unacceptable to blame the victims. If he really thinks it's our fault that we got attacked, then he doesn't understand who attacked us which means he's not equipped to handle national security.

Cochrane
22-12-11, 06:58
I think it is not wrong to say that american foreign politics during the cold war had a lot of influence on the situation in the middle east today, and large parts of it were not positive. But it is too easy to assign one reason to it all. Iran had basically a US puppet government that was replaced by radical anti-US groups. Bin Laden was a secret ally of the US (much like Hussein) until suddenly he wasn't anymore. Well, not so suddenly: In both cases, they turned on US interests only after the US had lost interest in them. Also, don't forget that the US was just as meddlesome in middle- and south american and most parts of Africa. Still, they do not pose as much of a problem today.

The situation in the middle east is way more complicated than "the US is there; everybody hates them for it". Still, in the end, I would not say that Ron Paul is totally wrong here (and I imagine his actual views are more detailed than those portrayed in this video). But I'm not sure that his solution of "Let's all just go home" is the best way to address the situation. The US can use their global military presence to help bring the democratization that the people in the middle east want (and that the US has at times denied them before). They did so with Libya; they could do so again. A middle east that actually likes the US is the best defense, no matter where the troops are.

Mad Tony
22-12-11, 09:54
I think it is not wrong to say that american foreign politics during the cold war had a lot of influence on the situation in the middle east today, and large parts of it were not positive. But it is too easy to assign one reason to it all. Iran had basically a US puppet government that was replaced by radical anti-US groups. Bin Laden was a secret ally of the US (much like Hussein) until suddenly he wasn't anymore. Well, not so suddenly: In both cases, they turned on US interests only after the US had lost interest in them. Also, don't forget that the US was just as meddlesome in middle- and south american and most parts of Africa. Still, they do not pose as much of a problem today.

The situation in the middle east is way more complicated than "the US is there; everybody hates them for it". Still, in the end, I would not say that Ron Paul is totally wrong here (and I imagine his actual views are more detailed than those portrayed in this video). But I'm not sure that his solution of "Let's all just go home" is the best way to address the situation. The US can use their global military presence to help bring the democratization that the people in the middle east want (and that the US has at times denied them before). They did so with Libya; they could do so again. A middle east that actually likes the US is the best defense, no matter where the troops are.Agreed totally. I think the whole "let's bring everyone home and never deploy them unless in defense of our country" view is a bit simplistic in the modern world.

Ward Dragon
22-12-11, 12:04
@ Cochrane, I completely agree with you. However I'm not so sure that Ron Paul's position is more complicated than what's in the video. That's basically all I've heard from him so far (stuff along the lines of our problems are our fault for interfering with other countries and everything will be better if we don't get involved in anything else ever again).

Agreed totally. I think the whole "let's bring everyone home and never deploy them unless in defense of our country" view is a bit simplistic in the modern world.

Yeah, it made sense a few hundred years ago because it was a pain in the ass for another country to get on a boat, come all the way across the ocean, and fight a war here. But nowadays there are weapons that could easily wipe out thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands as a first strike. We can't afford to just sit back and for example let Ahmedinejad get nuclear weapons after he's expressly said that he intends to use them on Israel or the US if ever gets them. However Ron Paul has said in the past that we shouldn't try to ban countries like Iran from getting nuclear weapons because he thinks that's none of our business. From all his statements on foreign policy that I've heard so far, he seems to think we should just sit back and watch the world burn until we get burnt too. But by then it's probably too late.

Draco
22-12-11, 12:47
^ You just convinced me that I really don't want Ron Paul to get the nomination. He thinks our actions provoked 9/11? Extremists have been murdering innocent people since before the US even existed. It's unacceptable to blame the victims. If he really thinks it's our fault that we got attacked, then he doesn't understand who attacked us which means he's not equipped to handle national security.

Look into Charlie Wilson's War. It is ALL connected. You can't go stomping around someone's holiest ground without pissing them off.

Ward Dragon
22-12-11, 19:38
Look into Charlie Wilson's War. It is ALL connected. You can't go stomping around someone's holiest ground without pissing them off.

Or alternatively they can't go around murdering people without pissing us off. Why do we have to be passive and let a bunch of thugs do whatever they want, including murder our friends and allies?

Draco
22-12-11, 23:57
Or alternatively they can't go around murdering people without pissing us off. Why do we have to be passive and let a bunch of thugs do whatever they want, including murder our friends and allies?

Who said anything about being passive? :confused:

Ward Dragon
23-12-11, 01:47
Who said anything about being passive? :confused:

How exactly is Ron Paul's strategy different from being passive?

Draco
23-12-11, 10:44
Ron Paul's strategy is constitutional for one, for two it isn't aggressive (which has been our strategy for the last several decades), and third, how many terrorist attacks did we endure before meddling around where our noses don't belong? That's right, none.

Ward Dragon
23-12-11, 17:18
Ron Paul's strategy is constitutional for one, for two it isn't aggressive (which has been our strategy for the last several decades), and third, how many terrorist attacks did we endure before meddling around where our noses don't belong? That's right, none.

So in other words, his strategy is passive. He thinks everything will get better if we simply don't do anything and let every other country do whatever they want.

patriots88888
23-12-11, 18:26
I believe a big part of Ron Paul's appeal is that he talks a good game. That said, talk is cheap and unless the voters feel confident that his ideas/ideals will work in practice, I believe when it comes time to pull the lever many will think twice and probably steer clear of choosing him. He relies too heavily on sensationalism and while some might be drawn to that, I think most can see right through it all. There's no need to shout and be so dramatic to get your message across, the message (if it's a worthy one) should speak for itself (although to be fair, from what I've seen thus far he's not the only one).

So in other words, his strategy is passive. He thinks everything will get better if we simply don't do anything and let every other country do whatever they want.

Yea, sure sounds that way to me as well. I think there's an obvious danger in that as we learned the hard way from WWII. I understand that it's kinda like being caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to US involvement and WWII is a good model to go by to see this. Our president at the time (FDR) did just about all he could to avoid getting involved and the rest of the world (while I don't want to say despised us for it) they did wonder why we were so hesitant given our military strength and the fact that one of our biggest allies (Great Britain) was a big part of that conflict. Now if we get involved we as a country receive backlash for poking where others feel we don't belong... it's a no win situation. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I think it's best to do what is in our country's best interests and the hell with what the naysayers have to say about it. The way I look at it, it's easy for others to be critical when they don't have anything (or at least not nearly as much) to lose.

Mad Tony
23-12-11, 19:21
Yea, sure sounds that way to me as well. I think there's an obvious danger in that as we learned the hard way from WWII. I understand that it's kinda like being caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to US involvement and WWII is a good model to go by to see this. Our president at the time (FDR) did just about all he could to avoid getting involved and the rest of the world (while I don't want to say despised us for it) they did wonder why we were so hesitant given our military strength and the fact that one of our biggest allies (Great Britain) was a big part of that conflict. Now if we get involved we as a country receive backlash for poking where others feel we don't belong... it's a no win situation. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I think it's best to do what is in our country's best interests and the hell with what the naysayers have to say about it. The way I look at it, it's easy for others to be critical when they don't have anything (or at least not nearly as much) to lose.Very well said. Makes me laugh when people bitch about the US being "late" to World War II and then complain about them being the "world police" today. It's not even as clear cut as that. The US was involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor, just indirectly. We were getting lend-lease aid from the US way before then. Not only that, but FDR had a congress full of Ron Paul's to contend with.

patriots88888
23-12-11, 19:39
Very well said. Makes me laugh when people bitch about the US being "late" to World War II and then complain about them being the "world police" today. It's not even as clear cut as that. The US was involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor, just indirectly. We were getting lend-lease aid from the US way before then. Not only that, but FDR had a congress full of Ron Paul's to contend with.

Well, just to be clear I believe there's a definite distinction between policing the world and supporting our allies... especially when asked. As in the case with Libya, the US was asked for that support because we were in a position to lend it and for anyone that has a problem with that, I really don't understand where their heads are at.

Are we as a country to believe that we will be more liked and better respected for passively sitting back and watching others crash and burn? I think not.

Ward Dragon
23-12-11, 20:38
Well, just to be clear I believe there's a definite distinction between policing the world and supporting our allies... especially when asked. As in the case with Libya, the US was asked for that support because we were in a position to lend it and for anyone that has a problem with that, I really don't understand where their heads are at.

Are we as a country to believe that we will be more liked and better respected for passively sitting back and watching others crash and burn? I think not.

Exactly :tmb: That's how I see it too. Of course some of the US's actions in the past were ill-considered and backfired on us, but all that means is that we need to be more careful about what we do in the future. We still need to help our allies and take action against serious threats to our national security.

Draco
23-12-11, 22:56
So in other words, his strategy is passive. He thinks everything will get better if we simply don't do anything and let every other country do whatever they want.

Well, this statement clearly shows some lack of perspective. If another sovereign nation was sending soldiers to your town, because someone heard a rumor from someone who read it in a toilet stall at a truck stop in Kentucky that your country had nuclear weapons and/or intended to inflict grievous harm on another nation, would you be okay with that? Because that is what you are coming across as saying.

Well, just to be clear I believe there's a definite distinction between policing the world and supporting our allies... especially when asked.

Indeed there is. Supporting our allies got us into the Vietnam War, which our ally ran out on incidentally. Not that I don't think we should support our allies, but we definitely need to consider the ramifications more. Policing the world is what got us into the mess we are in now. We have more military bases in countries that we are BFFs with than we do in our own nation... not exactly defending America is it.

We still need to help our allies and take action against serious threats to our national security.

Not even Ron Paul disagrees with that.

Eros5th
24-12-11, 03:17
I changed my mind about Paul. I prefer Huntsman...

Where is Dennis's Mom?

Ward Dragon
24-12-11, 04:12
Well, this statement clearly shows some lack of perspective. If another sovereign nation was sending soldiers to your town, because someone heard a rumor from someone who read it in a toilet stall at a truck stop in Kentucky that your country had nuclear weapons and/or intended to inflict grievous harm on another nation, would you be okay with that? Because that is what you are coming across as saying.

Your statement shows a lack of perspective. Let's say a gang is living next door to your friend and keeps bragging that they have weapons and will use them against your friend first chance they get. Wouldn't you want the police to investigate and try to stop them from killing anyone? Because that's essentially what's going on with for example Ahmedinejad saying that he wants to nuke Israel as soon as he gets nuclear weapons. When Ron Paul says it's not our business whether Iran has nukes, he's either extremely ignorant or he truly doesn't care if thousands of people in Israel get murdered.

Not even Ron Paul disagrees with that.

So what exactly does Ron Paul want to do to address serious threats, such as Ahmedinejad threatening to nuke our allies? Because so far all I've heard from Ron Paul is that nothing is our business and we shouldn't do anything to stop anybody else from committing genocide.

Draco
24-12-11, 05:20
Your statement shows a lack of perspective. Let's say a gang is living next door to your friend and keeps bragging that they have weapons and will use them against your friend first chance they get. Wouldn't you want the police to investigate and try to stop them from killing anyone? Because that's essentially what's going on with for example Ahmedinejad saying that he wants to nuke Israel as soon as he gets nuclear weapons. When Ron Paul says it's not our business whether Iran has nukes, he's either extremely ignorant or he truly doesn't care if thousands of people in Israel get murdered.

First of all, Iran isn't even really pursuing nuclear weapons. Second of all, Iran's President is a gelding blowhard, he doesn't have any actual power. Third, the people of Iran don't want a war and the Persian people are historically very persuasive.

I'd also like to point out that it is our fault the Ayatollah is in power. So Iran actually following through would be a point in Ron Paul's favor.

So what exactly does Ron Paul want to do to address serious threats, such as Ahmedinejad threatening to nuke our allies?

That threat is about as serious as a four year old asking you to buy him a car.

Because so far all I've heard from Ron Paul is that nothing is our business and we shouldn't do anything to stop anybody else from committing genocide.

Then you haven't been listening.

Ward Dragon
24-12-11, 08:08
^ So basically Ron Paul's strategy is to ignore all serious threats and then if anything bad happens just blame it on America's past actions?

Cochrane
24-12-11, 10:56
First of all, Iran isn't even really pursuing nuclear weapons. Second of all, Iran's President is a gelding blowhard, he doesn't have any actual power. Third, the people of Iran don't want a war and the Persian people are historically very persuasive.

I'd also like to point out that it is our fault the Ayatollah is in power. So Iran actually following through would be a point in Ron Paul's favor.



That threat is about as serious as a four year old asking you to buy him a car.



Then you haven't been listening.

The IAEA has officially confirmed that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. It would be stupid to ignore at least the possibility. And yes, I don't think Iran wants to really attack Israel, but nuclear weapons in Iran do not help the stability of the region. The president may be isolated politically, but there is no guarantee that his successor (in power, not necessarily title) will be any calmer. Meanwhile, Israel is probably the most aggressive nation around, and if they feel their security interests are endangered, it will be harder to stop them from taking action than to encourage them. And any military action between the two would at least make the rest of the region jumpy.

Sure, one could just ignore that. One could just ignore a possible unrest in an area where most of the world's transportable energy comes from. One could ignore a war involving a country whose products many american companies (and to sme degree the military) depend on. But I don't think this ignoring is required by the US constitution, and I also have doubts that it will lead to greater happiness and prosperity for the citizens of the USA.

Dennis's Mom
24-12-11, 11:57
Ron Paul's strategy is constitutional for one, for two it isn't aggressive (which has been our strategy for the last several decades), and third, how many terrorist attacks did we endure before meddling around where our noses don't belong? That's right, none.

I beg to differ. Have you forgotten OK City? It's important to point that out, because Timothy McVeigh is EXACTLY the sort of person Ron Paul Libertarian party has targeted for support through the ages: anti-government types. That does not mean I'm drawing a line between Paul and OK City. I'm merely pointing out that historically, the libertarian party has latched onto whatever anti-government sentiment they could for support. They allied with the hippies in the sixties, and racists more recently.

I don't disagree that our involvement in certain regions makes us a target and costs us buttloads of money we don't have. But pretending not being involved will stop that is naive. We're a target because the people of the middle-east need a big bugaboo to blame for their own regimes' failures, and the regimes themselves know this and have been more than happy to blame the US directly or by proxy through Israel for all their problems.

Also, don't let's forget that merely "supporting our allies" costs dearly too. Almost 1200 people died when the Lusitania sank because we were "supporting our allies" but refusing to actually become "involved" in WWI.

If you're "supporting", you're in the war as far an any enemy is concerned. I don't think they're a grey area in this. I don't think you get to cross your fingers and cry "foul! See, I had my fingers crossed!" as if that meant you weren't playing the game.

Draco
24-12-11, 14:20
I beg to differ. Have you forgotten OK City? It's important to point that out, because Timothy McVeigh is EXACTLY the sort of person Ron Paul Libertarian party has targeted for support through the ages: anti-government types. That does not mean I'm drawing a line between Paul and OK City. I'm merely pointing out that historically, the libertarian party has latched onto whatever anti-government sentiment they could for support. They allied with the hippies in the sixties, and racists more recently.

Timothy McVeigh did what he did because he wanted to overthrow the government because he was convinced it was a tyrannical entity mainly for what happened in Waco and Ruby Ridge. The only similarity between him and Ron Paul is that neither wants a big government.

I don't disagree that our involvement in certain regions makes us a target and costs us buttloads of money we don't have. But pretending not being involved will stop that is naive.

Well it will both take us out of the spotlight and vastly reduce our military expenditures... how can it not stop it?

We're a target because the people of the middle-east need a big bugaboo to blame for their own regimes' failures,

No, not really. The people only resent us for meddling in their daily lives.

and the regimes themselves know this and have been more than happy to blame the US directly or by proxy through Israel for all their problems.

It's called passing the buck.

Also, don't let's forget that merely "supporting our allies" costs dearly too. Almost 1200 people died when the Lusitania sank because we were "supporting our allies" but refusing to actually become "involved" in WWI.

World War II was clearly a threat against the United States, Ron Paul isn't going to ignore clear and present danger to our nation.

If you're "supporting", you're in the war as far an any enemy is concerned. I don't think they're a grey area in this. I don't think you get to cross your fingers and cry "foul! See, I had my fingers crossed!" as if that meant you weren't playing the game.

I think you are taking the word 'supporting' the wrong way and far too literally.

Dennis's Mom
24-12-11, 18:46
*sigh* The Lusitania was sunk during the first World War, the "Great War," "the "war to end all wars." The US at the time pursued a policy of non-intervention--but supported our allies like Great Britain.

There is only one kind of support---literal. You either do or you don't.

As for you naive and limited view of Middle East governments, we shall agree to disagree. They will never believe we aren't interfering regardless.

Draco
24-12-11, 19:15
*sigh* The Lusitania was sunk during the first World War, the "Great War," "the "war to end all wars." The US at the time pursued a policy of non-intervention--but supported our allies like Great Britain.

Right, well the First World War was almost entirely a European war.

There is only one kind of support---literal. You either do or you don't.

You think? Supporting our allies does not equal leading the invasion of a nation that has nothing to do with anybody.

As for you naive and limited view of Middle East governments, we shall agree to disagree. They will never believe we aren't interfering regardless.

My naivete? Maybe you have forgotten already, but every single one of those countries has been in existence far longer than the US. Their regional problems have always been there and WE are supremely arrogant and naive to think WE have the solutions to ANY of their problems.

American arrogance is going to get us all killed. Well not me, I'm always ready for the crapstorm.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 19:23
World War II was clearly a threat against the United States, Ron Paul isn't going to ignore clear and present danger to our nation.Would he really? During the early years of World War II many American politicians spoke out against possible US involvement as they didn't think there was a threat. They sounded very much like Ron Paul in fact.

Draco
24-12-11, 19:30
Would he really? During the early years of World War II many American politicians spoke out against possible US involvement as they didn't think there was a threat. They sounded very much like Ron Paul in fact.

I don't know why you think Ron Paul is a carbon copy of politicians in office before he was even old enough to know what politics is.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 19:32
I don't know why you think Ron Paul is a carbon copy of politicians in office before he was even old enough to know what politics is.I never said he was a carbon copy, I'm just saying his views are very similar to those of isolationist politicians during the 1930s.

Draco
24-12-11, 19:34
I never said he was a carbon copy, I'm just saying his views are very similar to those of isolationist politicians during the 1930s.

But Ron Paul isn't isolationist...

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 19:36
But Ron Paul isn't isolationist...As far as foreign policy goes he is.

Draco
24-12-11, 20:32
As far as foreign policy goes he is.

No, he isn't.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 20:34
No, he isn't.Oh no wait, everyone else is just aggressive right?

Draco
24-12-11, 21:12
Oh no wait, everyone else is just aggressive right?

He's Non-Interventionist. I'm pretty sure we've been over this before.

North Korea is Isolationist.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 21:57
He's Non-Interventionist. I'm pretty sure we've been over this before.

North Korea is Isolationist.That's a rather extreme example.

Draco
24-12-11, 22:00
That's a rather extreme example.

Whatever it takes to get the point across.

As it stands right now, the US is the least isolationist nation on earth.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 22:46
Whatever it takes to get the point across.

As it stands right now, the US is the least isolationist nation on earth.My point was that one doesn't have to advocate doing a North Korea to be an isolationist.

Indeed, and that's the way it should be as things stand.

Cochrane
24-12-11, 23:00
The US as the least isolationist? I guess one could do a study about that, because when it comes to open borders or treatment of immigrants (including tourists, but also those who legally want to stay and those that reached the country via illegal means), or what countries one has business relations with, I think there are quite a few that are more open than the US. But that's besides the point.

In fact, I'm not sure that there is any point to this debate at all. Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination. I'm wondering whether he even wants to. His main role is to push the Overton window around. He sets topics in the debate scene that other candidates would not have brought up on their own, and forces them to give answers. And since everyone wants his supporters when he does drop out of the race, all candidates have to say at least some things that sound vaguely Paul-like, and that libertarians will play back at them if they do become presidents. By his candidacy, Ron Paul influences the behavior of the future president, if it is a republican. His limited appeal outside of a small bubble of strong supporters and his complete lack of appeal to people who feel more centric, let alone liberal, make him a rather unsuitable presidential candidate.

I say Ron Paul will not be elected president, in 2012 or ever. If I'm wrong, I'll buy each member of TRF an ice cream cone when I next meet them.

Mad Tony
24-12-11, 23:06
£100 to TRF if Ron Paul becomes president. It just isn't going to happen.

Draco
25-12-11, 04:19
One can dream.

DarkHawk
25-12-11, 05:10
Well, if he's ever had a shot, it's now...

Ward Dragon
25-12-11, 17:33
He's Non-Interventionist. I'm pretty sure we've been over this before.

Yeah, you keep saying that but your explanations of what it actually means are very vague. Of course it obviously means no military intervention, but what about other forms of intervention? Would Ron Paul support any of the following: setting up negotiations between other countries, participating in treaties, sending financial and material aid to our allies, helping to train other countries' police or military personnel (without actually doing any fighting or policing ourselves), economic sanctions, or natural disaster relief?

If he's willing to do any of that, then it's still seen as "intervention." And if he's not willing to do any of that, then he's isolationist. Not to mention, like Dennis's Mom pointed out, the extremists truly despise us for interference in the form of our entertainment media. There's no way to put that genie back in the bottle. We can't prevent books, movies, shows, music, etc. from being pirated in another country.

So even if Ron Paul completely pulled the US military out of everywhere and never intervened with anything, the extremists would still hate us because our entertainment media threatens their way of life by showing people that they can have a different lifestyle from what the extremists want for them.

TombRaiderFan.
26-12-11, 09:36
I can understand a moderate amount of help to allies, but when it gets to the point that we have to stop looking out for our own interests to invest on some other country's, then there's something wrong.

Funny, I was talking to my South Korean friend the other day, asking her if she was afraid of North Korea now because they're changing leaders. She's not worried at all, her rely: "I don't care, the US will come and help us."

I don't get why we have to go around the world defending our "allies" when they don't even bother to invest their own god damn money on defending themselves. I can understand a moderate amount of help, but we've basically turned into bodyguards. Worst of all, after we finish fighting someone else's fight we gain new haters.

Mad Tony
26-12-11, 09:52
I can understand a moderate amount of help to allies, but when it gets to the point that we have to stop looking out for our own interests to invest on some other country's, then there's something wrong.

Funny, I was talking to my South Korean friend the other day, asking her if she was afraid of North Korea now because they're changing leaders. She's not worried at all, her rely: "I don't care, the US will come and help us."

I don't get why we have to go around the world defending our "allies" when they don't even bother to invest their own god damn money on defending themselves. I can understand a moderate amount of help, but we've basically turned into bodyguards. Worst of all, after we finish fighting someone else's fight we gain new haters.You seriously need to take a look at South Korea's military. They have a very big army and spend a lot of money on it. At least research this stuff first.

TombRaiderFan.
26-12-11, 10:21
You seriously need to take a look at South Korea's military. They have a very big army and spend a lot of money on it. At least research this stuff first.

I never said South Korea has a tiny military. I used my friend's quote as an example to give a sense of how our allies just take us for granted. Stop trying to add 2+2 because you're not very good at it.

Mad Tony
26-12-11, 10:27
I never said South Korea has a tiny military. I used my friend's quote as an example to give a sense of how our allies just take us for granted. Stop trying to add 2+2 because you're not very good at it.You basically said that South Korea don't invest their own money into defending themselves and I was pointing out that in actual fact, they do. Nothing to do with putting 2 and 2 together.

Who says the South Koreans do take the US for granted anyway? Regardless of what your friends think, what do the people who rule South Korea think?

Draco
26-12-11, 12:55
Are you saying that the only people whose opinions matter are the ones in power?

Mad Tony
26-12-11, 13:06
Are you saying that the only people whose opinions matter are the ones in power?Nope, although I think you knew that anyway.

Ward Dragon
26-12-11, 19:21
I can understand a moderate amount of help to allies, but when it gets to the point that we have to stop looking out for our own interests to invest on some other country's, then there's something wrong.

Funny, I was talking to my South Korean friend the other day, asking her if she was afraid of North Korea now because they're changing leaders. She's not worried at all, her rely: "I don't care, the US will come and help us."

I don't get why we have to go around the world defending our "allies" when they don't even bother to invest their own god damn money on defending themselves. I can understand a moderate amount of help, but we've basically turned into bodyguards. Worst of all, after we finish fighting someone else's fight we gain new haters.

As far as I know, South Korea likes us and hasn't said or done anything bad against us. And North Korea hates everybody. So if North Korea attacks South Korea and we help defend our allies, the people who liked us still like us and the people who hated us still hate us.

South Korea is already a fairly stable country with good infrastructure, so there's no chance of whoever's the US president at the time deciding that we need to stay there to help out after the fight's over. I really don't think defending South Korea is comparable to the situation with Iraq, which was badly handled because Bush had our army acting like police instead of soldiers (should have just helped train the Iraqi police and then got out).

TombRaiderFan.
27-12-11, 09:29
You forget to mention they hate us for a reason. You don't expect anyone to believe that they just hate us because we're free and rich and they're not, do you?
Regardless, I believe in helping those who likes us--I never suggested otherwise--but we need to start focusing less on fighting other countries' wars and start focusing more on our own problems. Sure we'll help here and there, but we need to stop mindless wars without considering the aftermath. The last thing we need is more people hating us, especially the ones that like to make things go boom.
This "we'll occupy your land because we fear you may be thinking about attacking us in the future" idea is just crazy.

Mad Tony
27-12-11, 10:08
Most of the time it's a case of people being manipulated into hating the west/US. Most Middle Eastern countries aren't that well off and most aren't anywhere close to being democratic. This is largely due to their backwards laws and societies (although I accept not everybody in the Middle East supports things like the suppression of women and so on). Instead of looking to themselves, leaders of these nations or people with influence will simply blame the west for all their problems and manipulate the general population into doing the same thing.

I really don't like it when people try and suggest the US somehow provoked 9/11 or that it's partly justified. Terrorism is never justified, not least against civilians.

TombRaiderFan.
27-12-11, 11:55
Then you must really hate Ron Paul.

Draco
27-12-11, 11:56
Justification has nothing to do with it. It's called Cause and Effect.

You can't throw rocks into the Middle Eastern Pool without getting splashed... or the rocks thrown back.

Mad Tony
27-12-11, 12:20
Then you must really hate Ron Paul.Huh? What does that have to do with what I just said? :confused:

Draco
27-12-11, 22:40
Huh? What does that have to do with what I just said? :confused:

You do it to everyone else, so why pretend you have no idea?

Mad Tony
27-12-11, 23:33
You do it to everyone else, so why pretend you have no idea?Do what to everyone else?

Draco
28-12-11, 00:59
Do what to everyone else?

:rolleyes:

Mad Tony
28-12-11, 01:00
:rolleyes:Are you not going to tell me then? :confused:

Draco
28-12-11, 01:02
You got Mad Tony'ed, I dunno what else to tell you.

Mad Tony
28-12-11, 01:08
You got Mad Tony'ed, I dunno what else to tell you.Care to explain what that is?

Dennis's Mom
28-12-11, 11:43
And that's the end of that. Please get back on topic.

Draco
10-02-12, 22:35
The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign released the following statement regarding the results of yesterday’s election results. See comments below from Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Manager John Tate.

“We are thrilled with the yesterday’s results. Our campaign to Restore America continues to gain ground, and we are poised to pick up even more delegates from Minnesota and Colorado adding to our delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

“As people across the country view the results of yesterday’s contests, it is important to consider a few facts that have not been clearly reported. Not one single delegate was awarded yesterday, instead the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado were the very first step in the delegate selection process. And there are still over 40 states left to go. The Ron Paul campaign plans to continue to vie for delegates nationwide.

“There are a few significant takeaways from yesterday’s contests to remember:

1) The Missouri primary means nothing. It was a non-binding beauty contest, and the contest that matters in the ‘show me’ state won’t take place for another month. The Ron Paul campaign is well positioned to win delegates in Missouri’s caucus a month from now.

2) As in Iowa where not 1 of the 28 delegates has been awarded yet, in Colorado and Nevada the Paul campaign will do very well in the state delegate counts. We will have good numbers among the actual delegates awarded, far exceeding our straw poll numbers.

3) In Minnesota where we have finished a solid second, we also have a strong majority of the state convention delegates, and the process to elect delegates has also just begun, the Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there.

“We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:

In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.

In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.

In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.

We are also seeing the same trends in Minnesota, Nevada, and Iowa, and in Missouri as well.

“We may well win Minnesota, and do far better in Colorado than yesterday’s polls indicate.

“In the latest national poll from Reuters/Ipsos Poll, Ron Paul places a strong second with 21 percent, gaining ground on his main competitor nationally, Mitt Romney, whose support seems to be fading at 29 percent. Congressman Paul’s support has grown by 5 percentage points nationally since January, while Romney has seen a 30 percent decline in his support since January.

“This poll follows a January 30th Gallup Poll showing Dr. Paul within the margin of error of defeating Obama. Also, a January 16th CNN/ORC Poll showed Congressman Paul and Obama in a virtual tie in a general election showdown.

“Yesterday’s contests were significant, but not a decisive or a conclusive end to this race. Our campaign will keep pushing forward and continue to take our message of liberty all the way to the convention. This race after all is about delegates, not about beauty contests.”

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-02-08/ron-paul-winning-the-battle-for-delegates/

Ward Dragon
10-02-12, 23:33
http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-02-08/ron-paul-winning-the-battle-for-delegates/

Wait, so has he actually won those delegates yet or is this simply his projection of what he expects to win? Everything I could find says he only has a handful of delegates so far:

http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates/

Catracoth
06-03-12, 04:17
**** it, I totally support Obama. I’m sick of everyone who voted for him in ‘08 complaining about how “disappointed” they are. Guess what? He’s a real human, not a magician or a unicorn or a marketing campaign about dreams. Did he live up to everything he said on the campaign trail? No. Does any politician? No. Does that make voting for a republican (and seriously, take a LOOK at the republicans) or not voting better? No.

If the U.S. does not re-elect that man, the little respect they’ve gained in the world will disappear. Honestly. I know everyone in Europe was pretty damn ecstatic when they finally voted someone into office who was qualified, smart and someone who was passionate about his work.

voltz
06-03-12, 05:34
Well I have to give Obama credit. He's done everything he could with a do-nothing congress blocking him over everything. Things would be just peachy if those ass-clowns weren't so hell bent on getting one of their own in that seat.

Mad Tony
06-03-12, 07:15
**** it, I totally support Obama. I’m sick of everyone who voted for him in ‘08 complaining about how “disappointed” they are. Guess what? He’s a real human, not a magician or a unicorn or a marketing campaign about dreams. Did he live up to everything he said on the campaign trail? No. Does any politician? No. Does that make voting for a republican (and seriously, take a LOOK at the republicans) or not voting better? No.

If the U.S. does not re-elect that man, the little respect they’ve gained in the world will disappear. Honestly. I know everyone in Europe was pretty damn ecstatic when they finally voted someone into office who was qualified, smart and someone who was passionate about his work.I'm no Paul fan but I think this is a little one-sided to say the least. Firstly, how exactly did Ron Paul not do what he said he would do? He's notorious for voting no to so many things and as far as I know he hasn't changed in that respect. Again I must stress that I really do not like Ron Paul but I don't know how you can criticize him for this?

Secondly, the Republicans are very much like the Democrats in many respects. It's not like one party is a force for good where as one is evil, as you seem to be making out. The only reason why so many people were so ecstatic in Europe when Obama was elected is because the media here and in the UK are so ridiculously biased against the Republicans that people here think they're the Nazi Party Mk2. The ironic thing is foreign policy-wise virtually nothing has changed with America, yet over here Bush is seen as the devil where as everybody loves Obama. Just goes to prove my point really.

Besides, who actually cares what Europe thinks of your leader? I really do hope that's not one of your voting criteria. Vote for who you want to lead your country, not who most Europeans want to lead your country.