The Official Ron Paul Thread

[Invictus]

Its nice to see the audience finally ending the debate censoring of Ron Paul by booing the moderator.

If you think im making this up google Ron Paul 90 seconds debate time.

[bk94si]

Paul is done, if he ever really started. As candidates drop out, their supporters are going to others. I expect to see his percentages to stay the same while others go up.

[BlackDragon24]

Paul is done, if he ever really started. As candidates drop out, their supporters are going to others. I expect to see his percentages to stay the same while others go up.

I agree. RP's biggest problem is that he just won't gain any more support. As the other candidates drop out he doesn't pick up any of their supporters.

[Keven]

I agree. RP's biggest problem is that he just won't gain any more support. As the other candidates drop out he doesn't pick up any of their supporters.

Paul can't get above a certain threshold of support in these Republican primaries because his supporters aren't Republicans. They're Reddit kiddies and anti-war civil libertarians (Invictus). Ron Paul's supporters aren't Republicans and that's why he can't get above the 22% he's had the whole primary season. When Bachmann/Perry/Santorum/Gingrich supporters give up, they just shuffle among st the other candidates because they can't reconcil Paul's foreign policy believes with their own. I mean, Barack Obama (who sent the Navy SEALs to kill those Somali pirates, who sent Delta Force to kill OBL and who sent the drones into Libya and Pakistan) is further to the right on foreign policy than Ron Paul.

Here's a great piece about Paul from the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer:

There are two stories coming out of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.

Romney won a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead of No. 2. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were diminished by distant, lower-tier finishes. Rick Perry got less than 1 percent.

But the bigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire, the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very different electorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other more moderate and fiscally conservative.

Paul commands a strong, energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the other candidates. They're out to win. He admits he doesn't see himself in the Oval Office. Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign. Paul is less a candidate than a "cause," to cite his election-night New Hampshire speech.

Paul was genuinely delighted with his election results, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he's within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party.

His goal is to make himself leader of the opposition — within the Republican Party.

Paul won't quit before the Republican convention in Tampa.

The Democratic convention will be a tightly scripted TV extravaganza extolling the Prince and his wise and kindly rule. The Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul's opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message a Republican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last.

Put aside your own view of libertarianism or of Paul himself. I see libertarianism as an important critique of the Leviathan state, not a governing philosophy. As for Paul himself, I find him a principled, somewhat wacky, highly engaging eccentric. But regardless of my feelings or yours, the plain fact is that Paul is nurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

Paul is 76. He knows he'll never enter the promised land. But he's clearing the path for son Rand, his better placed (Senate versus House), more moderate, more articulate successor.

And it matters not if you find amusement in libertarians practicing dynastic succession. What Paul has wrought is a signal achievement, the biggest story yet of this presidential campaign.

[Nate]

It's amazing to see a guy get hung out to dry because of one aspect of his campaign. Like the rest of them are any better?

It's a much better idea to keep wasting lives and money on wars we have no chance of winning. The only way to change the culture in the middle east is to eliminate it.

See sig.

[Invictus]

Paul can't get above a certain threshold of support in these Republican primaries because his supporters aren't Republicans. They're Reddit kiddies and anti-war civil libertarians (Invictus). Ron Paul's supporters aren't Republicans and that's why he can't get above the 22% he's had the whole primary season. When Bachmann/Perry/Santorum/Gingrich supporters give up, they just shuffle among st the other candidates because they can't reconcil Paul's foreign policy believes with their own. I mean, Barack Obama (who sent the Navy SEALs to kill those Somali pirates, who sent Delta Force to kill OBL and who sent the drones into Libya and Pakistan) is further to the right on foreign policy than Ron Paul.

The sad thing is, in national polls only Paul and Romney beat or tie Obama. Newt Gingrich doesn't even come close. Nominating him would be essentially a concession. Romney, as much as i dislike him would fair far better the Newt. Though nominating either is essentially more of the same.

I don't think i would label myself as Anti-War.Though is anyone really pro-war?
I would say im anti military industrial complex. There is a big difference between fighting and milking. Right now were being milked dry by contractors and over sea obligations. It just doesn't rationally make sense to support it.

I would never suggest we back down from a fight. I'm generally not the turn the other cheek type. But going out and looking for a fight for sheer profit is a totally different thing.

[kbohip]

Paul can't get above a certain threshold of support in these Republican primaries because his supporters aren't Republicans.

I think you might be right Kevin. I really haven't felt like a Republican for years after the sorry ass choices they've tried to shove down my throat for the last 20 years. I mean seriously, first it was Bob Dole, then it was W., which was the BEST candidate they've had since Reagan, then it was McCain. These have been my options since I've started to vote. Now it looks like Gingrich may actually have a chance at the presidency. Newt F-ing Gingrich! One of the worst, dirtiest, politicians Washington has ever known! Yeah, I'm saying it right here and now. I'm no longer considering myself a "republican".

[Maxius]

i personally think if ron paul does not get the rep nomination he will run as a third party candidate thus stealing votes from the rep nominee

[tucker]

I knew I should have just stayed away from this thread. Have fun convincing the rest of the US that isolationism is a winning strategy and that RP's foreign policy is not lunacy guys. No sale here, but good luck anyway.

My exact sentiments…

I think it can safely be said if Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are the best the libertarians have to offer they’ll never be a major political force.

As near as I can tell libertarianism is a combination of extreme right and extreme left.

As Barbara Walters might say “two wongs don’t make a wight”…

[kbohip]

My exact sentiments…

I think it can safely be said if Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are the best the libertarians have to offer they’ll never be a major political force.

As near as I can tell libertarianism is a combination of extreme right and extreme left.

As Barbara Walters might say “two wongs don’t make a wight”…

And if Newt Gingrich is the best Republicans have to offer? Hahahaha.

[Keven]

My exact sentiments…

I think it can safely be said if Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are the best the libertarians have to offer they’ll never be a major political force.

As near as I can tell libertarianism is a combination of extreme right and extreme left.

As Barbara Walters might say “two wongs don’t make a wight”…

Nader is a libertarian? He's practically the father of the modern nanny state.

I don't give a damn if my Corvair is unsafe at any speed, Ralph Malph.

[tucker]

And if Newt Gingrich is the best Republicans have to offer? Hahahaha.

Hey, I think Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich is the worst choice the republicans can make. The man with a 1000 closets filled with crazy ideas, questionable/unethical behavior, carcasses of those he stepped on and bad legislation. He’s the republican version of Nancy Pelosi.

Obama and his Chicago thugs are trying to make this election about the republican candidate and Newt is the answer to their dreams.

He is the father of RINOISM.

[Invictus]

My exact sentiments…

I think it can safely be said if Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are the best the libertarians have to offer they’ll never be a major political force.

As near as I can tell libertarianism is a combination of extreme right and extreme left.

As Barbara Walters might say “two wongs don’t make a wight”…

Except for the fact that Nader is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Paul.

[Invictus]

[falcon_view]