Ron Paul: Don't cut NPR GTFO of Afghanistan

ZEB · March 20, 2011, 5:43pm

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The sooner he is in the white house the better.[/quote]

Paul is a good man, and I agree with him on many things. But he will NEVER EVER become President. Nor, will he EVER be included on the ticket. The best he can hope for is a cabinet post. And that is somewhat of a long-shot.[/quote]

While I’m a big supporter of Dr. Paul the likelihood of him becoming president is slim to none, and slim is out of town. Nevertheless, he should run for president again to educate the public.[/quote]

I don’t know about that, right now for the Tea Party support it is between him and Cain. Besides those two I don’t see who could beat Obama, Huckabee isn’t going to run.[/quote]

Please don’t walk around thinking that Paul could beat Obama. You have contributed much to this forum of substance. None of it has anything to do with Ron Paul. When it comes to Paul you have a very large blind spot. If Paul were fortunate enough to win the republican nomination (which he WILL NOT) he would get beaten so badly by Obama it would make the Reagan/ Mondale election look like a squeaker.

One more time:

1-Too old and tends to sound like he’s whining.

2-He is the anti-charisma candidate. People with zero charisma look at him and say “At least I have more charisma than Ron Paul.”

3-Too radical (to pull the middle)

4-Congressmen don’t get elected President(maybe it happened once 100 years ago).

5-The MSL media would beat him up so bad in comparison it would look like they were just playing around with Sarah Palin.

You really have to give up this idea that Paul is ever going to get elected to anything other than the seat he currently holds in the House. Just walk away man. I know you believe in the things that he espouses but find another candidate who actually has at least a ghost of a chance.

pittbulll · March 20, 2011, 6:13pm

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

on the subject of war, I like Ron Paul.[/quote]

x2 , I also like his views on the war on drugs , if Paul were President , he would definitely go a long way to balancing the budget , if he did not get carried away with tax cuts

John_S1 · March 20, 2011, 6:33pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The sooner he is in the white house the better.[/quote]

Paul is a good man, and I agree with him on many things. But he will NEVER EVER become President. Nor, will he EVER be included on the ticket. The best he can hope for is a cabinet post. And that is somewhat of a long-shot.[/quote]

While I’m a big supporter of Dr. Paul the likelihood of him becoming president is slim to none, and slim is out of town. Nevertheless, he should run for president again to educate the public.[/quote]

I don’t know about that, right now for the Tea Party support it is between him and Cain. Besides those two I don’t see who could beat Obama, Huckabee isn’t going to run.[/quote]

Please don’t walk around thinking that Paul could beat Obama. You have contributed much to this forum of substance. None of it has anything to do with Ron Paul. When it comes to Paul you have a very large blind spot. If Paul were fortunate enough to win the republican nomination (which he WILL NOT) he would get beaten so badly by Obama it would make the Reagan/ Mondale election look like a squeaker.

One more time:

1-Too old and tends to sound like he’s whining.

2-He is the anti-charisma candidate. People with zero charisma look at him and say “At least I have more charisma than Ron Paul.”

3-Too radical (to pull the middle)

4-Congressmen don’t get elected President(maybe it happened once 100 years ago).

5-The MSL media would beat him up so bad in comparison it would look like they were just playing around with Sarah Palin.

You really have to give up this idea that Paul is ever going to get elected to anything other than the seat he currently holds in the House. Just walk away man. I know you believe in the things that he espouses but find another candidate who actually has at least a ghost of a chance.
[/quote]

Didn’t the tea party just dominate the house saying the same thing Ron Paul has been saying? Also now that Rand is the darling of the tea party, see his new 5 year balanced budget plan.

With Food prices beginning to soar by the time elections come around the true force in inflation will have hit; and with the economy being the main things voters care about it will be hard for his age or the MSLM to tear him down, considering he has been warning about this since 1976.

Who can debate Paul in economics in the Republican Primary? Who else has warned about this? Romney can’t, Herman Cain could possibly till it becomes known he worked for the Federal Reserve then no Ron Paul supporter is going to vote for him so he will most likely crash in the primary because no Ron Paul supporter is going to vote for him in the primary/and possibly the election.

ZEB · March 20, 2011, 7:44pm

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The sooner he is in the white house the better.[/quote]

Paul is a good man, and I agree with him on many things. But he will NEVER EVER become President. Nor, will he EVER be included on the ticket. The best he can hope for is a cabinet post. And that is somewhat of a long-shot.[/quote]

While I’m a big supporter of Dr. Paul the likelihood of him becoming president is slim to none, and slim is out of town. Nevertheless, he should run for president again to educate the public.[/quote]

I don’t know about that, right now for the Tea Party support it is between him and Cain. Besides those two I don’t see who could beat Obama, Huckabee isn’t going to run.[/quote]

Please don’t walk around thinking that Paul could beat Obama. You have contributed much to this forum of substance. None of it has anything to do with Ron Paul. When it comes to Paul you have a very large blind spot. If Paul were fortunate enough to win the republican nomination (which he WILL NOT) he would get beaten so badly by Obama it would make the Reagan/ Mondale election look like a squeaker.

One more time:

1-Too old and tends to sound like he’s whining.

2-He is the anti-charisma candidate. People with zero charisma look at him and say “At least I have more charisma than Ron Paul.”

3-Too radical (to pull the middle)

4-Congressmen don’t get elected President(maybe it happened once 100 years ago).

5-The MSL media would beat him up so bad in comparison it would look like they were just playing around with Sarah Palin.

You really have to give up this idea that Paul is ever going to get elected to anything other than the seat he currently holds in the House. Just walk away man. I know you believe in the things that he espouses but find another candidate who actually has at least a ghost of a chance.
[/quote]

Didn’t the tea party just dominate the house saying the same thing Ron Paul has been saying?[/quote]

Are you making an argument that he is right, or that he is electable?

John, most voters are not like you and I. They don’t walk around with a history of who was right on what topic. They are more worried about why little Stevie can’t behave in school, or what bowling league they might join. I’m not putting down the average voter, they’re just not political junkies. They pay attention about one month from the election. They look at both candidates and most make an emotional decision. When they look at Paul for perhaps the first time they won’t hear what he has to say. What they’ll be wondering is why is this old man running for President? No thanks!

let’s say Paul is a master of economic debate. Do you think that will win it for him? As I’ve said before on these very threads, Nixon schooled Kennedy in the first televised debate. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. Those who watched it on television thought Kennedy won. What we learned was that the media age had arrived and politics would never be the same again. And with the birth of the Internet we are even further down the road to electing personality and looks over those who have substance (not to say that there have not been candidates who had both). But since that time period the most charismatic candidate of the two (best looking, best speaker etc.) has been elected President. You are not blind you know where Paul falls in that regard.

You’re best hope is to get behind a candidate who is friendly toward Paul. As I’ve said the best he can hope for is a high level cabinet appointment. Secretary of the Treasury perhaps.

John_S1 · March 21, 2011, 2:27am

Zeb, perhaps if Obama and Ron Paul where to debate before Obama was president the looks would matter, but after Obama gets done with his 4 years of fucking America with inflation people are going to be rejecting him outright.

Lets say for the sake of argument that inflation isn’t as bad as I think it is going to get and gas is around 5.50 a gallon and true unemployment is at 10%, you really think voters are going to give him another shot just because an old man is running against him?

ZEB · March 21, 2011, 3:14am

[quote]John S. wrote:
Zeb, perhaps if Obama and Ron Paul where to debate before Obama was president the looks would matter, but after Obama gets done with his 4 years of fucking America with inflation people are going to be rejecting him outright.

Lets say for the sake of argument that inflation isn’t as bad as I think it is going to get and gas is around 5.50 a gallon and true unemployment is at 10%, you really think voters are going to give him another shot just because an old man is running against him?
[/quote]

Let’s look at history shall we? Jimmy Carter reigned over a horrible economy. Runaway inflation and interest rates, gas lines etc. And a charismatic Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by only 9%. Granted 9% is usually a huge margin in a Presidential race. But given the fact that the economy was in the dumpers and the Gipper was THE most charismatic man to run for the office in modern day one would think that it would have been a gigantic landslide. But Jimmy Carter had some charisma of his own with that big southern smile. And of course the incumbent has an advantage that’s all there is to it. And in addition to that as I’ve said most people vote their emotions. Ron Paul would lose to Obama by probably 20%. It would be a loss of monumental proportions.

Please, stop thinking Ron Paul will even capture the republican nomination - He will not! He will be pulling up the tail end of a losing campaign close to, or in last place just as he has done every time that he’s run.

There will never be a Ron Paul Presidency, not now not ever.

Sorry man.

John_S1 · March 21, 2011, 6:44am

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Zeb, perhaps if Obama and Ron Paul where to debate before Obama was president the looks would matter, but after Obama gets done with his 4 years of fucking America with inflation people are going to be rejecting him outright.

Lets say for the sake of argument that inflation isn’t as bad as I think it is going to get and gas is around 5.50 a gallon and true unemployment is at 10%, you really think voters are going to give him another shot just because an old man is running against him?
[/quote]

Let’s look at history shall we? Jimmy Carter reigned over a horrible economy. Runaway inflation and interest rates, gas lines etc. And a charismatic Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by only 9%. Granted 9% is usually a huge margin in a Presidential race. But given the fact that the economy was in the dumpers and the Gipper was THE most charismatic man to run for the office in modern day one would think that it would have been a gigantic landslide. But Jimmy Carter had some charisma of his own with that big southern smile. And of course the incumbent has an advantage that’s all there is to it. And in addition to that as I’ve said most people vote their emotions. Ron Paul would lose to Obama by probably 20%. It would be a loss of monumental proportions.

Please, stop thinking Ron Paul will even capture the republican nomination - He will not! He will be pulling up the tail end of a losing campaign close to, or in last place just as he has done every time that he’s run.

There will never be a Ron Paul Presidency, not now not ever.

Sorry man.[/quote]

Who is going to be able to stand up to him in the primaries? Romney? Palin? Cain? I would say the only challenge he has in the primary is Romney, and if Romney pulls it out I am voting Obama just to spite the GOP.

John_S1 · March 21, 2011, 6:51am

Here is Ron Paul speaking in Iowa, the crowd that is very receptive to him is a Huckabee crowd, he is gaining major ground here in Iowa with Huckabee supporters.

Eli_B · March 21, 2011, 7:00am

Paul/McCain 2012!

gerby · March 21, 2011, 7:07am

Tax cuts paying for themselves is not theology. It has actually happened over and over again throughout our history, and also the history of other countries and colonies. The problem with liberals is that they do crap that sounds good and feels good, but typically has disasterous results. As far as elections go, we’ve been listening to people about nominating an “electable” candidate, only to usually lose the election. McCain was a very electable candidate who did great with everybody in the center. Now Obama is president and screwing everything up.

I was talking with a friend about the “clean air act” (or whatever the hell it was called) that Carter signed into law. It basically penalized power plants for upgrading their technology (any improvements that they made had to be met with improvements to EVERYTHING in the plant). The result was that it was cost prohibitive to upgrade or expand. All technology up until that point was grandfathered in. So, when energy demands increased, instead of just expanding to meet the needs of the times, they had to dust off 1940’s era generaters and use those. Power plants still today are forced to use crap that was made as emergency wartime equipment because they can’t afford to comply with the regulations (Bush was creamed in the press for reducing those regs, which actually resulted in less pollution for these plants).

Make no mistake about it, when you look at the actual results of public policy democrats have obliterated the environment, the black community, our education system, and we’re 14 trillion dollars in debt. I could go on. What needs to be fixed isn’t who we elect, it is our culture and mentality in general. We’re all entitled to everything and nobody cares about future generations. Hell, 14 trillion in debt and Harry Ried says we can’t cut funding for cowboy poetry. Game over guys. Game over.

ZEB · March 21, 2011, 2:17pm

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Zeb, perhaps if Obama and Ron Paul where to debate before Obama was president the looks would matter, but after Obama gets done with his 4 years of fucking America with inflation people are going to be rejecting him outright.

Lets say for the sake of argument that inflation isn’t as bad as I think it is going to get and gas is around 5.50 a gallon and true unemployment is at 10%, you really think voters are going to give him another shot just because an old man is running against him?
[/quote]

Let’s look at history shall we? Jimmy Carter reigned over a horrible economy. Runaway inflation and interest rates, gas lines etc. And a charismatic Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by only 9%. Granted 9% is usually a huge margin in a Presidential race. But given the fact that the economy was in the dumpers and the Gipper was THE most charismatic man to run for the office in modern day one would think that it would have been a gigantic landslide. But Jimmy Carter had some charisma of his own with that big southern smile. And of course the incumbent has an advantage that’s all there is to it. And in addition to that as I’ve said most people vote their emotions. Ron Paul would lose to Obama by probably 20%. It would be a loss of monumental proportions.

Please, stop thinking Ron Paul will even capture the republican nomination - He will not! He will be pulling up the tail end of a losing campaign close to, or in last place just as he has done every time that he’s run.

There will never be a Ron Paul Presidency, not now not ever.

Sorry man.[/quote]

Who is going to be able to stand up to him in the primaries? Romney? Palin? Cain? I would say the only challenge he has in the primary is Romney, and if Romney pulls it out I am voting Obama just to spite the GOP.[/quote]

First of all John, you’re either not paying attention to my posts, or you must have some sort of counter which you have not posted. As I’ve pointed out to you time and again it doesn’t matter who the best debater is. I even gave you the Kennedy/Nixon example. But none of this means a thing to you. All you see is Ron Paul being the best debater and a sage when it comes to debate and mastering the issues. A national election is so much more than this, as I’ve explained already.

I guess I’ll just have to say it one last time and then I won’t come back. Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President because he’s an old man who sounds like he’s whining. He has a lack of charisma that is unequalled in American politics at this level. It doesn’t matter how much he knows about the economy, or that he is a strict constitutionalist (as if the average voter cares about that one). All that will matter is that he will be standing next to Mitt Romney or, anyone else (pick any other viable candidate) and he looks bad. End of story. I know you don’t want to think that people are that shallow but as I’ve already explained and poll after poll every four years tells us, most people don’t start paying attention to the Presidential election until about 30-60 days away from the election. And when they do they mostly vote their emotion. You are a rare breed John especially for your age, and I admire you for that. But most people especailly the ones who start paying attention 30-60 days out don’t understand the issues and they vote on emotion.

Now unless you have some facts which prove me wrong I suggest you lighten up with the Ron Paul rhetoric it’s only making you look bad. And keep in mind that I am not enjoying these little reminders to you. I wish that you were correct. While I don’t fully agree with everything that Paul stands for he is so much better than Obama I’d trip over myself getting to the voting booth to vote for him, but that choice will NEVER come.

Your spiteful move to vote for Obama is immature and beneath your intelligence level. After Paul is defeated why not pick the best candidate who is left and vote for him? Do you think I liked voting for McCain in 08’? Nope. But he was absolutely head and shoulders better than the inexperienced lefty we now have.

thunderbolt23 · March 21, 2011, 2:27pm

[quote]miloofcroton wrote:

If you find him, let me know.[/quote]

I will. And if I don’t find him, I’ll run.

thunderbolt23 · March 21, 2011, 2:32pm

[quote]John S. wrote:

Who is going to be able to stand up to him in the primaries? Romney? Palin? Cain? I would say the only challenge he has in the primary is Romney, and if Romney pulls it out I am voting Obama just to spite the GOP.[/quote]

You really have an unbelievably distorted sense of reality. Paul ran last time, and didn’t demolish the opposition in debates, and he wouldn’t do it this time either.

Outside of his sloppy and unrealistic thinking - he reduces economics down to dealing with abstract people who don’t really exist and is a constitutionalist revisionist - he is small, quirky-sounding, has no gravitas. He will drift into conspiratorial thinking, and he comes off as a kooky old man. He sounds like he is immune to common sense. No sane person would think that the sputtering Paul is the man you want in the Oval Office.

Get serious.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · March 21, 2011, 4:13pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Yeah, who you going for? You found anyone yet?[/quote]

Nope, and it seems like the choices are between hospital food and airplane food.

I want a candidate (the party affiliation is less and less important) who:

Insists on balanced budgets and cuts in spending, and renounces the supply-side theology that tax cuts pay for themselves
Gets China, and I mean really gets China, and plans on setting the US on a path of freeing us from that “entangling alliance” - “free trade” has simply translated into “free weapons” for the Chinese elite
Insists on real entitlement reform (i.e., raising of age limits on SS, possibly even means-testing)
Insists on busting up the big banks so that “too big too fail” becomes moot, as nothing will be “too big”
Insists on bona fide institutional reform - talks about term limits, more transparency in government, neutral redistricting rules, earmark bans, waiting periods on laws (public viewing before enactment, etc.),
Gets serious about reforming our agricultural policy (i.e., phase-out subsidies, but promote domestic agrilcultural producton)
Get serious about diversifying our energy portfolio (i.e., expanding domestic production of both fossil fuels and alternatives)
Wants to protect the value of the dollar so that saving - and thus the middle class - isn’t penalized

For starters.[/quote]

Hahahahaha! Good luck.

Mufasa · March 21, 2011, 4:40pm

Now…I know LIFT has scolded me in the past that “all issues are economic”…but one other problem with Paul is his strong “economic focus”.

On the Primary trail and during debates, I just don’t get the feeling that he would fare very well on issues that did not have a “primary” economic focus.

Mufasa

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · March 21, 2011, 4:52pm

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now…I know LIFT has scolded me in the past that “all issues are economic”…but one other problem with Paul is his strong “economic focus”.

On the Primary trail and during debates, I just don’t get the feeling that he would fare very well on issues that did not have a “primary” economic focus.

Mufasa[/quote]

If Paul doesn’t do well when he talks about issues that are not a “primary economic focus” it is because the unwashed masses do not understand that everything in the end must come down to sound economics. A weak economy weakens everything – including a country’s “national defense”, for example.

He is not the best speaker but he is the best person currently in a position to educate the masses. Fortunately his son is now a Senator and may have better pull with the public in the near future. We’ll see.

(The fact that he is now able to talk about the gold standard before congress with actual witnesses that support it amazes me. There may be hope for the future, yet.)

pittbulll · March 21, 2011, 4:53pm

[quote]Eli B wrote:
Paul/McCain 2012![/quote]

Why the fuck McCain ?

John_S1 · March 21, 2011, 5:17pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Who is going to be able to stand up to him in the primaries? Romney? Palin? Cain? I would say the only challenge he has in the primary is Romney, and if Romney pulls it out I am voting Obama just to spite the GOP.[/quote]

First of all John, you’re either not paying attention to my posts, or you must have some sort of counter which you have not posted. As I’ve pointed out to you time and again it doesn’t matter who the best debater is. I even gave you the Kennedy/Nixon example. But none of this means a thing to you. All you see is Ron Paul being the best debater and a sage when it comes to debate and mastering the issues. A national election is so much more than this, as I’ve explained already.

I guess I’ll just have to say it one last time and then I won’t come back. Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President because he’s an old man who sounds like he’s whining. He has a lack of charisma that is unequalled in American politics at this level. It doesn’t matter how much he knows about the economy, or that he is a strict constitutionalist (as if the average voter cares about that one). All that will matter is that he will be standing next to Mitt Romney or, anyone else (pick any other viable candidate) and he looks bad. End of story. I know you don’t want to think that people are that shallow but as I’ve already explained and poll after poll every four years tells us, most people don’t start paying attention to the Presidential election until about 30-60 days away from the election. And when they do they mostly vote their emotion. You are a rare breed John especially for your age, and I admire you for that. But most people especailly the ones who start paying attention 30-60 days out don’t understand the issues and they vote on emotion.

Now unless you have some facts which prove me wrong I suggest you lighten up with the Ron Paul rhetoric it’s only making you look bad. And keep in mind that I am not enjoying these little reminders to you. I wish that you were correct. While I don’t fully agree with everything that Paul stands for he is so much better than Obama I’d trip over myself getting to the voting booth to vote for him, but that choice will NEVER come.

Your spiteful move to vote for Obama is immature and beneath your intelligence level. After Paul is defeated why not pick the best candidate who is left and vote for him? Do you think I liked voting for McCain in 08’? Nope. But he was absolutely head and shoulders better than the inexperienced lefty we now have.[/quote]

Two things are different this time around then anywhere else in history, first is the Tea Party, no one can deny at this point they are not a power house and right now we are deciding if we are going to back Ron Paul or Herman Cain. The winner of this will solidify 30%.

Now the second is people actually are paying attention to the economy. Obama’s approval on the economy is at an all time low, with inflation rising faster and faster each month more and more people are going to get worried about it, especially the poor and lower middle class. That was Obama’s bread and butter in the election.

We also have to take into account the Internet in this election, and no one has a following that can run and internet campaign like Paul. Now like with all elections people watching the media will skyrocket, and with Fox being the number 1 news channell that is where most are going to get their information, now if Fox does what it did last election cycle then yeah your right he is going to get crushed big time, If they report on him like they did with McCain, you will see him Crush Obama. Also take into account CNN likes him which is a good thing as they are the second biggest Media outlet on television.

If the GOP does not put Ron Paul up then I have to re-evaluate why I am with the GOP and not just make a break and vote strictly Libertarian, hence why I would vote for Obama over Romney any day much rather have a Liberal with a D behind his name then a Liberal with an R behind it. Tho I do like Gary Johnson that could be a compromise.

ZEB · March 21, 2011, 5:24pm