Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think if you were to review my earlier posts in this thread you'd see that I put Paul's chances of winning at something less than 1<< million, so it's hardly news to me. It's just a matter of time before the Republicans squeeze him off the stage.

regardless.....Hillary is going to win it irrespective of whomever the Republicans nominate.

As I often say, and as I truly believe, people get the government they deserve and they get it good and hard.

pshh, dont count out Obama. I think he could beat out hillary...no, he MUST beat out hillary!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

yeah....he's polling a close 2nd on last night's debate. I believe the implication is that one can make a complete fool of himself and still beat most of the Republican field.

Alex...did you watch the debate? I don't really give a crap about politics a full two years before the election (sheesh).

However I saw someone post that foxnews was slandering or trying to make Paul look bad. I would be shocked if it were during the debate as I find Brit Hume to be emminently professional. Possibly he was talking about later coverage or something.

[wmbwinn]

The Republicans really did look pathetic. There is not a Republican worthy of becoming president in the whole pack. And, generally, I vote Republican. So, I am really annoyed.

What really gets me is that the two poll leaders (McCain and Giuliani) are far enough left in their views that they could run as Democrats as well.

So, in my opinion, the Democrats have already won the election because it will be a Democrat running against a fellow Democrat wearing a Republican nametag.

Here is a fun game for you:
List Hillary Clinton's platform on any 12 items. List Giuliani's platform on the same 12 items. Try to find a place where they disagree???? Now, the real kicker: take the names or labels off of your list and give it to 10 people. Ask them to guess which platform belongs to a Democrat and which platform belongs to a Republican. Another question would be to ask 10 people to pick which platform is Hillary's and which is Giuliani's.

I think that that little game will open a lot of people's eyes. There is no difference in a Giuliani presidency and a Hillary presidency.

I might even vote for Hillary. I'd rather have a Democrat in office that all Republicans hate. That way, they will fight her on everything and stalemate everything resulting in no changes anywhere...

If Giuliani somehow won, then the Republicans would be "over the barrel" trying to figure out how to oppose his Democrat party platform without fighting against their own Party's leader...

I suspose I can think of one possible difference in Giuliani and Hillary. Giuliani might nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court to avoid really upsetting the Republicans across the nation. Hillary would definitely nominate a woman who had already had ten abortions while wearing the Judge's robes during the procedure...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Alex...did you watch the debate? I don't really give a crap about politics a full two years before the election (sheesh).

However I saw someone post that foxnews was slandering or trying to make Paul look bad. I would be shocked if it were during the debate as I find Brit Hume to be emminently professional. Possibly he was talking about later coverage or something.

sorry, one more thing dude1394. I haven't read my mail in a really long time and I finally answered a message you sent me a very long time ago. Sorry for the late response.

[dude1394]

Sorry wmbwinn...Still can't vote democrat. We got ruth bader ginsberg if you recall.

[Rhylan]

Anyone who's heard McCain talk economics knows he couldn't run as a Democrat in a zillion years.

[EricaLubarsky]

I actually like Ron Paul and old-school McCain.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Alex...did you watch the debate? I don't really give a crap about politics a full two years before the election (sheesh).

However I saw someone post that foxnews was slandering or trying to make Paul look bad. I would be shocked if it were during the debate as I find Brit Hume to be emminently professional. Possibly he was talking about later coverage or something.

I didn't watch the debate -- I've just perused some recaps. I understand that Hannity commented more than once that this would or should be Paul's last debate. Hannity is no fan of Paul so perhaps there was a bit of malice in his tone.

[usafreedom3]

Fear not conservatives, libertarians, or those who love their country (yes I did leave liberals out on purpose) as Fred Thompson is your choice for 2008. He will be announcing soon, and will win!!! Check him out!

http://draftfredthompson.com

[Ninkobei]

Here's an article on the fox news blowoff of a debate. Kinda makes you wonder how much power those who askthe questions have...

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...ttack_paul.htm

honesetly with the kinds of questions that were asked, it seems likely that they hurt their own party.

[usafreedom3]

Fox News did not blow off the debate. I thought they asked tough and direct questions of all candidates. Ron Paul deserved the blowback he got for that ridiculous comment about our attackers and why they attacked us.
I like the guy, and think he is a good voice to have in the debates and in Congress, but he did himself no favors the other night. Don't blame it on FOX News for gosh sakes. There are no helicopters over your house either.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

Fox News did not blow off the debate. I thought they asked tough and direct questions of all candidates. Ron Paul deserved the blowback he got for that ridiculous comment about our attackers and why they attacked us.

Yes, Paul deserved what he got -- afterall, he stated that a significant contributing factor in Bin Laden's motivation was our presence in the middle east prior to 9-11. This is factual, widely recognized and easily demonstrable, notwithstanding that it is an unpalatable truth in certain circles (ie, the Fox News Circle).

Some politicians need to learn that they can't be honest if they want to do well in national elections.

[usafreedom3]

If you really think that, then you are naive. This is a religious war, and they hate us because of who we are and what we stand for, not where we are. You seem like a very intelligent guy, albeit a tad bit of an anarchist, but if you read up on Islam, read any credible books of former jihadists, communicate with some former Jihadists, they will clearly tell you that I am correct.

[alexamenos]

incidentally....

--------------------

what Ron Paul said:

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there..."

----------------

what Bin Laden said in his infamous 1998 fatwa calling for the murder of American civilians:

...for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula....

....The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post....

....All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims....

...On that basis...The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...

-----------------------

what the multi-divorced, lisping, pro-transvestite, baby-killer said:

"I don't think I have ever heard that before...."

-------------------

what we may conclude about Giuliani and Paul:

-Paul was just stating some really remedial facts;

Giuliani was either lying or ignorant, tho the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

[usafreedom3]

Dude, you are killing me. I know what Bin Laden said, and what you wrote above is all correct. He is just using these things to gin up islamo-fascists.

My point is the real reason they want to kill us is that they want us to either submit to Islam, or die. We are infidels to them, whether we are over there or not. Are we to believe these people with everything that they say?
I simply think that the idea that we can take our toys and go home, put up walls around America, and be safe is total BS.

Peace through strength!!!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

If you really think that, then you are naive. This is a religious war, and they hate us because of who we are and what we stand for, not where we are. You seem like a very intelligent guy, albeit a tad bit of an anarchist, but if you read up on Islam, read any credible books of former jihadists, communicate with some former Jihadists, they will clearly tell you that I am correct.

yeah, yeah, yeah....

This is so true that merely bringing up the fact that Bin Laden quite publicly stated that muslims should attack the Americans because Americans spend so much time effing around in the mid-east is grounds for being compared to Michael Moore.

...and I can just see Abdul Sixpack sitting on his back porch thinking.....'ya know, I see US troops hanging out all over our holy land, killin' kids and little ole ladies and whatnot. That doesn't bother me so much but when I see Brittany Spears shaking that ass on TV I just want to hijack a plane and go hurdling into a tall building.'

anyhoo....next time I sit down and have a cup of coffee with a jihadist, I'll be sure to ask him what the hell he's thinking.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

My point is the real reason they want to kill us is that they want us to either submit to Islam, or die.

Oh yes...can someone please hand me a towel? Urine is running down my leg from the fear of muslim hoardes invading the US and forcing us to submit to Islam....

a long, long time ago in a forum far, far away I wrote a little bit outlining my assessment of al-qaeda and their ilk....perhaps I can track it down and post it here, tho I believe we're getting a bit far from the subject of this thread.

[usafreedom3]

I tried to help you, but cannot do it. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions are just like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

Good luck with the fence around your house dude. Call me if a jihadist knocks on your door! I will come help you kick his arce.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

I tried to help you, but cannot do it. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions are just like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

Good luck with the fence around your house dude. Call me if a jihadist knocks on your door! I will come help you kick his arce.

Thanks so much for your attempt to help me. I mean your line "the real reason they want to kill us is that they want us to either submit to Islam, or die" was so very enlightening. I'm sure someone more susceptible to sound logic and facts than I would have been instantly swayed by such profundity.

here's my previous take on Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, a post I put together in another forum in '04 ( way back when most people still thought the Iraq war was a pretty cool thing to do).
-------------

...I like to say that in chess, the player that finds better moves for his opponent than his opponent can find for himself always wins. That is -- to play chess well you have completely put yourself in your opponent's chair and play his side of the board with even more intensity and concentration than you play on your side of the board.

Attempting to drive the point home -- the key to being a cutthroat, merciless, and brutal chessplayer - one who can not only checkmate their opponent but intellectually humiliate them in the process - is to first immerse oneself into an objective respect and empathy for the opponent.

It's the fool that assumes his opponent is stupid, lazy, irrational, and won't find all the good moves. In that regard, a few pertinent notes on Bin Ladin & Al-Qaeda:

a) Bin Ladin is a revered hero to a lot of muslims for his role in the Soviet-Afghan war. That he lived and fought on the frontlines with many of the Mujahideen while using his riches to fight the godless Soviets is seen as prototypical-ideal Muslim behavior;

b) He is by virtually all accounts quiet, pious, extraordinarily patient, plain spoken and consistent in his devotion to Islam;

c) He is enormously talented and resourceful -- while in Sudan during the mid-90's, Bin Ladin managed to build several profitable businesses while organizing a world-wide-war against the US. I submit that building one profitable business is a very hard thing to do, even without the extra burden of mounting an insurgent war against the world's most powerful nation/military;

d) His (and al-Qaeda's) objective is plainly to overthrow what he (they) regard as corrupt/apostate governments in the Middle-East, and create sort of a pan-islamic "ummah" (community of believing muslims);

e) To that end, Bin Ladin believes that it is first necessary to strike at the US which, in his view, provides the muscle to many of the apostate regimes -- once US muscle is removed, the regimes will fall in his view;

f) In Bin Ladin's view, the point where the US is most susceptible to being mortally wounded is in its economic base, which is the source of its strength;

g) Bin Ladin's chief challenge in the muslim world is convincing other muslims that al-Qaeda's war on the US is a defensive jihad -- that the Zionists and the Crusaders are mounting an attack on Islam and that it is therefore an obligation by every Muslim to fight in the jihad; and

h) A secondary challenge for Bin Ladin is convincing other militant Muslims who are sympathetic is the need to fight the *far* enemy (the US) before fighting the *near* enemy (apostate regimes) directly.

In short, we're confronted with an enormously talented, very determined, and most of all, widely revered, warrior with clearly stated goals and a plan that is *rational* (wrt said goals). We're not simply dealing with terrorists, we're dealing with insurgent soldiers who employ tactics that we deem to be *terrorism*.

In that regard, isolating and marginalizing bin Ladin have been very prudent things to do. Bush et al's dismissal of the ideal that Bin Ladin was of central importance was a very prudent thing to do -- alive he's moderately dangerous, as a martyr he's #### lethal.

Of course, he has challenges on his end -- mainly getting recruits which means he has to convince lots of other Muslims to actively join his cause. In that regard, our foolish War on Iraq is a cluster fuck of epic proportions. In taking out a western, secularist regime we have given Bin Ladin extremely convincing 'round-the-clock propaganda for his argument that the US is on a crusade to take over muslim lands.
------------------

Pt being, I think perhaps the real reason they want to kill us is that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that we provide the muscle to prop up apostate regimes . In order to remove those apostate regimes and create a pan-islamic ummah, they must first force us to withdraw from the middle east.

Of course, I understand that others believe that they want to kill us because we have Brittany Spears on the TV and they'll get 70 virgins when they go to heaven. Perhaps that explanation is simply too complicated for my little mind.

but thanks again, anyway.

cheers

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sorry wmbwinn...Still can't vote democrat. We got ruth bader ginsberg if you recall.

Yea, I noted that problem at the end of my note where I said Hillary would nominate a woman who had already had ten abortions and was wearing her Judge's robe during the procedure while the media pointed their cameras at her to record it all for Michael Moore's next movie...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Anyone who's heard McCain talk economics knows he couldn't run as a Democrat in a zillion years.

On economics and the military, McCain is generally a Republican. On moral issues, McCain is a Democrat. On the second amendment, McCain is a Liberal.

Compare him/contrast him to Lieberman. Lieberman is a military Republican and an economic Democrat and quiet on moral issues.

I'm just not a fan of fence sitters.

[I_am_Queens_Blvd]

I can't vote for a guy with 2 first names...just a rule I have...

[alexamenos]

A little follow-up on Ron pwns Rudy.....

Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point
Monday , May 21, 2007

By Radley Balko

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.

What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.

This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates.

Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.

This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.

Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:

— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.

The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.

Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.

[Ninkobei]

so with Ron Paul in the picture now...can we expect him to play a Ross Perot role? Obviously he has followers with the GOP.
The question is, will he take away the Republicans votes or Democrats

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so with Ron Paul in the picture now...can we expect him to play a Ross Perot role? Obviously he has followers with the GOP.

I would say that he has followers who have occassionally voted for the GOP because the GOP, historically, has pretended to believe some of the things that Paul professes and practices. Personally, I've always thought the Republican party was as corrupt and worthless as the Democratic party, and I believe the last 8 years have proven me unequivocally correct. But aside from patting myself on the back.......

Pt being, there's two kind of GOP Paul backers -- 1) the GOP Party Member; and 2) the advocate of Paul's brand of strict constructionist libertarianism who in the past has been suckered into voting for the GOP. Of these two types of Paul - backers, GOP Party Members are very few and far between -- these are the guys doing what they can to keep Paul off the stage in future events. The other type will follow Paul to a third party (after he is inevitably chased off the GOP stage), or probably just stay home this year.

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

The question is, will he take away the Republicans votes or Democrat

neither....

...the votes he will garner (if any) will come from people who aren't interested in the Republican or Democratic candidte in the first place.

I would say this was true of the Perot or Naders voters as well -- the idea that Perot *took* votes from the elder Bush or that Nader *took* votes from Gore is just sour grapes from partisans who backed deeply flawed and unappealing candidates.

Cheers

[usafreedom3]

www.draftfredthompson.com

A conservative, a Federalist, and a man of principle who can win.
Nobody is trying to get Ron Paul out of the debates. As long as he draws a certain % of the vote then he belongs. At some point, unless he gets his % numbers up, he will naturally drop off. He has some very diehard fans, but his take on terrorism, and his unwillingness to flat out deny ridiculous 911 conspiracy theories do not help him. Cheers to you

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

Nobody is trying to get Ron Paul out of the debates.

Saul Anuzis, Chairman of Michigan GOP, petitioned to exclude Ron Paul from future debates because Paul's opposition to the Iraq war. IOW, it is a fact that high-ranking GOP members want to exclude Paul from debates, and your statement is therefore factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

his unwillingness to flat out deny ridiculous 911 conspiracy theories...

This *ridiculous 911 conspiracy theory* as you call it is cited in the 911 Commission report and backed by the CIA's former head of the Bin Laden unit, among others. That you would refer to Paul's views as a *ridiculous conspiracy theory* indicates that you are either:

a) incredibly stupid and ignorant; or
b) intellectually dishonest.

Inasmuch as only three posts prior to your last post in this thread is a post which lays out Paul's views and the concept of blowback, I cannot reasonably imagine that you are just stupid and ignorant. You must therefore also be quite a liar, and I generally prefer to deal with liars as little as possible.

cheers, and please go somewhere else.

alex

[Ninkobei]

Well Ross Perot managed a decent amount of the total votes 19% of the popular vote. So Surely he took votes from one of the candidates.

What I'm asking is, what are the chances of the GOP removing Ron Paul from their party and having him run Independently? I certainly doubt he would receive 20% of the popular vote, but even 10% could influence a tight election.

And, if he ran Independently, how similar would his campaign platform be to someone like Obama?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Well Ross Perot managed a decent amount of the total votes 19% of the popular vote. So Surely he took votes from one of the candidates.

The idea that Perot *took* votes from one of this candidate presumes that the candidate (let's say Bush) had some claim on those votes in the first place. Bush didn't have any claim to those votes-- they weren't Bush's votes to begin with. How does Perot take votes from Bush that Bush doesn't have?

so...I guess you could say that had Perot not ran at all, some (most or all) of those votes might have gone to Bush. Fair enough, but that is kind of a useless construction. Had neither Bush nor Perot ran, some of their votes would have gone to Clinton. So what?

There was a common argument regarding Nader in Florida in 2000 -- Nader's votes in Florida cost Gore the election because had those Nader voters voted for Gore, Gore wins Florida and the electoral college....

...nonsense, I say. Alot of those Nader votes were votes against Gore and the Democrats -- the presumption that Gore would have received those votes and that it would have pushed him over the top was most unwarranted.

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

What I'm asking is, what are the chances of the GOP removing Ron Paul from their party and having him run Independently?

something close to 100%....

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

]I certainly doubt he would receive 20% of the popular vote, but even 10% could influence a tight election.

i'd say 3% is pretty optimistic, but let's say Paul pulls 3%....

A significant portion of that 3% may be voting for Paul rather than some other third party candidate, or rather than not voting at all. So far starters, one cannot begin to presume that votes which went to an Independent like Paul might have thrown the election one way or the other had Paul not run in the first place.

Even in the case where a fellow that's voted Republican in the last several election votes for Paul, you can't assume that this guy would have voted Republican in the absence of Paul. Like I said earlier, dis-affected voters are quite plausibly voting against major party candidates, as such a *republican* voting for Paul will quite plausibly be someone voting to show his disapproval of the Republican party. You just can't assume that the independent candidate is taking a vote from anyone else.

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

And, if he ran Independently, how similar would his campaign platform be to someone like Obama?

Very dissimilar.

but it's all moot. Hillary will win and by a landslide.

cheers

[Mavdog]

paul registers only 1% of the republicans, what makes anyone believe that he can get even to 1% of the overall voters?

that's not any better than harold stassen did the last four times he ran.

while paul is as honest as they come, and can even supply a new approach to an issue that merits thought, he is prone to what I would call intellectual stumbles.

paul wishes to turn back time. that isn't going to happen, and it is just such lack of pragmitism that will keep him on the fringe.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

paul registers only 1% of the republicans, what makes anyone believe that he can get even to 1% of the overall voters?

Why can he get more than 1% overall? Because he is registering 1% amongst Republicans, and Republicans are more prone to hate him than any other group. Most of his supporters are not republicans...i'd say easily 2 out of 3 of his supporters aren't republicans.

Also, I'd say there's better than even chances that both major party candidates will:

a) Support some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants;
b) Support continuing the war on Iraq.

Assuming that Paul gets on some ballots in the general election--you're talking about a candidate holding positions that resonate with a lot of voters who don't have any other choice.

long story short, I think his support in the republican party represents a floor, not a ceiling.

cheers

[Mavdog]

interesting. republicans "hate" the candidate that reflects the purest form of the party's ideology?

self hate you say?

nah.

I don't buy the alienated voter concept you offer. people won't be more motivated to get off their asses and vote for a candidate who says we should get less services from the state.

so, paul doesn't pull republicans, doesn't pull dems and doesn't get the previously disenfranchised voter either.

a road to nowhere it seems.

I can guarantee the dem candidate will NOT support the war in iraq.

there's an even chance the republican candidate will break with the wh on immigration as well. if thompson gets the nod, or if gingrich gets it, they'll go against the compromise.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting. republicans "hate" the candidate that reflects the purest form of the party's ideology?

you apparently haven't been paying attention to the Republican party for the last 15 or so years.

cheers

[dude1394]

nteresting. republicans "hate" the candidate that reflects the purest form of the party's ideology?

You can say the same for any political party. It's why the radicals don't get elected.

[alexamenos]

....still trying to understand how Ron Paul's views reflect the *purest form* of the Republican Party's ideology, especially considering that far more often than not he is literally alone in opposing Republican measures.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You can say the same for any political party. It's why the radicals don't get elected.

Agreed. Just because something is good, it doesn't mean that more and more and more more more of it is better.

[alexamenos]

...still not sure what this has to do with Paul and Republican ideology.

About the only thing that comes to mind is income taxes -- Republicans ostensibly want slightly lower income taxes and perhaps some reforms in the tax code. Paul wants no income taxes (I assume and I'd bet). These two positions aren't related except that they start in the same general direction.

I suppose i've heard the *too principled to be pragmatic* argument about a thousand times, and frankly it gets less compelling everytime I hear it. Nobody, nobody and nobody puts pragmatism ahead of principle -- what they do is demonstrate where their principles really lie.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

....still trying to understand how Ron Paul's views reflect the *purest form* of the Republican Party's ideology, especially considering that far more often than not he is literally alone in opposing Republican measures.

the gop is (supposedly) the party of less government, of less taxation, home of the corp of folks who want an "original intent" vision on the constitution.

is this not the essence of ron paul as well?

yes, I do believe it is....

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the gop is (supposedly).......

Supposedly?

I think it either is a thing or it isn't a thing. Which do you think it is?

regardless....the relevant question is "what is the GOP today?" Not, "what was the GOP 20 or 30 years ago?"

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Supposedly?

I think it either is a thing or it isn't a thing. Which do you think it is?

well, clearly it isn't a "thing" as it's a concept.

a concept btw that fewer and fewer republicans embrace as the philospohy of the party, which was the party of goldwater...who I suggest shares their political philosophy with the aforementioned ron paul.

regardless....the relevant question is "what is the GOP today?" Not, "what was the GOP 20 or 30 years ago?"

cheers

the gop of today is not the party of goldwater, and surely not the party of libertarians either.

especially the gop of george w bush.