Ron Paul for President???

[ABEHONEST]

To even think you 'know' its a good idea to immediately bring all the troops home (other than to make more money); that is an absurd statement/declaration to make not being intimately familiar with the details regarding what is going on over there. of course our foreign policy should be adjusted and our position abroad should be reduced but it is unwise and unsafe to silently allow him to perpetrate such a facade: pretending to know whats going on. plus if that was your plan, why would you say that on television?? these people that have died and had family die as a result of this stupid war will just wait until we withdraw and retreat and "cut our losses" financially. Then we will see if iran or iraq or north korea or afganistan/pakistan or cuba or china etc can pose an "imminent threat" like dr. paul says they can't (referencing a video i responded to on the previous page regarding this matter). hes the uninformed liberal.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that this man has the most intelligent answers to the most controversial subjects, must be wearing blinders?
Simply brilliant interview. Thanks Wolf and CNN!

[Glitch]

Anyone who doesn't recognize that this man has the most intelligent answers to the most controversial subjects, must be wearing blinders?
Simply brilliant interview. Thanks Wolf and CNN!

and in addition to intelligent answers, he also has naturally flowing answers that are really what he thinks and wants to do. hes not giving the political answers (which is refreshing.) hes telling it how it is on any platform. that is at least respectable.

[PhillyFlyers]

[OmgUrMom]

What do you expect to happen when we leave Iraq/Afghanistan? These countries have long histories of in-fighting, and that will likely continue whether or not we are there. I mean they are 3 competing factions in iraq, kurds, shiites, sunnis i believe.

[Facepunch]

That being the case. What is the point of staying in a war without end?

[OmgUrMom]

what do you guys think of herman cains 999 plan? is it feasible?

[Glitch]

That being the case. What is the point of staying in a war without end?

huge difference between staying in and a strategic withdraw. Both of these are also different than his "bring everybody home immediately" plan.

we do not know the ground conditions or situations or missions and we can not judge how or when they should be brought home most wisely.

lotsa people are for bringing the troops home but some want to do-so less recklessly.

[wtf]

how can a rational thinking american not go for ron paul?

[ABEHONEST]

how can a rational thinking american not go for ron paul?

What are saying about Bigdaddy? May have throw Glitch in there too, he's thinking there is some logical reason for keeping troops scattered all over the world. Some are being killed, too. Show me the logic where one American's life is worth sacrificing any form of security in a country 4,000 mikes away?

[Iced]

what do you guys think of herman cains 999 plan? is it feasible?

Not really. It's regressive, brings in almost the same amount of taxes as the current tax code, and Congress/future Presidents could change 9-9-9 to 14-14-14 or 38-38-38, etc.

Basically shifting the chairs on the Titanic. Doesn't really change much.

[Glitch]

What are saying about Bigdaddy? May have throw Glitch in there too, he's thinking there is some logical reason for keeping troops scattered all over the world. Some are being killed, too. Show me the logic where one American's life is worth sacrificing any form of security in a country 4,000 mikes away?

you are twisting my words. i agree that they should come home and that we should for the most part mind our own business. i am telling you- it is not so simple as ron paul makes it seem. we cant just get them all plane tickets and scratch "the war on terror" off the list of things to do.

[OmgUrMom]

how can a rational thinking american not go for ron paul?

[ABEHONEST]

you are twisting my words. i agree that they should come home and that we should for the most part mind our own business. i am telling you- it is not so simple as ron paul makes it seem. we cant just get them all plane tickets and scratch "the war on terror" off the list of things to do.

The war on terror is supposedly over "there," now. Get the hell out of "there!"

[BigdaddyQH]

Let me pose this question to all of you Ron Paul Supporters. Name me one State that he can win a primary in. Just one State. Back up your statement with facts, like the must current polls. The truth of the matter is that NONE of you can name me a State that Paul can win, because that State DOES NOT EXIST. Only the losers of the world will support another loser. Now I do not know who the GOP nominee will be, but I DO know that it WILL NOT be Ron Paul. I challenge ANYONE to find a State that Paul can win a Primary in. If you can not find a State, then keep your foolish mouths shut about this election. Paul can not win the nomination if he can not win Primaries, and my guess is that NO ONE in here will be able to show me a State that he can win. That is the bottom line, so please spare me all of your political rhetoric and opinions, which mean absolutely NOTHING to me, or the vast majority of Americans. Either name the State, or go somewheres else to cry.

[jarvol]

Let me pose this question to all of you Ron Paul Supporters. Name me one State that he can win a primary in. Just one State. Back up your statement with facts, like the must current polls. The truth of the matter is that NONE of you can name me a State that Paul can win, because that State DOES NOT EXIST. Only the losers of the world will support another loser. Now I do not know who the GOP nominee will be, but I DO know that it WILL NOT be Ron Paul. I challenge ANYONE to find a State that Paul can win a Primary in. If you can not find a State, then keep your foolish mouths shut about this election. Paul can not win the nomination if he can not win Primaries, and my guess is that NO ONE in here will be able to show me a State that he can win. That is the bottom line, so please spare me all of your political rhetoric and opinions, which mean absolutely NOTHING to me, or the vast majority of Americans. Either name the State, or go somewheres else to cry.

It is obvious you have no principles or core beliefs and just want to vote for who you think can win. That is such a sad, sad state of mind.

[PhillyFlyers]

New Ron Paul Ad--Life

[BigdaddyQH]

So you admit that Paul has absolutely no chance of winning, right? Is this not what you are saying? I have many principals and core beliefs. I try to find the candidate that best represents those principals and core beliefs, and who is ELECTABLE. It is utter and sheer stupidity to back a person that has absolutely no chance of winning. You may as well pick Georgia Southern to defeat Alabama in Football this year. I have forgotten more about politics than you will ever know. What you had better realize is that if you want to initiate change, you MUST have the votes to do so. Ron Paul is not even close to those votes. It is just like Alabama vs Georgia Southern. You have to have the horses to win the game, and Southern simply does not have them. George Patton said: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." You want to die for your beliefs. That will do nothing to further your beliefs. You have to be able to mix your beliefs with reality. I have not seen many Paul supporters who can do this. Perhaps all of you Paul supporters should get together on the night he is officially eliminated from the race, and plan one mass suicide in protest of his defeat. That makes about as much sense as anything else you Paul supporters have said.

[jarvol]

What you had better realize is that if you want to initiate change, you MUST have the votes to do so. Ron Paul is not even close to those votes.

But none of the other candidates offer anything remotely close to change.

[BigdaddyQH]

But none of the other candidates offer anything remotely close to change.

None of the other candidates offer anything that YOU consider remotely close to change. That leaves you in a bit of a dilema. You can support Paul, but after he loses, and I think that you know that he has no chance of winning, then what do you do? Do you just bury your head in the sand and let the chips fall where they may in 2012, or do you look for a candidate that best represents what you want to see changed. All I am saying is that Paul supporters should be looking at the other candidates to see who best fits their beliefs, and who could make the most number of changes that they want. The problem with the vast majority of Paul supporters is that they have no understanding about how politics really works. In order for Paul to get one economic change thru Congress, he would have to get at least 100 more radical right wing people elected to Congress, and that is simply not going to happen. You can not just say that some people may back him. The fact of the matter is that Pelosi and Bohener are against 95% of what Paul is proposing, and Paul would have no chance of getting anything passed. In the Senate, he has his son, Ron Paul, but Ron is not in real good favor with Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, and those two control the Senate.

The problem I see is that Paul supporters are unwilling to accept anything other than what he says. That is NOT the way the system works. I had a candidate that I was leaning to (Michele Bachmann), but I know that she has no chance of winning, so now I am concentrating on Romney, Cain, and Perry. I have no favorite amongst those three. I also like Newt, and he is gaining a bit, but it is probably too little, too late. I am playing the cards that the American voters will deal me. I believe that by time the Primary in California rolls around, either things will be decided, or the nomination will come down to Romney, Cain, and Perry. This is what Paul supporters have to do. Realize that they have no chance of the nomination, and start looking for an alternate candidate. This is what Paul supporters are unwilling to do, at least the majority of Paul supporters that I have seen in here in here.

[jarvol]

None of the other candidates offer anything that YOU consider remotely close to change. That leaves you in a bit of a dilema. You can support Paul, but after he loses, and I think that you know that he has no chance of winning, then what do you do? Do you just bury your head in the sand and let the chips fall where they may in 2012, or do you look for a candidate that best represents what you want to see changed.

Of course not. I will support and vote for the Libertarian candidate.....the only one who would be running that offers change.

[BigdaddyQH]

Of course not. I will support and vote for the Libertarian candidate.....the only one who would be running that offers change.

So you will support Wayne Allen Root? Really? That certainly is your option. Obviously he would lose, but at least you would be casting a vote for a legitimate candidate. At least you would vote. That is good. The next thing you shoud do is figure out if you are going to spend the rest of your life waiting for the change that you want, but will never see. Perhaps you should reform some of your opinions, but that is your choice. I am just happy to see that you would actually go out and vote, because there are many more choices that the Presidency that you will have to make.

[Glitch]

The war on terror is supposedly over "there," now. Get the hell out of "there!"

i hear ya abe. im just saying do it the smart/safe way. not the abrupt, radical, naiive way.

[BigdaddyQH]

i hear ya abe. im just saying do it the smart/safe way. not the abrupt, radical, naiive way.

I total agree with you, but if Paul came up with a smart/safe way, no one would pay attention to him. Paul's very existance as a candidate is based on naieve, radical policies. He is trying to cater to the extreme Right Wing of the GOP, and Libertarians at the same time. These radicals rarely realize the truth about American Politics until they grow up and mature. Some never do.

[PhillyFlyers]

None of the other candidates offer anything that YOU consider remotely close to change. That leaves you in a bit of a dilema. You can support Paul, but after he loses, and I think that you know that he has no chance of winning, then what do you do? Do you just bury your head in the sand and let the chips fall where they may in 2012, or do you look for a candidate that best represents what you want to see changed. All I am saying is that Paul supporters should be looking at the other candidates to see who best fits their beliefs, and who could make the most number of changes that they want. The problem with the vast majority of Paul supporters is that they have no understanding about how politics really works. In order for Paul to get one economic change thru Congress, he would have to get at least 100 more radical right wing people elected to Congress, and that is simply not going to happen. You can not just say that some people may back him. The fact of the matter is that Pelosi and Bohener are against 95% of what Paul is proposing, and Paul would have no chance of getting anything passed. In the Senate, he has his son, Ron Paul, but Ron is not in real good favor with Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, and those two control the Senate.

The problem I see is that Paul supporters are unwilling to accept anything other than what he says. That is NOT the way the system works. I had a candidate that I was leaning to (Michele Bachmann), but I know that she has no chance of winning, so now I am concentrating on Romney, Cain, and Perry. I have no favorite amongst those three. I also like Newt, and he is gaining a bit, but it is probably too little, too late. I am playing the cards that the American voters will deal me. I believe that by time the Primary in California rolls around, either things will be decided, or the nomination will come down to Romney, Cain, and Perry. This is what Paul supporters have to do. Realize that they have no chance of the nomination, and start looking for an alternate candidate. This is what Paul supporters are unwilling to do, at least the majority of Paul supporters that I have seen in here in here.

So according to you, Ron Paul has no chance of winning even though he continues to place in the top tier of every straw pool and is climbing steadily in the polls?

Maybe you need to take a second look at who has no chance of winning. Guys like Perry and Romney are going down while guys like Paul, Cain, and Gingrich are moving up.

This is going to come down to Paul, Cain, and a rapidly fading Romney.

[Glitch]

I total agree with you, but if Paul came up with a smart/safe way, no one would pay attention to him. Paul's very existance as a candidate is based on naieve, radical policies. He is trying to cater to the extreme Right Wing of the GOP, and Libertarians at the same time. These radicals rarely realize the truth about American Politics until they grow up and mature. Some never do.

this is true...its like he either thinks he can tell the future or he doesn't recognize that there is a structure in place. A system where many actions are intertwined with and rely upon other actions. He has a lot of good ideas and bad idea BUT

Everyone at least has to admit that hes pretty much the only guy speaking his mind and not trying to 'be a politician' in order to avoid disenfranchising the sides that oppose his views. He and Rick Santorum anyway.

[BigdaddyQH]

So according to you, Ron Paul has no chance of winning even though he continues to place in the top tier of every straw pool and is climbing steadily in the polls?

Maybe you need to take a second look at who has no chance of winning. Guys like Perry and Romney are going down while guys like Paul, Cain, and Gingrich are moving up.

This is going to come down to Paul, Cain, and a rapidly fading Romney.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest, and STRONGLY, that you look at todays polls that were just released. Paul is down to 5%. Gingrich is now way ahead of him. Newt is now in 3rd place in these latest polls, while Paul is far, far behind. Please do not give me any more crap about Paul gaining in the polls. Show me the proof. Show me one poll that has Paul ahead in any primary. You can not because you are lying. I am calling you out. Prove me wrong. Show me the poll. Show me which poll places hin in the top tier nationally in the polls. Cut the B.S. You are not dealing with some bonehead Paul supporter here. You are dealing with someone who knows more about politics than the rest of this site added up.

[815Sox]

God no. I don't understand what people see in this hard right bible thumper. The "Free Market" is a myth and we have seen the effect that deregulation has had.

Ron Paul is not going to win, nobody knows who he is. A large majority of those that do know who he is feel he is far far too radical for them. I have argued to death with Paul Supporters and their is just no reasoning with them

Ron Paul Supporters = Larouchies

[Glitch]

God no. I don't understand what people see in this hard right bible thumper. The "Free Market" is a myth and we have seen the effect that deregulation has had.

Ron Paul is not going to win, nobody knows who he is. A large majority of those that do know who he is feel he is far far too radical for them. I have argued to death with Paul Supporters and their is just no reasoning with them

Ron Paul Supporters = Larouchies

this is not really true anymore i dont think. lotsa people know him. he is making a name for himself pretending like he doesnt understand congress and the system of checks and balances. how is he going to do all the things HE says that the current system does the other way? the same way some people think romney and mormons arent christians, this is how some people see Dr. Ron Paul- as not a real republican.

[BigdaddyQH]

God no. I don't understand what people see in this hard right bible thumper. The "Free Market" is a myth and we have seen the effect that deregulation has had.

Ron Paul is not going to win, nobody knows who he is. A large majority of those that do know who he is feel he is far far too radical for them. I have argued to death with Paul Supporters and their is just no reasoning with them

Ron Paul Supporters = Larouchies

I agree that Ron Paul is not going to win. The reason why is that the American people see him as what he really is, a phony. I think people do know him, and the more they learn, the more they turn away from him. You are right about one thing. There is no reasoning with Paul supporters.

[Iced]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest, and STRONGLY, that you look at todays polls that were just released. Paul is down to 5%. Gingrich is now way ahead of him. Newt is now in 3rd place in these latest polls, whil Paul is far, far behind. Please do not give me any more crap about Paul gaining in the polls. Show me the proof. Show me one poll that has Paul ahead in any primary. You can not because you are lying. I am calling you out. Prove me wrong. Show me the poll. Show me which poll places hin in the top tier nationally in the polls. Cut the B.S.

October 10 National GOP Poll --- Reuters/Ipsos [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/1...79B67720111012]
1. Romney - 23%
2. Cain - 19%
3. Paul - 13%
4. Perry - 10%
5. Gingrich - 7%
6. Bachmann - 5%
7. Huntsman - 2%
8. Santorum - 0%

October 10 National GOP Poll --- NBC News/Wall Street Journal [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...%20NBC-WSJ.pdf]
1. Cain - 27%
2. Romney - 23%
3. Perry - 16%
4. Paul - 11%
5. Gingrich - 8%
6. Bachmann - 5%
7. Huntsman - 3%
8. Santorum - 1%

October 11 Iowa GOP Poll --- Public Policy Polling [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...s-in-iowa.html]
1. Cain - 30%
2. Romney - 23%
3. Paul - 10%
4. Perry - 9%
5. Bachmann - 8%
6. Gingrich - 8%
7. Santorum - 5%
8. Huntsman - 1%
9. Gary Johnson - 1%

October 13 National average of last four GOP polls --- CNN [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-for-top-spot/]
1. Romney - 23%
2. Cain - 20%
3. Perry - 14%
4. Paul - 10%
5. Gingrich - 6%
6. Bachmann - 5%
7. Huntsman - 2%
8. Santorum - 8%

October 14 New Hampshire GOP Poll --- Magellan Strategies [http://nhjournal.com/2011/10/14/poll...grich-gaining/]
1. Romney - 41%
2. Cain - 20%
3. Paul - 10%
4. Huntsman - 6%
5. Gingrich - 6%
6. Bachmann - 4%
7. Santorum - 2%
8. Perry - 2%
9. Gary Johnson - 1%



I think you missed a few polls there Bigdaddy. Cherry-picking statistics is pretty cool I suppose if it supports your argument. But once again you're missing the point; Ron Paul has attracted hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to the libertarian movement, and he's brought issues like the Federal Reserve, the military industrial complex, monetary policy, and an assortment of other taboo topics to the forefront of today's political discourse. Feel free to stay in your bubble and keep yelling at yourself that Ron Paul doesn't matter, because he most certainly does, and it's evidenced in the polls. He may not win this Presidential primary or election, but he has blazed a path for future libertarian candidates like Gary Johnson, his son Rand, and people we don't even know about yet. Keep supporting the status quo if it keeps you happy I guess, but I'm supporting Ron Paul because I'm not a fan of the status quo.

You are not dealing with some bonehead Paul supporter here. You are dealing with someone who knows more about politics than the rest of this site added up.

===

Bigdaddyqh Status Report:
[ ] Not Told
[ ] Told
[ ] Told as Ice
[ ] Told Story 3
[ ] Cash4Told.com
[ ] Told Gold Pretzels
[ ] No Country for Told Men
[X] RON PAUL SUPPORTS THE TOLD STANDARD

[Iced]

God no. I don't understand what people see in this hard right bible thumper. The "Free Market" is a myth and we have seen the effect that deregulation has had.

Deregulation?

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off

George W. Bush was the biggest regulator since Richard Nixon. I can't think of anything that was deregulated under Bush except perhaps civil liberties. The Basel II requirements and the Community Reinvestment Act were relatively large regulations that I do recall however.

The free market doesn't tax corporations at 35%, rich people at 40%, and regulate everything in existence.

[Facepunch]

huge difference between staying in and a strategic withdraw. Both of these are also different than his "bring everybody home immediately" plan.

we do not know the ground conditions or situations or missions and we can not judge how or when they should be brought home most wisely.

lotsa people are for bringing the troops home but some want to do-so less recklessly.

Strategic withdrawal is a myth.
If these countries are destined to devolve into civil/and external wars, what is the point of staying?
We lose nothing by increasing the pace of withdrawal from the joke that it is now.

I can tell you from personal experience that the situation on the ground in Iraq is about as good as it is going to be. The foreign fighters are the biggest problem, and without US soldiers to kill they might very well pack up and go home. Afghanistan is unattainable. Too decentralized, too tribal, too willing to compromise and placate the Taliban.

Al Qaeda is done. Pakistan and the Haqqani group is much more of a threat. But alas we are not at war with Pakistan (overtly)

The military industrial complex is trying to sell a war with Iran and Pakistan as we speak to squeeze more profit from these military bonanzas. They also have millions if not billions invested in lobbying for a scaled or "strategic withdrawal" which is code for divesting troop levels and investing in PMCs.

[OmgUrMom]

I agree that Ron Paul is not going to win. The reason why is that the American people see him as what he really is, a phony. I think people do know him, and the more they learn, the more they turn away from him. You are right about one thing. There is no reasoning with Paul supporters.

Ron Paul is a phony.......Well if we going to go down that rode can you please explain why you sent this PM to Mendozaline?

You also say you know more about politics then this entire forum combined, somehow I doubt that given your history here at sbr.


Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH
I made a living by throwing scumball Hispanics in jail. I was even fortunate enough to send one to the morgue, and several to hospitals. I would not hesitate to do the same thing to you. Keep mouthing off and I will cut your prick off and stuff it down your throat. DO you understand, you worthless piece of shit? One more post like the one about someone's mother being gang raped and I will track you down, and beat the living shit out of you. I can do it. I can use all kinds of people to help me find you. Another post like that and you are as good as dead. This is your last warning prick. The next time is your LAST time. I will hunt you down like the animal that you are. Oh yea, and bring your friends with you. We will take care of them also.

[OmgUrMom]

Strategic withdrawal is a myth.
If these countries are destined to devolve into civil/and external wars, what is the point of staying?
We lose nothing by increasing the pace of withdrawal from the joke that it is now.

I can tell you from personal experience that the situation on the ground in Iraq is about as good as it is going to be. The foreign fighters are the biggest problem, and without US soldiers to kill they might very well pack up and go home. Afghanistan is unattainable. Too decentralized, too tribal, too willing to compromise and placate the Taliban.

Al Qaeda is done. Pakistan and the Haqqani group is much more of a threat. But alas we are not at war with Pakistan (overtly)

The military industrial complex is trying to sell a war with Iran and Pakistan as we speak to squeeze more profit from these military bonanzas. They also have millions if not billions invested in lobbying for a scaled or "strategic withdrawal" which is code for divesting troop levels and investing in PMCs.

well said

[Facepunch]

I agree that Ron Paul is not going to win. The reason why is that the American people see him as what he really is, a phony. I think people do know him, and the more they learn, the more they turn away from him. You are right about one thing. There is no reasoning with Paul supporters.

Say what you want, everyone realizes that you are a giant NeoCon and Paul's views run in contrast to your interests. That much you have said yourself. I do not think that you can call him a phony......... well you probably could, but anyone that has integrity could see that he is just about the most consistent champion for the Constitution of the 20th and 21st century.

Remember when Republicans believed in the Constitution? or the Republic? (I actually can't)

With these assholes that are running, I am guessing that you have investments in Carbon Taxing schemes, and socialized medicine. You have said for a long time that you are an insider.

Hope you got more than 30 pieces of silver for selling your soul to big govt.