Ron Paul potential GOP presidential candidate?

[Guest Jcochran88]

I don't concede that Obama will be the Democrat candidate next year.

What makes you say this? Not trying to be smart but when was the last time a sitting president that wanted to run again was not their parties candidate the next year?

[RobertNashville]

I'd say a lot of the luster if off Obama now but I find it highly unlikely that he won't win re-nomination. It could happen I suppose if something big happened that he so totally screwed up that someone like Hillary or another well-known Democrat could step in but that seems incredibly unlikely.

Frankly, I hope it doesn't happen because Obama now has a lot of baggage/history he didn't have four years ago...which gives him a hill to climb that someone else starting fresh (so to speak) wouldn't have to deal with.

[Guest SUNTZU]

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

[Spook]

I agree his age is an issue, but it hasn't been an issue for the last 20 years or so and he hasn't been nominated. He's too outspoken to win wide-based support -- he's too well known. He has the same chance of being nominated that Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter has - none.

If he were nominated, I'd vote for him.

Agitator!

I don't concede that Obama will be the Democrat candidate next year.

Not only is Ron Paul's age an issue for many, his positions are not in the majority. For example, he would, by his own words, end foreign aid. I know alot of folks will jump up and shout "Amen!), and I don't agree with all of our foreign aid, but that is insane. Paul is an isolationist, that is not good for the country economically, socially or militarily. Also, he has no executive experience, much like Obama, and you can see where that gets us. He's a lightweight in that category. A president is only one person. Key to how an administration is successful is who he brings in for senior staff and cabinet positions. Paul's does not have those folks in his stable.

So far as Obama not being the Dems nominee, I once thought that Hillary would resign after 18-24 months and start her own campaign against BHO. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen now. (Although she might leave or be booted for being an incompentent Secretary of State). There is no one else to challenge Obama.

Regardless, it will be interesting to watch the Repubs find a candidate. No one really stands out yet. Not to say someone won't but right now the only way we get a Republican president is that folks vote against BHO.

[Guest jth_3s]

Not only is Ron Paul's age an issue for many, his positions are not in the majority. For example, he would, by his own words, end foreign aid. I know alot of folks will jump up and shout "Amen!), and I don't agree with all of our foreign aid, but that is insane. Paul is an isolationist, that is not good for the country economically, socially or militarily. Also, he has no executive experience, much like Obama, and you can see where that gets us. He's a lightweight in that category. A president is only one person. Key to how an administration is successful is who he brings in for senior staff and cabinet positions. Paul's does not have those folks in his stable.QUOTE]

Ron Paul is the farthest thing from an isolationist. Ron believes we can have relations with other countries without getting involved in their politics and internal affairs. The true isolationists are the ones who send foreign aid to prop up leaders the people hate and bomb countries to the stoneage. Nothing isolates us more or opens us up to terrorist attacks than meddling with the internal affairs of foreign governments. Plus we are flat broke, we can't afford welfare to foreign countries right now. Redistributing Americas wealth around the world should at least be put on hold until we can get back on our feet.

[Spook]

Not only is Ron Paul's age an issue for many, his positions are not in the majority. For example, he would, by his own words, end foreign aid. I know alot of folks will jump up and shout "Amen!), and I don't agree with all of our foreign aid, but that is insane. Paul is an isolationist, that is not good for the country economically, socially or militarily. Also, he has no executive experience, much like Obama, and you can see where that gets us. He's a lightweight in that category. A president is only one person. Key to how an administration is successful is who he brings in for senior staff and cabinet positions. Paul's does not have those folks in his stable.QUOTE]

Ron Paul is the farthest thing from an isolationist. Ron believes we can have relations with other countries without getting involved in their politics and internal affairs. The true isolationists are the ones who send foreign aid to prop up leaders the people hate and bomb countries to the stoneage. Nothing isolates us more or opens us up to terrorist attacks than meddling with the internal affairs of foreign governments. Plus we are flat broke, we can't afford welfare to foreign countries right now. Redistributing Americas wealth around the world should at least be put on hold until we can get back on our feet.

- Ron believes we can have relations with other countries without getting involved in their politics and internal affairs. I believe that is a highly naive' position. The countries we are most interested in will then go to our adversaries for their aid/assistance. That leaves us out of the equation.

- The true isolationists are the ones who send foreign aid to prop up leaders the people hate and bomb countries to the stoneage. Isn't that just a bit contradictory? Which countries are at the stoneage level now due to bombing?

- Nothing isolates us more or opens us up to terrorist attacks than meddling with the internal affairs of foreign governments. Please don't tell me you're one of those who believe we brought 9-11 on ourselves. If that was the case why are so many other countries also being attacked? What you call meddling can also be called positive influence. I will admit we aren't perfect at it.

- Plus we are flat broke, we can't afford welfare to foreign countries right now. Redistributing Americas wealth around the world should at least be put on hold until we can get back on our feet. I would gladly spend money on some foreign aid than on many of the domestic programs that have proven to be useless over the past decades. "Redistributing Americas wealth", huh? It is less than one percent of the U. S. budget.

On the other hand, I do agree with some of his immigration policy positions and the fact that the Federal Reserve needs to be audited.

[Guest jth_3s]

- Ron believes we can have relations with other countries without getting involved in their politics and internal affairs. I believe that is a highly naive' position. The countries we are most interested in will then go to our adversaries for their aid/assistance. That leaves us out of the equation.

- The true isolationists are the ones who send foreign aid to prop up leaders the people hate and bomb countries to the stoneage. Isn't that just a bit contradictory? Which countries are at the stoneage level now due to bombing?

- Nothing isolates us more or opens us up to terrorist attacks than meddling with the internal affairs of foreign governments. Please don't tell me you're one of those who believe we brought 9-11 on ourselves. If that was the case why are so many other countries also being attacked? What you call meddling can also be called positive influence. I will admit we aren't perfect at it.

- Plus we are flat broke, we can't afford welfare to foreign countries right now. Redistributing Americas wealth around the world should at least be put on hold until we can get back on our feet. I would gladly spend money on some foreign aid than on many of the domestic programs that have proven to be useless over the past decades. "Redistributing Americas wealth", huh? It is less than one percent of the U. S. budget.

On the other hand, I do agree with some of his immigration policy positions and the fact that the Federal Reserve needs to be audited.

1. Its naive to think that proping up dictators and micro-managing 3rd world countries benefits us around the world. We are the most hated country in the world, yet we give out the most foreign aid. Let them go to our adversaries for assistance. What do we really need from India, Egypt, Israel, or any of these countries? (We have enough oil in this country)

2. We bombed Iraq to the stoneage and then sent massive amounts of foreign aid to them to rebuild their country. Thats just one example of many.

3. There will always be Terrorism reguardless, but certain policies can make it worse. Bombing and entire country(Iraq) that wasnt even involved in 9-11 gives the terrorists a major recruiting tool and a sense of legitimacy among certain groups (defending their country from foreign invaiders). I don't think the people murdered on 9-11 had it coming if thats what you're saying but I do believe our foreign policy had a significant roll in it. The other countries that are being attacked are our allies who share our polices or other Muslim countries. You don't see Switzerland or any neutral countries being attacked. Switzerland could be attacked tomorrow but I believe their foreign policy reduces their chances.

4. Is it ok to forcefully take one percent of every U.S. citizens Income and give it to foreign governments? All of this money leaves America and we are all 1 percent poorer. Plus when you are broke should you keep spending money or pay off your debts? These one percent programs fast add up. The domestic programs need to be cut out too but there are going to have to be cuts across the board.

[Spook]

This is my last. Respectfully, I believe you have a very shortsighted view of foreign policy and certainly no experience in it. Ron Paul won't be elected because his views also don't represent a majority of the people. But that's one reason we are still a great country, right? Everyone can have their own ideas, views and beliefs and voice them aloud without fear of retribution. Even those on the far fringes from both sides of the political scale.

1. Its naive to think that proping up dictators and micro-managing 3rd world countries benefits us around the world. We are the most hated country in the world, yet we give out the most foreign aid. Let them go to our adversaries for assistance. What do we really need from India, Egypt, Israel, or any of these countries? (We have enough oil in this country) We are not "micro-managing" any countries, that's laughable. Would love to hear your specific examples. As a percentage of GDP we aren't even in the top 20 countries in foreign aid. To say we don't need anything from any countries is equally silly. Have you ever heard of China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan? I believe you have a myopic view of the world. It is not all about oil.

2. We bombed Iraq to the stoneage and then sent massive amounts of foreign aid to them to rebuild their country. Thats just one example of many. Ridiculous statements. Iraq wasn't bombed into the proverbial stoneage. Would be interested in learning of the "many" others. But if we had, based on your earlier pronouncement, that makes us an isolationist country. But we're not isolationist if we give away so much money. You can't have it both ways.

3. There will always be Terrorism reguardless, but certain policies can make it worse. Bombing and entire country(Iraq) that wasnt even involved in 9-11 gives the terrorists a major recruiting tool and a sense of legitimacy among certain groups (defending their country from foreign invaiders). I don't think the people murdered on 9-11 had it coming if thats what you're saying but I do believe our foreign policy had a significant roll in it. The other countries that are being attacked are our allies who share our polices or other Muslim countries. You don't see Switzerland or any neutral countries being attacked. Switzerland could be attacked tomorrow but I believe their foreign policy reduces their chances. Muslim terrorists hate us for how we live and believe and what we stand for - i.e., democratic freedoms, liberty, opportunity and simply not folllowing Islam. We could stick our heads in the ground as apparently you think we should and we would still be attacked. Do some research and check out the terrorism climate in Scandavia. No more neutral countries around but they have a problem there.

4. Is it ok to forcefully take one percent of every U.S. citizens Income and give it to foreign governments? All of this money leaves America and we are all 1 percent poorer. Plus when you are broke should you keep spending money or pay off your debts? These one percent programs fast add up. The domestic programs need to be cut out too but there are going to have to be cuts across the board. Forcefully? Our elected Senators and Representatives did that. They also "forcefully" took every other cent of taxpayers money. Do you believe all that was wrong, too?

[eapking]

Paul is unelectable. Same with Palin. Four more years of Barry if either is the GOP candidate.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

jth_3s: Thanks for starting this thread.

I am planning on voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primary. I gave him $20.12 already. And I'm tentatively planning to volunteer for his campaign.

Why? He's the best candidate America has seen in a long time. Here's some straight talk: America's economy has a sucking chest wound, and most everybody else wants to put a band-aid on it (cut several billion from the federal budget). Dr. Paul is going to do some serious surgery. If he gets in, I believe that you will see your taxes go down. All but the essential federal employees will be laid off.

Recently I watched the documentary IOUSA about the national debt. $14 trillion in debt is a much more imminent threat to national security than any terrorist is. Iran looks like our other sizeable threat at the moment (by the way, if we hadn't been messing around in Iran's affairs decades ago, they might be our friends today). But don't forget: Rome fell from the inside. So it will be with our country.

The age issue? Well, I'm 24 and I'm going to vote for him. If he dies or becomes incapacitated (let's hope not), the VP will take over, which will probably be someone with nearly the exact same philosophy.... so what's the problem? America has seen presidents die in office before. It's a game-changer, but it's not a world-ender.

Foreign policy? To anyone concerned, I recommend you check out his book or one of his articles on non-interventionism (not isolationism). I haven't read it yet, but I mean to.

Obama may or may not be the Democratic nominee. If it's not him, it'll probably be Senator Clinton.

Not enough people understand that we are on the edge of seeing hyperinflation here. If we keep messing around and we cause hyperinflation, the TGO survival skills forum is going to get a lot more popular.

[Motasyco]

Olds, be careful, you're starting to restore my faith in today's youth.

[RobertNashville]

I think (or at least I do hope) that the Republican party can find not just a better candidate than Ron Paul but a truly electable candidate (which Paul simply isn't).

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from supporting whatever candidate they wish in the primaries; that is after all what the primaries are for. But eventually, if there is any chance of unseating the Dalai Bama it's going to take a candidate of WIDE appeal. No one can get elected to president with "just" Republican or Democrat votes...a candidate must appeal to all those who don't identify with a party but DO vote. Paul is a good man but he simply isn't going to win the essential "middle" group.

That said, I've no idea who might be the Republican nominee...all we can do at this point is watch what happens and when we see someone we can get behind; to get behind him (or her).

[Guest jth_3s]

This is my last. Respectfully, I believe you have a very shortsighted view of foreign policy and certainly no experience in it. Ron Paul won't be elected because his views also don't represent a majority of the people. But that's one reason we are still a great country, right? Everyone can have their own ideas, views and beliefs and voice them aloud without fear of retribution. Even those on the far fringes from both sides of the political scale.

1. Its naive to think that proping up dictators and micro-managing 3rd world countries benefits us around the world. We are the most hated country in the world, yet we give out the most foreign aid. Let them go to our adversaries for assistance. What do we really need from India, Egypt, Israel, or any of these countries? (We have enough oil in this country) We are not "micro-managing" any countries, that's laughable. Would love to hear your specific examples. As a percentage of GDP we aren't even in the top 20 countries in foreign aid. To say we don't need anything from any countries is equally silly. Have you ever heard of China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan? I believe you have a myopic view of the world. It is not all about oil.

2. We bombed Iraq to the stoneage and then sent massive amounts of foreign aid to them to rebuild their country. Thats just one example of many. Ridiculous statements. Iraq wasn't bombed into the proverbial stoneage. Would be interested in learning of the "many" others. But if we had, based on your earlier pronouncement, that makes us an isolationist country. But we're not isolationist if we give away so much money. You can't have it both ways.

3. There will always be Terrorism reguardless, but certain policies can make it worse. Bombing and entire country(Iraq) that wasnt even involved in 9-11 gives the terrorists a major recruiting tool and a sense of legitimacy among certain groups (defending their country from foreign invaiders). I don't think the people murdered on 9-11 had it coming if thats what you're saying but I do believe our foreign policy had a significant roll in it. The other countries that are being attacked are our allies who share our polices or other Muslim countries. You don't see Switzerland or any neutral countries being attacked. Switzerland could be attacked tomorrow but I believe their foreign policy reduces their chances. Muslim terrorists hate us for how we live and believe and what we stand for - i.e., democratic freedoms, liberty, opportunity and simply not folllowing Islam. We could stick our heads in the ground as apparently you think we should and we would still be attacked. Do some research and check out the terrorism climate in Scandavia. No more neutral countries around but they have a problem there.

4. Is it ok to forcefully take one percent of every U.S. citizens Income and give it to foreign governments? All of this money leaves America and we are all 1 percent poorer. Plus when you are broke should you keep spending money or pay off your debts? These one percent programs fast add up. The domestic programs need to be cut out too but there are going to have to be cuts across the board. Forcefully? Our elected Senators and Representatives did that. They also "forcefully" took every other cent of taxpayers money. Do you believe all that was wrong, too?

1. We are Micro-managing Iraq and Afghanistan. We have final say in who their elected officials will be reguardless of the will of the people. In Pakistan we are constantly manipulating the local government and carrying out airstrikes within their borders on questionable targets. We helped keep Mumbarak in power in Egypt for decades and now we're getting in the middle of their new government which looks like it will be another Dictatorship. What about Japan or Germany? we still don't allow them to have an army almost 70 years after the war. We are telling them they have to rely on us for Military Protection if that isn't micro-managing I don't know what is.

2. You can give money away and intervene overseas and still have Isolationist policies. Our foreign policy of giving foreign aid, nation building, and preemptive wars isolates us from the people of some countries. Iraq was bombed and had alot of its infratstucture destroyed during the war which we then paid to fix. Some recent examples Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Vietnam.

3. I'm not saying stick our heads in the sand. If we are attacked we should strike back. Ron Paul supported bombing the training camps in Afghanistan but then getting out. If we were going to stay War should have been declared by Congress as the Constitution calls for. As for Iraq, they had no link whatsoever to 9-11 or Terrorism anymore than any other middleastern country. Saudia Arabia is where all but one of the Hijackers came from so why not attack them? As for Scandanavia I am not aware of a terrorist attack there but I've never checked into it. Ill check it out. Neutral countries don't seem to have the problems with it.

4. Yes I do. What if they decided to tax 100 percent of your income instead of 30 or 40 percent? Would it be ok since they were elected? With the Income tax the government is saying you owe them so much of your labor. People don't think about it but while you're at work just picture an IRS agent with a gun pointed at your back 30 percent of the day. Is this any different than slavery just because its the government?

[Guest jth_3s]

jth_3s: Thanks for starting this thread.

I am planning on voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primary. I gave him $20.12 already. And I'm tentatively planning to volunteer for his campaign.

Why? He's the best candidate America has seen in a long time. Here's some straight talk: America's economy has a sucking chest wound, and most everybody else wants to put a band-aid on it (cut several billion from the federal budget). Dr. Paul is going to do some serious surgery. If he gets in, I believe that you will see your taxes go down. All but the essential federal employees will be laid off.

Recently I watched the documentary IOUSA about the national debt. $14 trillion in debt is a much more imminent threat to national security than any terrorist is. Iran looks like our other sizeable threat at the moment (by the way, if we hadn't been messing around in Iran's affairs decades ago, they might be our friends today). But don't forget: Rome fell from the inside. So it will be with our country.

The age issue? Well, I'm 24 and I'm going to vote for him. If he dies or becomes incapacitated (let's hope not), the VP will take over, which will probably be someone with nearly the exact same philosophy.... so what's the problem? America has seen presidents die in office before. It's a game-changer, but it's not a world-ender.

Foreign policy? To anyone concerned, I recommend you check out his book or one of his articles on non-interventionism (not isolationism). I haven't read it yet, but I mean to.

Obama may or may not be the Democratic nominee. If it's not him, it'll probably be Senator Clinton.

Not enough people understand that we are on the edge of seeing hyperinflation here. If we keep messing around and we cause hyperinflation, the TGO survival skills forum is going to get a lot more popular.

Glad to hear you're supporting him! Be sure and join Campaign for liberty its a great place to network with other supporters during the campaign. Also there is going to be a RP moneybomb on Monday at Libertypac.com if you're interested

[dlm37015]

i don't see any body that can beat o

also look at the money he has raised for 2012

[E4 No More]

Ironic how it's ok to discriminate against age, but not because of race, color, sex, etc.

[JayC]

His son Rand Paul from KY would be a much better choice for a true libertarian republican presidential candidate. Younger, and comes across a lot less hard line than his father.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

His son Rand Paul from KY would be a much better choice for a true libertarian republican presidential candidate. Younger, and comes across a lot less hard line than his father.

Yes, he is, and would make a fine candidate in the future. He hasn't been on the political landscape long enough for enough to know him, though. I'd vote for either Pauls.

[Guest jth_3s]

Ron Just raised $700,000 in yesterdays Presidents Day Moneybomb. Id like to see Romney do that.

'Money bomb' blows up Ron Paul's coffers - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

LibertyPAC

[RobertNashville]

Ironic how it's ok to discriminate against age, but not because of race, color, sex, etc.

Is there something wrong with discrimination? A person discriminates every time a choice is made.

Ron Paul is what many people consider "old" and many consider his age "too" old to become President. that is simply the reality of the situation

Edited February 22, 2011 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

Ironic how it's ok to discriminate against age, but not because of race, color, sex, etc.

Let's put it this way, you've won an hour long massage, one therapist is with a beautiful model and the other is an amazon woman with no teeth. Who you gonna pick?

How many young voters are into image and looks today? We had Obama go up against an old man already and that alone regardless of what politics each other have was a no brainer in "today's" society of people more concerned with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars than politics.

The Republican's will have to put up someone new, young and full of great ideas that will encourage both young and old voters, or we will have another 4 years of disaster.

[eapking]

The Republican's will have to put up someone new, young and full of great ideas that will encourage both young and old voters, or we will have another 4 years of disaster.

this.

[JayC]

Yes, he is, and would make a fine candidate in the future. He hasn't been on the political landscape long enough for enough to know him, though. I'd vote for either Pauls.

And exactly how long had Obama been on the political landscape before being elected to the White House?

[eapking]

And exactly how long had Obama been on the political landscape before being elected to the White House?

You can thank Oprah for the incredible speed to market on Barry.

[Guest jth_3s]

If we compromise and elect another Big government/Establishment Republican we will still have another 4 years of disaster. If the Republicans put up another Liberal Ill be voting Libertarian.