Ron Paul potential GOP presidential candidate?

[kieefer]

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

That and it was his first speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention when the media wet their pants for the first time.

[RobertNashville]

I don't believe I'll ever understand the mindset that will allow people to shoot themselves in the foot (figuratively speaking of course), in refusing to vote for a "Big government/Establishment Republican" and (claim, at least) that they'll vote for a candidate that cannot and will not win.

The time, indeed the only time to make such choices in in the primaries...that's why we have them. However, once the nomination has been made, it's time to get on with the business of electing the best candidate that can win.

I can think of many candidates that could have been on the Republican ticket in '08 that would have been better than McCain but I'd vote for McCain any day and twice if they would let me, despite his many, many "problems", over a Dalai-Obama (or anything close to Obama).

We (individual states) have far more control over putting good people in Congress (house and senate) and if we continue to do that, then having a "bad" Republican in the White House becomes almost a non-issue. I hope we'll all work and do what we can to have a positive impact on who the Republican candidate for President is but let's not lose sight of the overall goal which is, I would say, is a return to a government that operates much closer to the intent of the Constitution than we've seen in a long time...that's going to take more than the "perfect" Presidential candidate (in indeed such a candidate exists).

[Guest jimdigriz]

I don't believe I'll ever understand the mindset that will allow people to shoot themselves in the foot (figuratively speaking of course), in refusing to vote for a "Big government/Establishment Republican" and (claim, at least) that they'll vote for a candidate that cannot and will not win.

When each of the choices from the two parties can be safely predicted to be a disaster for liberty and for the republic, it is reasonable to refuse to have any part in electing them, and to instead vote the choice of one's conscience. This, even accepting that one's preferred candidate is unelectable.

[RobertNashville]

When each of the choices from the two parties can be safely predicted to be a disaster for liberty and for the republic, it is reasonable to refuse to have any part in electing them, and to instead vote the choice of one's conscience. This, even accepting that one's preferred candidate is unelectable.

Your action of having no part in the election might be reasonable and logical if your premise were correct but I don't accept that is correct. And, if it isn't correct then voting for someone who cannot win or not voting at all, simply increases the likelihood that the worst candidate of those running will be elected and bringing the "disaster for liberty" you seem to fear.

[Guest jimdigriz]

Your action of having no part in the election might be reasonable and logical if your premise were correct but I don't accept that is correct.

I thought similarly back when I voted for McCain. I can no longer vote for someone like him, or for any mainstream Republican. They are all advocates of perpetual war, big government, fiscal profligacy, an ever-expanding police state, etc.

And, if it isn't correct then voting for someone who cannot win or not voting at all, simply increases the likelihood that the worst candidate of those running will be elected and bringing the "disaster for liberty" you seem to fear.

Not by more than an infinitessimal amount. I'm vastly more likely to be killed driving to the polls than to decide the election with my vote. But in any event, it's hard to see which candidate is the "worst". Yea, Obamacare is pretty bad, but McCain might well have involved us in a war with Iran, for instance. Plus, consider that Bush gave us - with the help of Republican Congresses - a hugely expanded government, including another Medicare entitlement. Indeed, there never could have been Obama without Bush. I'm tired of voting for any of these losers and sellouts, and want no part of them.

[RobertNashville]

I thought similarly back when I voted for McCain. I can no longer vote for someone like him, or for any mainstream Republican. They are all advocates of perpetual war, big government, fiscal profligacy, an ever-expanding police state, etc.

Not by more than an infinitessimal amount. I'm vastly more likely to be killed driving to the polls than to decide the election with my vote. But in any event, it's hard to see which candidate is the "worst". Yea, Obamacare is pretty bad, but McCain might well have involved us in a war with Iran, for instance. Plus, consider that Bush gave us - with the help of Republican Congresses - a hugely expanded government, including another Medicare entitlement. Indeed, there never could have been Obama without Bush. I'm tired of voting for any of these losers and sellouts, and want no part of them.

This isn't about Bush or how good or bad he was...he did some good things and he did some bad things but I'm convinced that he was a 1,000% better President than Mr. Tree or Mr/Mrs Ketchup would have been. Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect...Abraham Lincoln wasn't perfect...neither was Washington or Jffeerson nor will any candidate ever be perfect.

No problems will ever be solved by becoming uninvolved - to remove one's self from the process or to vote for candidates that cannot win is just a form of surrender.

I will surrender only after I've assumed room temperature.

[Guest jimdigriz]

Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect...Abraham Lincoln wasn't perfect...neither was Washington or Jffeerson nor will any candidate ever be perfect.

A candidate need not be perfect, but he needs to be better than absolutely atrocious. I could vote for a Jefferson, a Coolidge, a Harding, and some of the others that we've had.

No problems will ever be solved by becoming uninvolved - to remove one's self from the process or to vote for candidates that cannot win is just a form of surrender.

I will surrender only after I've assumed room temperature.

It's not surrender, but it is going to battle (so to speak) knowing that there is no way to win at present (since only one of the anti-liberty candidates can plausibly be elected).

[RobertNashville]

A candidate need not be perfect, but he needs to be better than absolutely atrocious. I could vote for a Jefferson, a Coolidge, a Harding, and some of the others that we've had.

They aren't running

It's not surrender, but it is going to battle (so to speak) knowing that there is no way to win at present (since only one of the anti-liberty candidates can plausibly be elected).

Yeah...it's surrender.

Edited February 23, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest jth_3s]

They aren't running

Yeah...it's surrender.

So you're saying: If Hitler®, Stalin(D), and Jesus(3rd Party) were on the ballot and Hitler® and Stalin(D) were the only two who had a chance you would choose between Hitler and Stalin?

[Guest jimdigriz]

So you're saying: If Hitler®, Stalin(D), and Jesus(3rd Party) were on the ballot and Hitler® and Stalin(D) were the only two who had a chance you would choose between Hitler and Stalin?

Thanks, that illustrates my thinking well, although I don't reckon any of the Ds or Rs as bad as those two villains. But still too bad to vote for.

[Guest jth_3s]

Thanks, that illustrates my thinking well, although I don't reckon any of the Ds or Rs as bad as those two villains. But still too bad to vote for.

I was just using extremes from both ends to get my point across

[RobertNashville]

So you're saying: If Hitler®, Stalin(D), and Jesus(3rd Party) were on the ballot and Hitler® and Stalin(D) were the only two who had a chance you would choose between Hitler and Stalin?

Using ridiculous scenarios is...well...ridiculous and does nothing to substantiate your argument.

[Guest jth_3s]

Using ridiculous scenarios is...well...ridiculous and does nothing to substantiate your argument.

Picking the Lesser of 2 evils is still picking evil. Voting for any candidate the Reps or Dems throw up there is the reason they keep getting worse every year. When you vote for a Statist republican it is telling the Party that its ok to put ****ty candidates up for election we'll vote for anyone with an R beside their name. If a Big Government Republican is nominated the best thing for Conservatives to do is send a message and not vote for him. When you vote for a Big Government candidate you are setting the direction of the party. We're better off letting Obama win that pushing the Reps further in the wrong direction

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Anyway...Hitler and Stalin wouldn't be on the right. Decidedly left of center after, and

dictators after their schemes destroy everything. Using a term like left or right doesn't

get into explaining Hitler or Stalin anyway. You are right saying picking the lesser of two evils

is still evil, only if you are sure the choices are known to be evil. too much supposition.

Try again:D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks, that illustrates my thinking well, although I don't reckon any of the Ds or Rs as bad as those two villains. But still too bad to vote for.

That's your opinion and that is great for you, but we have a system in which to work. Do you

wish to crash the present system and start over? That would involve a continued shredding of the

Constitution. I like the Constitution, thanks.

It involves getting rid of the statists and purifying the liberals and conservatives in their

respective parties. That requires involvement. Get involved in one of the parties and get

them back to a more sane course, or perish, because those are the choices and time is

running out in case you haven't been keeping up with the world news lately.

Edited February 24, 2011 by 6.8 AR
add

[Guest jimdigriz]

That's your opinion and that is great for you, but we have a system in which to work. Do you

wish to crash the present system and start over?

That would involve lots of pain to a lot of people, but might be inevitable, given the mathematics of our economic situation.

That would involve a continued shredding of the

Constitution. I like the Constitution, thanks.

The Constitution has already been almost completely shredded by the two parties. Nominating people who have no regard for it will just continue the process, until there's nothing left but fine powder.

It involves getting rid of the statists and purifying the liberals and conservatives in their

respective parties. That requires involvement. Get involved in one of the parties and get

them back to a more sane course...

This is an exercise in futility and naivety, in my view. Have you noticed that no matter how hard you advocate, write letters and call your congressmen, they still betray you and your principles?

[dlm37015]

if ron paul gets gop nom.fine vote for him if he runs as ind. then it will put o back in white house.

i dont see anyone in the gop that can beat o. if some one does please tell me and i will support them

other wise i am planting a garden and putting up food because times are going to get really hard

we need to start at local level clean out all political offices the the national level will take care of itself

just my 2 cents worth

[RobertNashville]

That would involve lots of pain to a lot of people, but might be inevitable, given the mathematics of our economic situation.

The Constitution has already been almost completely shredded by the two parties. Nominating people who have no regard for it will just continue the process, until there's nothing left but fine powder.

This is an exercise in futility and naivety, in my view. Have you noticed that no matter how hard you advocate, write letters and call your congressmen, they still betray you and your principles?

And again, all your words boil down to surrender.

You seem to want instant results or you don't want to play at all. Government and politics and especially making significant changes is usually more akin to a crock pot than a microwave. Things are starting to move in the correct (and the "right") direction - you can either chose to do some real work to help keep that going or you can go and hide behind your participle of "voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil" bovine scatology. Assuming that both are truly "evil" I would still rather have the one who is less evil than more while still working for better choices in the future.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The Constitution is still intact. It is not given the respect it should be, since it is still the law of

the land. You can say shredded and be right to a degree, but it will always fall back to the

Constitution until a different form of government takes this land and its people. Even in the

worst of times, which we may be starting to see, it still prevails and is our one and only template.

[Guest jimdigriz]

And again, all your words boil down to surrender.

Whatever dude. I would look at voting for people like Mitt Romney or John McCain as a surrender.

You seem to want instant results or you don't want to play at all. Government and politics and especially making significant changes is usually more akin to a crock pot than a microwave. Things are starting to move in the correct (and the "right") direction

Why, because Republicans cut a piddly 60 billion or so out of the budget? It doesn't take much to satisfy you.

- you can either chose to do some real work to help keep that going or you can go and hide behind your participle of "voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil" bovine scatology. Assuming that both are truly "evil" I would still rather have the one who is less evil than more while still working for better choices in the future.

That's what people tell themselves election cycle after election cycle. That's what I used to tell myself. But you're still propagating evil in the meantime.

But no matter who is elected "Captain" next year - even if it's Ron Paul himself - there is no way to miss the iceberg. Certainly he would respond to it better than the others, but the country is in trouble no matter what; it's just mathematics at this point.

Have a good day sir.

Jim

[RobertNashville]

Whatever dude. I would look at voting for people like Mitt Romney or John McCain as a surrender.

Why, because Republicans cut a piddly 60 billion or so out of the budget? It doesn't take much to satisfy you.

That's what people tell themselves election cycle after election cycle. That's what I used to tell myself. But you're still propagating evil in the meantime.

But no matter who is elected "Captain" next year - even if it's Ron Paul himself - there is no way to miss the iceberg. Certainly he would respond to it better than the others, but the country is in trouble no matter what; it's just mathematics at this point.

Have a good day sir.

Jim

Generally, as soon as someone refers to me as "dude" I discount anything they have to say by 25%.

Anyway, it appears that life is so hopeless for you that the only thing left for you to do is find a cave and hide in it. Of course, by refusing to be part of working toward a solution you are automatically part of the problem.

Edited February 24, 2011 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

if ron paul gets gop nom.fine vote for him if he runs as ind. then it will put o back in white house.

i dont see anyone in the gop that can beat o. if some one does please tell me and i will support them

other wise i am planting a garden and putting up food because times are going to get really hard

we need to start at local level clean out all political offices the the national level will take care of itself

just my 2 cents worth

That is exactly what happened in the last election and what we are seeing in WI.

2012 Presidential Candidates

[Guest jth_3s]

Anyway...Hitler and Stalin wouldn't be on the right. Decidedly left of center after, and

dictators after their schemes destroy everything. Using a term like left or right doesn't

get into explaining Hitler or Stalin anyway. You are right saying picking the lesser of two evils

is still evil, only if you are sure the choices are known to be evil. too much supposition.

Try again:D

For me there are only two choices, Liberty and Tyranny. If candidates have shown to be against freedom by supporting things such as: Health Care, Gun Control, Bailouts, the PATRIOT ACT, Porno Scanners, unconstitutional wars, etc, then I can not support them. I would rather vote for a man that fought for freedom and didn't have a chance than vote for a man who would limit my freedoms. Sadly I voted for McCain in 08 (he didn't deserve my vote) but if there isn't a good candidate on the ballot in 12 I'll stay home before I take part in voting for my own destruction.

[mav]

Sadly I voted for McCain in 08 (he didn't deserve my vote) but if there isn't a good candidate on the ballot in 12 I'll stay home before I take part in voting for my own destruction.

I held my nose and voted for McCain as well. I actually think a little bit of vomit ran up my throat as I was filling in the circle beside his name. While I understand where you are coming from on deciding to stay home if there is no worthy candidate on the ballot, I think that is a mistake. If you remember back in the 2006 election, people, myself included, were so ticked off at the republican party. Many of those people decided to stay home. I was not one of those. Look at what we got in return, Pelosi and Reid. Look what they have done to our country.

While I do stand by principles in the primaries, the general election is a little different. If my choice of candidate doesn't win in the primary, I will then vote for the better of the two candidates running.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I voted for Sarah Palin. McCain happened to be on the ticket with her:D

We all have to make choices we don't like sometimes. I go along with the idea

of choosing liberty or tyranny, even if the choice isn't so clear cut. Just have to look

a little deeper occasionally.