Ron Paul or No One!!!

[Guest bkelm18]

It's this type of attitude that will keep this country from regaining respect and get back on track.

And it's precisely your attitude that will get Obama reelected and possibly change the Supreme Court for many, many years to come if not generations. If you think Obama is a horrible president, you just wait until he tailors the Supreme Court to suit his needs. His influence will affect our country for a long time to come. You Paulbots just can't seem to see the forest through the trees.

Edited May 5, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest Smitty]

A candidate who can not gain enough support to win a primary, can not gain enough votes to win an election.

That's what they told Warren G. Harding in 1920 and look what happened. He won the nomination coming from dead last with TEN delegate ballot votes and won the presidency by a landslide.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Smitty

[Guest Smitty]

Edited May 6, 2012 by Smitty

[Moped]

I'd vote for Satan himself over Obama. Equal footing, but at least Old Scratch is upfront about things.

Minority impractical conscience will not help this ailing nation. At all.

- OS

Guys and girls, a vote for anyone other than Romney, is a vote for overturning the current makeup of the Supreme Court. If that is changed, then you can start kissing what rights we still have good by, starting with the Second Amendmend. I hope that Ron Paul will get behind Romney and instruct his supporters to vote Republican.

[hornett22]

I just dont see how for voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense is ever going to get us out of the rut we are in. I used to hear this crap about Bush and AlGore / McCain vs.Obama. I didn't fall for it then and I'm not falling for it now.

Edited May 6, 2012 by hornett22

[Oh Shoot]

I just dont see how for voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense is ever going to get us out of the rut we are in. I used to hear this crap about Bush and AlGore. I didn't fall for it then and I'm not falling for it now.

Just vote for BHO, so you can't claim the chains were foisted upon you.

- OS

[MacGyver]

Every last one of them is the same. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. They're all bought and paid for; they just serve different masters. Either party in this zero sum game will drive our country straight to the gates of hell. It'll just take the GOP a little longer to get there.

Until "we the people" throw every last one of them out on their ass and replace them with people who actually represent their given constituencies, we're all equally doomed.

Romney and Obama are different flavors of the same thing. I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney because I prefer the scenic route to the cliff as opposed to a brick on the accelerator. I don't think Paul will be a spoiler. While I respect that he's stuck to his guns for as long as he has, I don't think he's ever really been prepared to be anything but the voice of dissent.

Edited May 6, 2012 by MacGyver

[Blitzen]

Ron Paul or No one means someone, BHO! Just go back in history to Ross Perot! Lets split the conservative vote and see what happens, again! Only this time much more is at stake.

[Mike.357]

the bottom line is that if Ron Paul gave a damn he would endorse Romney.

If he doesn't do that then he is pretty much a befuddled old geezer. ( no offense intended to the old geezers around here)

[mav]

I just dont see how for voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense is ever going to get us out of the rut we are in. I used to hear this crap about Bush and AlGore / McCain vs.Obama. I didn't fall for it then and I'm not falling for it now.

It isn't. The problem is that so many of the Paul supporters are idealists. If their candidate doesn't win, well... they are just going to pack up their things and go home. This type of attitude does not focus on the big picture of systemic change.

What Dr. Paul has done this election cycle has been truly remarkable. Paul has brought forth his message effectively and opened the eyes of millions of citizens, mine included, to the dangers this country faces. He has shown people that the federal behemoth does not have the citizen's interests at heart. Due to the rife corruption from within, it's sole purpose is really nothing more than maintaining and expanding it's power by subjugating it's citizenry.

The problem so many Paul supporter's fail to understand is the difficulty of taking a top down approach in bringing forth change. We are attempting to bring forth change starting with the highest public office in this country. Granted, that would be the fastest approach if successful. However, it is also the most difficult, as we have seen this election cycle.

As stated earlier, Paul has done a fabulous job, and he should continue spreading his message in the hope that more people will wake up to the danger we face. I think a lot of Paul supporters should focus their energies to local, state, and congressional level races. Bringing forth change using a bottom up approach is a slower process, but the chance of success is far greater. As those successes increase, the possibilty of bringing about change at the highest federal offices won't seem so remote. Continuing to solely focus on the presidency will lead to nothing.

Even though I know Paul won't win the nomination, I have been one of the few that has advocated that Paul should remain in the race for the sole reason of continuing to get his message out to the public, and perhaps give him a little more pull at the convention. Once it is over, Paul supporters are going to have to make a choice on whether to support our current president by voting for a candidate who does not stand a chance at winning or by abstention. Their other choice is to continue the fight by voting, not supporting, for a candidate that at least stands a chance to remove the current clown from office. In my mind, that is a no-brainer. Voting for a candidate with whom I do not agree with on many issues is undeniably better than allowing Obama another term in office, which is tantamount to paddling towards the maelstrom in nothing but a life raft.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Until "we the people" throw every last one of them out on their ass and replace them with people who actually represent their given constituencies, we're all equally doomed.

.

I believe that is why the Tea Party was formed. They did a good job in 2010, but it will take a little more time to kick all the establishment R's out of office. The Tea Party is the party to start voicing your concerns to.

[Guest ThePunisher]

the bottom line is that if Ron Paul gave a damn he would endorse Romney.

If he doesn't do that then he is pretty much a befuddled old geezer. ( no offense intended to the old geezers around here)

There may be some old geezers or maybe some whipper snappers around here that just don't get it. I'm really beginning to suspect that there are some Obama lovers here.

[seez52]

Regardless of who "wins" in 2012 our country and our liberty looses. The R party keeps trotting out these moderate, little more than RINO candidates in order to maintain the status quo, ie. Bush, McCain, and now Romney. Any candidate that has true conservative grit they do their best to run out of town on a rail. Continuing to vote R just because they are not as bad as the opponent means we're rewarding the R party and can never expect a decent candidate that's truly interested bringing our republic back to values spelled out in the constution and declaration of independence.

The Rs do not want real change in Washington or anywhere else for that matter. They are afraid of loosing the "control" on everything they've worked so hard to "achieve"

What if Romney does get elected? Exactly what do you think that accomplishes? So we get an R for 4 years. Who in the heck do you think is gonna get blamed for everything the big O has done? Do you really think Romney can fix what the Big O has screwed up enough before the election in 2016? Heck no. It sets up a slam dunk Democrat for 2016.

If we can pick up enough seats in the senate with some Rs that have the balls to be real conservatives, they can put the cap on any of big Os court nominees and any of the other morons he's planning to put in place. The problem is that Rs won't even act conservative when they have a chance to do so. Remember the dumbass R congress of a few years ago that decided to "share" power with the other side. We know where that got us. I don't know which moron thought up that stupid idea but they should'a had their teeth kicked in.

For those of you who don't believe the R party is the real problem you don't have to look far. For example, take our own state where the Rs in charge this year changed the voting districts so that real conservative candidates they knew would run would not be able to unless they moved. You'd think if Republican is synomous with conservative they would have moved the lines to make it easier for those candidates to win. Instead they cut them out.

So what's it gonna take? Just go along to get along? When the R party does a recap on the election of 2012 and sees that people will vote for anybody with an R behind their name what message does that send? I'd say the message is that we can run any candidate as long as we can paint the oposition candidate as worse than ours. This line of thinking keeps us just exactly where we are today for the forseable future.

I never said anything about voting third party. That's a looser from the get go. Our system, unlike some in other countries is not designed for multiple parties, unfortunately. At this point, my vote is no on Romney, and no on the big O. And hopefully by the end of four more years the R party will get the idea that this bush/mccain/romney crap isn't going to work anymore.

[Mark@Sea]

Perot ran as an independent. Last I checked, RP is running as a Republican. The shenanigans the GOP is pulling to keep him out of the race have me pretty angry - but you know, there is a (slim) chance he will get the nomination. Really slim, considering the GOP is now threatening to bar entire state delegations that are pledged to him, but a chance. So "a vote for Paul" wouldn't be a vote for Obama - because when it gets down to it, there will be one republican candidate on the ballot.

The only thing that would keep me from voting for that candidate would be more blatant action by the GOP to keep RP out of the nominations process. Thinking that the majority of republican voters are dumb enough to nominate the guy that authored the legislation on which Obamacare is based, the guy that signed one of the most (if not the most) restrictive state-level gun bans in the country when the Clinton ban expired; well, thats' one thing. Discovering we don't really get a choice - that is another.

[seez52]

Perot ran as an independent. Last I checked, RP is running as a Republican. The shenanigans the GOP is pulling to keep him out of the race have me pretty angry - but you know, there is a (slim) chance he will get the nomination. Really slim, considering the GOP is now threatening to bar entire state delegations that are pledged to him, but a chance. So "a vote for Paul" wouldn't be a vote for Obama - because when it gets down to it, there will be one republican candidate on the ballot.

The only thing that would keep me from voting for that candidate would be more blatant action by the GOP to keep RP out of the nominations process. Thinking that the majority of republican voters are dumb enough to nominate the guy that authored the legislation on which Obamacare is based, the guy that signed one of the most (if not the most) restrictive state-level gun bans in the country when the Clinton ban expired; well, thats' one thing. Discovering we don't really get a choice - that is another.

amen brother!

[Mark@Sea]

Delegates are chosen locally. The thing is, the complaints that RP supporters won't vote for Mitt if the RNC craps on them by denying RP delegates entry to the convention smells too much of the guy that sits down with a cardshark because he really needs the money. Desperation doesn't change a thing - you're still gonna lose your arse.

[gun sane]

Anyone who thinks that if Paul is elected the country will magically transform overnight into Libertarian heaven needs to get off the stuff they think should be legalized. The president can do damn little without the support of Congress, the Supreme Court and, as we've seen in the last three years, the fawning press. Paul will get a majority of none of these. His presidency will be little more than a continual rant over how hard Washington is fighting against his ideals. Contrary to what we're brainwashed to believe, the executive office doesn't run the entire country. If you really want to make a difference, fight your battles in your own city, county and state. . There's a lot to do right here at home to regain our freedoms.

[Mark@Sea]

You're absolutely right. The three most important things RP would accomplish would be to rescind a whole bunch of executive orders, get rid of a bunch of 'czars', and veto most every new law Congress passes. "Constitutional? No? Well, thanks for playing anyway."

That wouldn't be useful, right?

Voting for the guy that can get the most new laws passed makes as much sense as saying Mitt is a conservative candidate.

[hornett22]

Just vote for BHO, so you can't claim the chains were foisted upon you.

- OS

If I vote for RP I can claim the same. And sleep at night.

[hornett22]

I can promise any doubters that I truely do despise Obama. I also despise Romney for many of the same reasons. I cannot vote for Romney. Sorry.

[Oh Shoot]

If I vote for RP I can claim the same. And sleep at night.

Assuming TN goes red without you.

If it doesn't, you helped elect Obama -- and 25-30 years of a liberal Supreme Court, assuming we're still an entity that long.

Sleep on that.

- OS

Edited May 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest bkelm18]

If I vote for RP I can claim the same. And sleep at night.

As OS said, I hope you'll be sleeping fine when the SCOTUS reverses its decision and says the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. Who knows what else they may say is not really our right? I mean, the Constitution is a "living document" after all. A liberal SCOTUS is FAR more dangerous than a liberal president. In the Paulbot crusade to get this man elected, they will in essence usher in th exact opposite of what they want. More government, more laws, more freedoms lost. Romney may not be much better than Obama, but he's the only one that has any chance of being elected, and he's not Obama. And Obama is exactly what you'll get by voting for Paul.

Edited May 6, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest HvyMtl]

The Mormanism is the 800 pound gorilla, sitting in the corner, everyone is trying to ignore. Ask your faith leaders what the official stance of your denomination is on Mormanism. Many here will be surprised. And the stance may impact your vote.

A very good point was brought up, where the GOP will continue its status quo, as the fear of what the Dems will do (mostly propaganda created by the GOP) will get the GOP candidate elected, instead of the core of the GOP standing up, and demanding a legit candidate. The "anyone but Obama" or the "anyone but Clinton" or the "anyone but Gore" or the "anyone but (insert name here.)" This is very dangerous. It leads to getting the quality candidates staying on the sideline, while the shallow candidates get in.

Voting your fear is not voting with thought.

As many of you know, I am not a fan of the two party system, as there are exceedingly few "yes or no," "heads or tails," "left or right" answers in politics. Why then do we allow these two parties to have all the power? Particularly when they actively prevent any additional party to have access to power? Particularly when they cooperate with each other to prevent other partys? Land of the free, home of the brave? Only if you are a GOP or DEM.

Romney needs a backbone. Romney needs a clear message. Romney needs to stop doing everything and anything to get elected. Romney needs definition. Whenever you are put out there as the "anybody but (insert name here)" candidate, you do not typically win. Ask John Kerry. . .

Edited May 6, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Mike.357]

_{what does being a mormon have to do with it?}

_{I am not understanding that at all.}

_{Does every president have to be a methodist or other generic christian denomination?}

_{And I would dare say most presidents are as about as christian as I am, but they put on a show to get votes.}

[Moped]

I could give a rat's ass what my faith leaders and my denomination think about Mormanism. My denomination is for gun control. I'm smart enough to know my Faith Leaders aren't any smarter than me and I will do what I think is best. I go to church to worship God, not to listen to a bunch of old hand ringers. If we could keep all religion out of politics, it would be doubly fine with me. Every denomination thinks every other denomination is a cult any way.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Moped