Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stirs

For the Ron Paul fans

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/8/ron-paul-election-shows-us-far-gone/

Rep. Ron Paul, whose maverick presidential bids shook the GOP, said in the wake of this week's elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things." The video can be seen at http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ron-paul-on-fiscal-cliff-and-vows-to-compromise-MYkAiqYBTaiHwXZL9Tvxkw.html.

Mr. Paul, who is retiring after 12 terms in the House, said voters on Tuesday rejected Mitt Romney because he had opposed the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

"The people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of!' So that vote was sort of like what we are laughing at in Greece," Mr. Paul said.

"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don't believe that we've gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot."

Read more: Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/8/ron-paul-election-shows-us-far-gone/#ixzz2BexIjXRK

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


And by the way, how can the college kids go so hard for Ron Paul when he teaches and preaches responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, how can the college kids go so hard for Ron Paul when he teaches and preaches responsibility?

Because he's prolife.

He can have all the greatest ideas in the world to solve the issues that really cover what government is supposed to be about and provide, but if you're against a woman having the ability to wholesale slaughter a fetus...lol...well...forget that and pay for my Trojans or BC pills too. Hrmpff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"wholesale slaughter a fetus...lol"

Well...name another federal representative that's supported infanticide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...name another federal representative that's supported infanticide.

WHOLSALE SLAUGHTER OF FETUSES, INFANTICIDE, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make yourself look small by focusing on buzzwords and not the gist of the statement. Ron Paul will never get anywhere because liberals believe he wants his hands in vaginas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make yourself look small by focusing on buzzwords and not the gist of the statement. Ron Paul will never get anywhere because liberals believe he wants his hands in vaginas.

hahahahah. why would anyone believe such a thing?

WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF FETUSES!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he's prolife.

He can have all the greatest ideas in the world to solve the issues that really cover what government is supposed to be about and provide, but if you're against a woman having the ability to wholesale slaughter a fetus...lol...well...forget that and pay for my Trojans or BC pills too. Hrmpff...

I agree that abortion is a contentious issue that may hold back some college age voters from voting for a guy like Paul, but if he had been given the GOP nomination, I have no doubt he would've had a much better chance of winning but lobbyists and the current system will never back a guy that would change the way things are.

Even if some college age voters are pro-choice, he would still win some of them over. I was talking with someone the other day and told them that abortion has gotten to the point that it's irrelevant when it comes to voting. There's no way anyone will ever repeal Roe v Wade at this point. Abortion is just too controversial, so even if a Repub ran with overturning that on his platform, it wouldn't happen. And for that reason, I think he would still get a lot of college votes had he been the nominee.

He is and was much more appealing and engaging to a wider audience than Romney could've ever dreamed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that abortion is a contentious issue that may hold back some college age voters from voting for a guy like Paul, but if he had been given the GOP nomination, I have no doubt he would've had a much better chance of winning but lobbyists and the current system will never back a guy that would change the way things are.

Even if some college age voters are pro-choice, he would still win some of them over. I was talking with someone the other day and told them that abortion has gotten to the point that it's irrelevant when it comes to voting. There's no way anyone will ever repeal Roe v Wade at this point. Abortion is just too controversial, so even if a Repub ran with overturning that on his platform, it wouldn't happen. And for that reason, I think he would still get a lot of college votes had he been the nominee.

He is and was much more appealing and engaging to a wider audience than Romney could've ever dreamed to be.

I

Geez, I thought you were rational. :)

Ron Paul barely got any votes in the primaries, yet people think he could have won the general election? Sorry, the man's philosophy worked well in the days of Thomas Jefferson, but voters just aren't going to accept that way of thinking now. Paul would have lost all but the most hard core republican states had he managed to get the Republican nomination. Obama's team would have loved to have seen Ron Paul running against him.

Truth is that Romney was the only significant republican candidate who had a chance, and that was only a slight chance. Encumbents almost always win unless they have a major screwup (like Carter and the Iran hostages, or Bush sr's no new taxes pledge). The better republican candidates such as Rubio, Jindal and Christie knew this and that is why they decided to stay out of the fray. The next election will be wide open.

Now if the election were held on the Huddle, I have no doubt Paul or Gary Johnson would win, but out in the real world, no chance in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

Geez, I thought you were rational. :)

Ron Paul barely got any votes in the primaries, yet people think he could have won the general election? Sorry, the man's philosophy worked well in the days of Thomas Jefferson, but voters just aren't going to accept that way of thinking now. Paul would have lost all but the most hard core republican states had he managed to get the Republican nomination. Obama's team would have loved to have seen Ron Paul running against him.

Truth is that Romney was the only significant republican candidate who had a chance, and that was only a slight chance. Encumbents almost always win unless they have a major screwup (like Carter and the Iran hostages, or Bush sr's no new taxes pledge). The better republican candidates such as Rubio, Jindal and Christie knew this and that is why they decided to stay out of the fray. The next election will be wide open.

Now if the election were held on the Huddle, I have no doubt Paul or Gary Johnson would win, but out in the real world, no chance in hell.

LOL @ that last line DD.

I'm still rational buddy. I can't say a whole lot to retort because I'm not going to sit up here and pretend to be an expert in areas that run much deeper than I have explored.

I was simply operating off of the fact that Ron Paul seemed to resonated with not only Republicans but also many Democrats. What I'm saying is, if he won the nomination, Republicans were going to vote for him off the top because the two sides are that polarized. So, I assume he would've gotten all of the votes that Romney got from righties b/c it was their only option. And I also believe Paul would've gotten much more of the middle and possibly some of the lefties with some conservative leanings.

The key was getting the nomination. And as I said, he wasn't going to get that because the Republican Party is not going to let a guy like that get the nomination. He got so little votes in the primaries because I believe the GOP tried to smear him by coloring him as some extreme, space cadet whose platform only appealed to conspiracy theorists and potheads. Romney won the nomination because he had the money and pull to do so, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×