President Ron Paul At War

[Aloysius]

And I propose that that is an attitude which is poisonous to our democracy. Support him on the issues or don't support him on the issues, but the argument that he doesn't have a shot is irrelevant. He is setting all-time fundraising records.

Oh, and Ron Paul is at 5%, which is where John Kerry was at this point in the primaries according to Thomas Woods (who I trust)... if anyone has a good site that shows a timeline of support in the primaries and can go back to December 2003, I'd be interested. There was certainly a time when John Kerry was just one name amongst many and everyone expected Howard Dean to get the nomination.

[Justin86]

So basically, you're saying if Gulliani lets out his own Scream Heard Around the World, we'll look past the other candidates for some reason and all vote Paul?

Not buying it.

[Aloysius]

I'm saying evaluate them all and pick the best one, not based upon existing polls, but based upon their policies.

at this point in the race, how can you really justify voting for who the media tells you has a better chance? that just helps us get manipulated as a voter bloc. if instead of convincing person after person to vote for who was already labeled as possible by the polls, we went out and tried to convnce person after person to vote for who the right candidate was, we'd send a message that we will no longer be manipulated in that fashion.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]That is a very good point....
But this election really just scares the carp outa me.
All I want is for NONE of the democrats to win.
Hilary = The Antichrist
Obama = Satan
The rest of them = stupid

But you are right...it is really silly to allow the media to tell us who to vote for.
The polls can change, and we shouldnt make decisions purley based off of who they say is doing well.
We should vote for who we think supports our ideals best.

But thats one side ... the other side pulls me to vote for someone who can beat Hilary.
I swear, if Hilary becomes president...Im moving to the Vatican. (Or Ave Maria, Florida)
[/size]

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430976' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:56 PM']He is setting all-time fundraising records.[/quote]

I have to ask... Why do I always hear this about Ron Paul? Why should I care? As you have said several times, I should vote on the issues, not on popularity or polls. If I'm voting on the issues I believe in then I don't see why he sets some fundraising records would seem to be such big news... If anything, it would seem 'pollish' as it implies he is popular and has support by raising such funds.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1430949' date='Dec 7 2007, 08:34 PM'][size=1]Im not voting for him because...I dunno.
He doesnt seem as strong as Romney to me...I dont think Ron Paul can win the Republican spot.

How many threads have you made about Ron Paul anyways?
I feel like you are shoving this all down our throats...he isnt the ONLY good candidate in my opinion.
You are kinda turning me off from Ron Paul...
[/size][/quote]

he's just doing what he feels he should to get the right man elected. Any concerned American should honor that. Whether or not you agree is not the problem. If you don't like Paul, so be it. I personally think he's done a really good job at selling him on the phorum, as Paul's definitely got my vote at this point when I started out having no idea what I was going to do. I don't see any comparison between him and any of the other candidates, but we are all entitled to do what we feel we should. Even if that means a few extra threads .

[Maggyie]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1430949' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:34 PM'][size=1]Im not voting for him because...I dunno.
He doesnt seem as strong as Romney to me...I dont think Ron Paul can win the Republican spot.

How many threads have you made about Ron Paul anyways?
I feel like you are shoving this all down our throats...he isnt the ONLY good candidate in my opinion.
You are kinda turning me off from Ron Paul...
[/size][/quote]

On that note... Ron Paul's people have gotten this reputation as mad spammers (not that I think that's happening here! The threads on PM have mostly been interesting and thoughtful.

Anyway, PC World had an interesting article about the phenomenon, as Paulites have made the shift from comment-spam to regular, in-box spam. They used the same mechanism that sends ads for prescription drugs, etc to your e-mail address. PC World did point out that the spam doesn't come from the official campaign organization but rather from his over-zealous supporters.

Unfortunately I think the inevitable backlash is going to drown out any interesting ideas he might have brought to the table The people on digg are particularly annoyed...

Edited December 8, 2007 by Maggie

[Aloysius]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1431100' date='Dec 8 2007, 01:20 AM']I have to ask... Why do I always hear this about Ron Paul? Why should I care? As you have said several times, I should vote on the issues, not on popularity or polls. If I'm voting on the issues I believe in then I don't see why he sets some fundraising records would seem to be such big news... If anything, it would seem 'pollish' as it implies he is popular and has support by raising such funds.[/quote]
I never suggested you should vote for him solely based on that.. I'm just saying that this indicates that he's not just supported by random internet spammers, you can't spam donations. I'm just trying to establish that he has a chance too, and his fundraising numbers show that.

but I would never say "well look, Ron Paul raised more than X candidate, therefore you should vote for Ron Paul over X candidate"... I would say vote Ron Paul based on the issues, and don't dispair because look at the level of monetary support he's garnerring.

when it comes to the general election, a Ron Paul with a republican nomination would be a total new Reagan. There would be such a landslide of Ron Paul Democrats and Ron Paul Independents, not to mention the hoards of GOP supporters who would vote for him just to vote against hillary, I think you could see some of the highest margins of victory since Reagan.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1431255' date='Dec 8 2007, 06:15 PM']when it comes to the general election, a Ron Paul with a republican nomination would be a total new Reagan. There would be such a landslide of Ron Paul Democrats and Ron Paul Independents, not to mention the hoards of GOP supporters who would vote for him just to vote against hillary, I think you could see some of the highest margins of victory since Reagan.[/quote]
You might be right there, but Paul is no Reagan..........

[XIX]

Compared to Hilary, he sure is.

[Justin86]

Well, yeah, but still he's not Reagan.

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul hasn't changed his positions since the Reagan administration. Reagan was extremely supportive of Paul back then, there is no reason to think he would not be now.

He's no Ronald Reagan simply because he doesn't have the acting skills, but other than that, he is probably the most similar candidate to Ronald Reagan to grace the stages of the Republican Debates.

His foreign policy is Reaganesque (it is the same foreign policy George W. Bush ran with in 2000), his economic policy is the type of stuff Reagan called "the very heart of conservativeness", stuff like abolishing the Department of Education? Reagan talked about doing that too. Paul is a very Reaganesque candidate, probably the most so out of any candidate up there.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that if Reagan had the choice between the candidates being trouted up today, he'd have endorsed Ron Paul. No doubt. Where is Paul deviating from Reagan?

[Aloysius]

More on Ron Paul's foreign policy:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197771898&sr=8-1"]A Foreign Policy of Freedom[/url]

[quote]Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer. Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the Founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words have been collected in this book. May it be widely distributed. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. -- Foreword to "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.[/quote]

Ron Paul makes a good point about Iraq here: [url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/wh...om-really-mean/[/url]

reminds me of the point GK Chesterton once made about British involvement in Ireland and how Irish freedom might not be something that the British would like.