Why ron paul should not be president

[RLENT]

I only have one question: How ya gonna pay for it ?

 

[davekc]

After Ron Paul's wacky performance in last night's debate, this article from the Wall St. Journal accurately sums up his status with the American voters.
(Bold color emphasis mine)

I did get a chance to watch this one and this is how I personally viewed it.

Gingrich was ok, but failed the test with his Fannie Mae involvement.
Romney, seemed polished but stiff at the same time. Still struggles with the Romneycare mess.
Paul's first half was good, but did get a little wacky with Bachman. Struggled a little with the papers bit when interviewed by Hannity.
Perry, well.....was just glad he got invited
Bachman & Santorum, basically desperate
And Huntsman. Why is he there?

 

[Pilgrim]

I think the Republican voters are probably starting to think along these very same lines. The field needs to narrowed to the real contenders, but the problem is that it will take this caucus plus one primary to weed out the non-contenders: Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum. Perry will hang in there because he's got money, he's got a good record as governor of TX and he's getting better in the debates. Paul will hang in for a while until the inevitable rejection of the voters takes place. At that point, the worst case scenario happens and he becomes a third party candidate under the Libertarian Party banner. That's the problem with a dedicated fanatic that has a solid following of liberals, isolationists and the lunatic fringe; he could throw the re-election of the worst president in history just to satisfy his own self aggrandizement.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

"Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%."

Who are Republicans anymore? Self-identified conservative Republicans are mostly neo-cons... of course they won't side with Paul. Paul isn't trying to resonate with Republicans. He's trying to resonate with AMERICANS. He's not going to win the neo-con vote, and he knows it.

 

[RLENT]

Who are Republicans anymore?

You know, that's a question I have really been asking myself a lot lately

Self-identified conservative Republicans are mostly neo-cons

..... say it ain't so Joe !

Paul isn't trying to resonate with Republicans. He's trying to resonate with AMERICANS.

Amazing how someone else's statements can sometimes bring matters into simple crystal clarity

He's not going to win the neo-con vote, and he knows it.

Do ya think the neo-cons really understand that they will not ever win .... our votes I mean

18 minutes left until 24 hours have elapsed since the start of the Tea Party Anniversary Money Bomb (which runs thru Sunday I think) and the total is $2.94 million and closely in $3 million nicely.

Reports on the DP are that the servers for the Donation Page on the Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website site are running way slow with heavy activity .... and the donation rate graph is showing a solid 45% angle, with no evidence of peaking ....

And Dr. Paul goes on Leno in just a few minutes ... (Leno is announcing him right now to wild cheers ...)

For Liberty !

Amount: $500.00
Transaction ID: 326363114
Transaction date/time: 2011-12-16 14:23:27

 

[cheri1122]

"Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%."

Who are Republicans anymore? Self-identified conservative Republicans are mostly neo-cons... of course they won't side with Paul. Paul isn't trying to resonate with Republicans. He's trying to resonate with AMERICANS. He's not going to win the neo-con vote, and he knows it.

People who think in terms of Democrat and Republican are the problem, and people who think in terms of we, the people, are the solution.

 

[RLENT]

People who think in terms of Democrat and Republican are the problem, and people who think in terms of we, the people, are the solution.

This is a fundamental truth that more and more people are waking up to - and it's why you see the diehard neoconnunists on here, darkly and with fear and trembling in their voices, speak in terms of "party loyalty".

These folks are very, very scared - in particular about this issue, but also just generally ..... terrified .... you can see it in the tone of their posts .....

....... they know that the cow is out of the barn, and the train has left the station .....

In this particular instance ..... unlike many others ..... they actually have a very good reason to be

Anybody catch Leno last night ? ..... Dr. Paul was outstanding - and the audience loved him.

Ron Paul makes a huge statement on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

 

[RLENT]

Pilgrim,

I would really like to thank you for going out of your way to make the case for Dr. Paul - certainly we can use all the support we can get .... even if it is unintentional.

Let's address the "wisdom" you have provided for everyone's edification, and deal with it as the propaganda that it is:

1. ...Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war,

Yes, this is entirely correct - according to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll "nearly two-thirds of Americans think the [Afghan] war is no longer worth fighting, the highest number recorded in response to that question."

That's nearly 66% of the nation .....

Before the [Iraq] invasion in March 2003, various polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion. When the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.

Who says folks can't learn ? (.... Neoconmunists excepted, of course )

Additionally, we find that New York Times/CBS News poll, done in May 2007, indicated that 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq

Yup - Check (with bodyslam) - Dr. Paul

2. ..... or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid.

Other than AIPAC and their "amen corner", I suspect that very few in the electorate believe we need to increase foreign aid ....

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

3. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

Most folks find his patriotism genuine - save for certain neocon chickenhawks who advocate for endless war ... say, like Plush Limbaugh, Sean Hannuty, Marxist Levin ... and of course the whole universe of similar fellow travelers that reside inside the Beltway.

4. But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism

Complete strawman and fallacy (you certainly have a discerning palate in yur selection of reading matter ) - Paul's philosophy validates American exceptionalism (while acknowledging the inherent potential of the remainder of humanity - just as the Founders did) .... but it isn't enamored with the idea that it needs to be imposed throughout the world at the end of a barrel of a gun ......

..... humility, a virtue is desirable .... rather than arrogance, a vice, which is not ....

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

5. and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.

Yeah ..... decades of that "decisive action" (which is also known by the CIA-coined term "blowback") is precisely what got us into the situation we find ourselves in today. Something that any reasonable, well-informed individual (can we all say "meddling" ? ) ... easily recognizes.

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

6. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East"...

Actually, for any individual who isn't actively engaging in self-delusion (which necessarily excludes the neoconmunists, and our own religiously-intolerant jihadi's - aka the "amen crowd") who is even just reasonably informed and can think clearly, without the ideological blinders on, this helps, not hurts, Dr. Paul ....

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

7. For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier.

Yeah ? ... and you figure that's a really big problem do ya ?

What are you (the writer of the WSJ piece) .... a total frickin' moron ?

You seriously think Dr. Paul gives a flying leap about so-called foreign-policy hawks .... they are the insane lunatic fringe that have gotten us into this whole mess.

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

8. It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base.

Utterly stupid statement if there ever was one - based a totally hallucinatory premise - FYI Dr. Paul's base is not foreign-policy hawks - it's those that believe in Liberty, Freedom, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, small government, and a strong defense (not endless offensive foreign military adventurism) - things which many "foreign-policy hawks" clearly do not believe in ....

How is it that anyone as fundamentally stupid as this writer is, could actually earn a living, writing ?

Oh yeah - I forgot - dishonest propagandists are in very big demand, by some with less than honorable motivations.

Yup - Check - Dr. Paul

.....this article from the Wall St. Journal accurately sums up his status with the American voters.

No, what it accurately sums up is his status with the Neoconmunist™ voters ... who, despite whatever narcissistic mirror/navel gazing they would care to engage in, are not the totality of "American voters" .... they are, in fact, becoming an endangered species ... and rightly so, for as man evolves, that which is lower on the evolutionary ladder ...... may be displaced by others ..... who have better instincts and capabilities for survival ......

BTW ......that would be check .... and mate ....

 

[muttly]

"Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%."

Who are Republicans anymore? Self-identified conservative Republicans are mostly neo-cons... of course they won't side with Paul. Paul isn't trying to resonate with Republicans. He's trying to resonate with AMERICANS. He's not going to win the neo-con vote, and he knows it.

People who think in terms of Democrat and Republican are the problem, and people who think in terms of we, the people, are the solution.

Uh except in a collectivist sort of way.

 

[RLENT]

We're at a cool $3.5 million and counting with more than 24 hours to go, which ain't bad ..... considering Dr. Paul's campaign put out the call about a week ago for funding for Iowa ads and raised somewhat over a million or so IIRC.

Contrast that with Santorum's parallel "moneybomb" (which is more like a dud ladyfinger firecracker ) .... whose initial goal was $400,000 (they had to drop it to $250,000 when it became clear they wouldn't come anywhere close ....)

With a paltry $195,000 or so raised , it's not even 1/10th of the support that Dr. Paul garners.

Santorum's website bills his campaign as "No Surrender" ... given his lack of ability to garner much support, I suspect that that idea will be one he will be seriously re-evaluating shortly .....

So much for the platform of intolerant religious hatred and endless war I guess ....

 

[RLENT]

Uh except in a collectivist sort of way.

So .... are you calling the Founding Fathers collectivist ?

 

[muttly]

So .... are you calling the Founding Fathers collectivist ?

No I should have underline except.

 

[RLENT]

No I should have underline except.

Ahhh ... got it now

 

[RLENT]

Ron Paul Tea Party Anniversary Money Bomb is chugging along at a steady pace .... the odometer just rolled $3.6 million ... which easily puts us on pace to hit $4 million by midnight tomorrow.

Donate if ya can:

Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

(BTW, I just checked Rick "No Surrender" Santorum's site ....... he's on a truly blistering pace ...... having raised all of about $200 or $300 since I checked 3 1/2 hours ago ..... smokin', baby ! ..... )

 

[Ragman]

(BTW, I just checked Rick "No Surrender" Santorum's site ....... he's on a truly blistering pace ...... having raised all of about $200 or $300 since I checked 3 1/2 hours ago ..... smokin', baby ! ..... )

 

[RLENT]

Wonder in whose favor this might accrue to:

In U.S., Many More Dreading Than Anticipating 2012 Campaign

 

[Pilgrim]

As previously discussed, there's a reason for Ron Paul having such a significant following with the fringes of society - his appeal to them is not an accident, and appears to have been cultivated over a significant period of time. An example of this effort was his having been the principal speaker at the 50th anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society on Oct. 4, 2008; that's not exactly ancient history, having been barely over three years ago which is just a couple of ticks on the political clock.

"Ron Paul was the keynote speaker for the John Birch Society’s 50th Anniversary and spoke about the strong connection he had to the society and their ideologies.The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’”
I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday.” “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.”
continue what you have been doing…..I come with a positive message and congratulations to you for all you have done. Congratulations and thank you very much for having me tonight.

OPINION: Ron Paul Is A White Supremacist | News One

For those Paul fans who would like to see the whole speech given to the JBS crowd:

http://cdn-static.viddler.com/flash/as3/full-publisher.swf?ref=www.thenewamerican.com&key=fa23b1da

And if that's not enough, he was back to make another speech to the JBS South Texas Region on Aug 21, 2009:

John Birch Society Aug 21, 2009 Ron Paul Speech Part2 - YouTube

There may be a small element of doubt as to what exactly was in his newsletters - but there's no question that he was at these events, and seemed to be very comfortable in their company. There can be no doubt that the Democrat Party strategists have copies of these speeches and all the others he's made for these kinds of outfits, plus having every copy of every "Ron Paul Newsletter" and their salacious contents. One can only imagine them in knee-slapping hysterics, wiping the tears of laughter from their faces as they talk about the possibilities of political commercials they could run against this character as the GOP nominee for President. Fortunately they won't get that chance, but if he pops up as a third party candidate he could easily be portrayed as the modern-day George Wallace that seems to have an affinity for Islamic terrorists.

 

[Turtle]

As previously discussed, there's a reason for Ron Paul having such a significant following with the fringes of society....

If I may ask, and you are of course under no obligation to answer, but I was just wondering... why such an ardent fervor in the effort to seek out and then post here only the items which portray Ron Paul in a negative light, rather than trying to find a balanced honest light, to search for the complete truth instead of a settling for (or worse, promoting) a skewed truth? This concept of rooting against someone, rather than for someone, mystifies me. It's like those who actually root for a new movie to fail at the box office. Why would they do that? In the case of Ron Paul, why would you do that? This isn't sarcasm, it's a serious question.

 

[RLENT]

What I'm really wondering is whether or not he even bothered to listen to this stuff before posting it - they're great !

Dr. Paul is on his game and delivering the message of adherence to the Constitution, smaller government, the threat of an over-reaching state, individual rights and liberty, sound economics and monetary policy ...

I guess that mebbe he doesn't actually know any Birchers - I know several (same likely goes for knowing any Muslims too, I would bet )

I certainly don't know every Bircher, but the ones I know are good, decent people from what I know of them - who actually care about our country.

I think it's fairly safe to say that when one has to post videos of someone speaking before a group preaching values that many (or most) Americans would probably agree with ........ solely because of any perceived value that might be attached to the group in question ............ which is apparently based only on someone else's charactization of that group ......... or some who might have been members at some point in the past (did Bill Clinton ever have a library card ? ... OMIGAWD - that must mean I'm a liberal, 'cause I have one too) ....... rather than any personal knowledge, observation, or familiarity ........ we're seeing someone reach the point of total, utter desperation:

Throw anything up on the wall .... see if something sticks ... mebbe someone will believe it - without actually bothering to check it out and investigate it.

It's pretty much the exact same type of thing we're now starting to see in earnest from Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin .... perhaps the only difference being is that with them, one can actually see the deranged facial expressions and hear the abject fear and desperation.

Oh the terror !

Here's a shot of Hannity right after the debate - they've just ran the set up piece on Dr. Paul and the camera has just cut to Hannity to introduce Dr. Paul.

Now don't he look just ever so respectful and friendly ? This is the look of utter disgust and disdain .... from someone who, with regard to political philosophy (conservative and otherwise), is at the intellectual level of a flea .....

Ya can't hide it Sean - no matter how hard you try .... the smirk belies :

 

[RLENT]

Pilgrim - very entertaining ! - keep 'em comin' - that is ...... if you can stand to ....