Ron Paul is in The Fight of His Life, We Must Stand With Him!

[Guest uzzi]

If I were President, day one -

Begin building a border fence to be completed in one year

Shut down the Department of No Education

Then I would have lunch

Shut down the Department of No Energy

Stop payment of any taxpayer money going to the Palestinians, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Then I would go for a bike ride on a bike that doesn't make me look like a pansy.

[kieefer]

No one is forgetting anything and to be precise, I believe you'll find that the U.S. has formally declared war five times, and each time it was at the request of the sitting President. There is nothing "wrong" with the question - it is totally legitimate to ask. In the situation presented by the question, it's appropriate to ask what RP would do as President because, as in times past, it would almost certainly be the President who initiated the declaration - no one is usurping the power of Congress of suggesting that he should.

This kind of answer from Ron Paul is one of the reasons why he will NEVER be President and why he NEVER SHOULD BE President. It also shows why Libertarians never get any significant traction because once you peel back the veneer of "Conservatism" you see just how ludicrous some (not all but some) of their philosophy really is.

I'm all for some significant change in how we handle our foreign policy but NOT the kind of change RP wants.

+1, well stated

There are thousands of people that have problems with RP's out-of-mainstream-foreign policy and it's just another reason why he'll never be taken serious in the Presidential forum, heck.....nobody has even brought up his positions on why he wants to legalize drugs. Talk about another can of worms.

[mav]

I'm all for some significant change in how we handle our foreign policy...

Well.. we are both in agreement there. The problem I see with this entire election is that we have a president whose foreign policy stinks and his domestic policies are abysmal. All of the candidates, outside of one, running on the Republican ticket are big government politicians. They talk about small government in one sentence then contradict themselves later when they start promoting government solutions. They certainly aren't as bad as what we have now, but they are still bad nonetheless. The one candidate (Paul) who isn't big government and has some really good ideas domestically, a lot of people think he is nuts on foreign policy. This entire election has become nothing but a quagmire.

As I have stated in posts in various other threads, I am supporting Paul in the primaries because of his domestic agenda. While I do agree with some, maybe a lot, of his foreign policy, his domestic agenda is what really does it for me. I feel he is the only candidate that will do what he says (especially in the executive branch).

It has always been my view that if we cannot get our domestic situation fixed then eventually it really won't matter what our foreign policy is; we will end up destroying ourselves.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Just tagging a thought here because it isn't important enough for its own thread--

Listening to talk radio last night, there were some Iowa callers discussing Santorum vs Bachman and such. Might have been coincidence luck-of-the-draw, but several callers wanted to select the "true conservative". Those callers seemed to equate "True Conservatives", "People of Faith", and "Evangelicals" as synonymous equivalent words. IOW, a true conservative is an evangelical and and evangelical is a true conservative!

If this confusion of terminology has become wide-spread then perhaps the term "conservative" has become so polluted that it is no longer a useful or meaningful word. For each person rabidly pro-religion, there is another person rabidly anti-religion. And most in the middle (like me) who don't care about folks' religion as long as they stay out of my business. A candidate who becomes synonymous with religiosity will chase off as many voters as he attracts. A candidate doesn't even have to push the association himself. If sufficient vocal followers make the association then it will "stick" and be enough to chase off the religion-phobic voters.

There seem as many highly-religious D's as R's. The highly-religious D's seem to believe that Jesus commanded that Caesar shall tax the rich and give to the poor. However, both sides share certain strong feelings about meddling in the lives of the infidels amonst us.

I suppose there is nothing to be done about it, but seems possible that if a good-looking personable well-spoken authoritarian fascist or socialist politician ever comes along who is gaudily religious and promises to repress "immoral people", then both sides among the fundamentalist religious would flock to that politician. Just sayin, some folks seem so devoted to regulating their neighbor's private lives, that they may not be reliable long-term allies regarding fiscal conservatism or the bill of rights.

To repeat, I'm neither pro-religion or anti-religion. It's just a shame to see religion get mixed up with politics. Especially a shame to see a term such as "Conservative" co-opted and made synonymous with "People of Faith".

It appears that some people think Ron Paul ain't a "true conservative" because Ron won't meddle in people's lives and Ron won't support religious wars in the middle east.

[hornett22]

I'm still voting for Ron Paul. NOT changing my mind. Most Conservatives I know that aren't old and stubborn and brainwashed by television and print news are as well.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm still voting for Ron Paul. NOT changing my mind. Most Conservatives I know that aren't old and stubborn and brainwashed by television and print news are as well.

I still don't know answer to this question: if a candidate drops out of race before a state's primary, is he still shown on ballot?

- OS

[hornett22]

I still don't know answer to this question: if a candidate drops out of race before a state's primary, is he still shown on ballot?

- OS

I'll write his name in. I'm not worried at the moment. Looks to be doing pretty well.

[jtmaze]

I still don't know answer to this question: if a candidate drops out of race before a state's primary, is he still shown on ballot?

- OS

He has to get so many votes on a primary poll before his name goes on the actual ballot( to my understanding.) But you can still write in.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[RobertNashville]

I still don't know answer to this question: if a candidate drops out of race before a state's primary, is he still shown on ballot?

- OS

That's likely a state by state issue but I believe that in TN a candidate, once qualified to be on the ballot will be there whether he is still running or not.

[mav]

I still don't know answer to this question: if a candidate drops out of race before a state's primary, is he still shown on ballot?

- OS

I believe the answer is yes. If I am not mistaken, Thompson's name was still on the ballot even after he dropped out after South Carolina.

[kieefer]

How many people know that RP endorsed Cynthia McKinney in her 2008 Green Party run?

Now, some don't think much of endorsements but for RP to endorse this nut-case tells me once again that his decision making is without reasonable thought.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

How many people know that RP endorsed Cynthia McKinney in her 2008 Green Party run?

Now, some don't think much of endorsements but for RP to endorse this nut-case tells me once again that his decision making is without reasonable thought.

According to this WSJ article from 2008, RP apparently endorsed anybody and everybody except McCain, Obama, and Bob Barr. The Bob Barr falling-out is reminiscent of trivial rivalries that spring up among "Famous UFO Experts" or "Famous Psychics" or whatever. Minor players fighting over the highest ground in a swamp. The article seems to say that Paul endorsed all third party candidates but most favorably Chuck Baldwin.

Consider all those "brilliant people with excellent judgement" who endorsed such as GW Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, McCain and Obama? We can see how well those endorsements worked out (not).

Am not claiming that Paul's endorsement of assorted and sundry third-party candidates would indicate a person of fabulous judgement. On the other hand, considering all the losers which "really smart experts" have been hyping, it can make one skeptical whether in fact such a thing as "good judgement" actually exists.

Link-- Dismissing Bob Barr, Ron Paul Endorses Constitution Party Candidate - Washington Wire - WSJ

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian firebrand who made his mark in the Republican presidential primaries thanks to grassroots support and strong online fund-raising, has endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president.

As Paul makes clear with a statement on his website, his decision is also a pointed non-endorsement of the Libertarian Party’s candidate Bob Barr, who was expected to benefit from enthusiasm for Paul’s message but has riled the Texas congressman in recent weeks.

When Paul endorsed several third party candidates this month, Barr dropped out of the event at the last minute, holding his own press conference where he suggested that Paul had “dissipated†the impact of the libertarian agenda with “amorphous leadership that says ‘all of the above or any of the above.’†Barr also had offered Paul the vice-presidential spot on the Libertarian Party ticket, which a Paul spokesman “politely declined,†saying Barr had “burned a bridge.â€

Without mentioning Barr by name, Paul’s statement addresses the former Georgia congressman: “The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for ‘remaining neutral’ in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November,†Paul writes. “I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.â€

[TNMP40]

I liked him until he spoke on foreign policy, I'll pass.

DITTO THAT... he blew it there.