So how serious is this Ron Paul thing?

[SmoothTalker]

I'm a Canadian, but I'm loosly following the US election.

Now obviously Ron Paul is dominating online, and raising a fair amount of money too.

But in the primaries so far he's doing just okay, so obviously that online support isn't really translating.

What do you American's following this think about his actual chances of winning. I know a lot of you may want him to win, but I mean realistically...

 

[Bible_Belt]

No candidate wins without embracing the war machine. Barack, Hillary, and McCain are all war hawks.

 

[Rhoto]

No candidate wins without embracing the war machine. Barack, Hillary, and McCain are all war hawks.

Think its a little unfair to say Obama is war hawk when he had the judgment to vote against the authorization of force, where as Clinton saw it as a political move.

However, presently, that stands true.

And Ron Paul is either a Homophobic Bigot or too much of an idiot to be in charge of anything. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/the_two_faces_of_ron_paul.html

I like Obama more than Clinton for the sheer fact that she is a politician, not a leader. Obama + Biden would work.

Clinton is more of a cabinet member, not an executive, no matter how much executive experience she thinks she has. However, if Clinton wins big on 2/5 I'm gonna boycott the election.

The real question is, are women shallow and stupid enough to elect another Clinton? Probably.

 

[KontrollerX]

He's the darling of the internet currently but he's pretty much doomed to not win.

Once the election heats up the mainstream media will find some way to bury him like they did Howard Dean.

We're going to end up with Hilary Clinton as president and Barack Obama as Vice President.

I called it first and no I'm not saying I agree with this but thats where the power and the money lies.

 

[Rhoto]

We're going to end up with Hilary Clinton as president and Barack Obama as Vice President.

The Republicans have a greater chance of winning, than that happening.

 

[Obsidian]

Barack's not a war hawk

 

[spesmilitis]

And Ron Paul is either a Homophobic Bigot or too much of an idiot to be in charge of anything. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/the_two_faces_of_ron_paul.html

I stopped reading when it brought up the newsletter thing, and noticed the article was written today. Ron didn't write that article in the newsletter, go look it up. Maybe the rest of the stuff is true, but if the author can't spend even a couple minutes on google for research, how do I know the rest of the stuff isn't crap.

I'm not saying that its impossible for Ron to be a bigot, I don't know him as well as I should (considering he's in my sig). But I have suspicions in those who claim Ron being a bigot because they can never link the source or video clip of Ron being a biggot. It isn't that hard to scan a newsletter.

As for the election, since Ron didn't do well in the NH primary, it doesn't seem he has a good chance at the nomination. He is still able to make a splash via 2nd or 3rd place, but not the nomination.

I'm still going to support him until the end of this election because this is the last chance some of the important issues he brings up has a chance to be heard. Issues like ending the US military empire and ending the federal reserve. I would have never heard about those issues if it weren't for RP. I have a feeling that we will eventually get universal health care and get out of Iraq, but RP is the last chance for a lot of people to hear about those issues.

 

[ready123]

Ron Paul and Bill Richardson

2 candidates I like who never had a chance of making it past the primaries

 

[Falcon]

Yea the whole racism thing is getting debunked as we speak (this isn't the first time either that they had to deal with this same issue).

signature forged

That meeting involving secession as he claims turned out to be an academic type of discussion where he was a guest to speak at

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010808_yellow_journalism.htm

There's too much to link, but go to the forums if you want to keep up with it.

That guy came out and tried to smear him a day before the NH primary. I guess this sorta stuff really is 'business as usual' in politics.

This is the real Ron Paul:

Tucker Carlson had a writer from New Republic who is rehashing the old newsletters (Ron Paul Financial Newsletter) where Ron Paul is alleged to have wrote racist remarks about blacks in the inner city of Washington, D.C. with a propensity for crime.

For the factual record however, Ron Paul has never been accused of saying a racist remark to anyone in his 20 years in Congress. There are no witnesses anywhere who have ever heard Ron Paul utter a remark that was racist in any way. He has never said a racist word in the Congressional Record nor has anyone ever recorded a racist remark from Dr. Paul.

No one in the Black Caucus in Congress has ever heard Ron Paul utter a racist remark.

For the words attributed to a 1992 newsletter, Ron Paul has apologized for these words that appeared in an issue of his newsletter, but he did not write them. He particularly regrets a remark made about Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who Ron Paul very much liked and admired. Ron Paul has never referred to Martin Luther King, Jr. in any disparaging way, and regards MLK, Jr. and Rosa Parks as heroes of his.

Ron Paul has delivered babies to black families, hispanic families, illegal immigrants, and all people. He even did so at no charge for poorer black, hispanic, white and illegal immigrants.

No black person has ever made the claim Dr. Paul was ever unkind or racist in any way, and this man has led a very public life from 1974 to 2008, 31 years!

If you have watched Dr. Paul, you know he has never adhered to any racist beliefs, actions, words or statements, and no one has ever heard him utter anything like a racist remark.

After 31 years, if no one can say they heard it, or videotaped it, or were victim of it, then it doesn't exist. The "racist" label cannot apply.

Not only is Dr. Paul no racist, but quite the contrary, he is truly the presidential candidate that cares most deeply about African-Americans, moreso than any other candidate, without question.

Currently there are 600,000 African-Americans in US jails and prisons for crimes under the draconian drug laws, laws that Dr. Paul has always opposed, voted against and condemns today in his Presidential bid. Dr. Paul is well aware in his television speeches that African-Americans are being punished and targeted in the federal drug war.

How in the world could he be a racist and yet do all that?

Anyway

The short term goal of the campaign is to win the nomination; the long term goal is to spread the message. Anyone involved in his campaign knows this. Although his short term goal is falling short right now, I don't think anyone can argue his message isn't getting out (he even gets the most international support of all candidates).

 

[Nip/Tuck]

I'm a Canadian, but I'm loosly following the US election.

Now obviously Ron Paul is dominating online, and raising a fair amount of money too.

But in the primaries so far he's doing just okay, so obviously that online support isn't really translating.

What do you American's following this think about his actual chances of winning. I know a lot of you may want him to win, but I mean realistically...

Ron Paul is the best candidate! His view points are the most sane. I'm disappointed that Republicans won't end up nominating him. It's gonna end up with Hillary (Feminazi) vs. Guliani. Seriously, she cries and gets all the women to vote. She's going to have a nervous breakdown if there's a war, if she can't even handle the pressure of losing.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Barack's not a war hawk

He has been since August. Don't be fooled.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/08/obama_lays_out.html

Obama lays out counter-terrorism plan

Aug 1st, WASHINGTON -- The United States needs to add at least 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, make aid to Pakistan conditional on its progress evicting terrorists, and double spending on foreign aid to $50 billion, Barack Obama said in a major speech this morning laying out his plan for fighting terrorism.

The thrust of Obama's 35-minute speech was that America is more at risk today than it was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- that the "misguided" war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous and diverted attention from tracking down Osama bin Laden and his followers.

"Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11," Obama said to a roomful of journalists and scholars at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won."

 

[Gangster Of Love]

You need to be ok at being called a "war hawk", as long as the resources and effords are directed in the right direction. Iraq was probably not the deathbed we want to send our troop to. As commander in chief, waging war is part of the job.

If you don't have the fortitude to send troops to war, where needed, then you are not fit to be president. The problem is that the current administration sent them to the wrong place.

Unless a it is bad for a presidential candidate to be against "the war on terror", I don't see a problem with him/her redirecting the focus to where it needs to be.

Last presidential election "The War ON Terrorism" was the thing being sold. Why/how is it a bad idea now? Is it because it is a democrat talking about it?

Does anybody have a problem against waging an actual, ideal, effective war against terror?

 

[g g g unit]

Barack is a complete uncle tom. who poses as a good guy when he is a warhawk. Hes like a glorified used car salesman.

Ron Paul 08!!!!!!

 

[Gangster Of Love]

Lets just hope Ron Paul runs as an independent after the primaries, so the Republicans get their version of Ralph Nader who takes away votes from the nominee.

Vote For Change 08!!!!

and goodbye to this thread!!!

 

[Nip/Tuck]

Lets just hope Ron Paul runs as an independent after the primaries, so the Republicans get their version of Ralph Nader who takes away votes from the nominee.

Vote For Change 08!!!!

and goodbye to this thread!!!

Actually no because then Hillary Clinton might win. If that happens Feminists will take over and US will officially turn into sh*t. :cuss: New Hampshire are bunch of p*ssies (pun intended) just because she cried and showed her "sensitive side" they voted for her. How can you trust the presidency to this women, if she can't even handle the pressure of running for office?

 

[mpimpin]

Closed. No Political Threads