Come on man, give me at least a time mark on that. It's 20 mins long.
Originally Posted by jazzguru
I agree his last one was better. But the moderators avoided one of his best issues: the Federal Reserve. I give props to the heckler in the audience who asked them to discus the Fed, even though they blew him off.
So you think the liberal media complex who clearly has come off the benches is going to just feed Ron Paul his best issues during a debate? That's only the darn point there Jazz. They're going to ask Obama about how awesome his books are and they will ask Ron Paul about newsletters from the 80's and he will just sit there and explain and get his ass handed to him. Where's the Ron Paul that declares the gotcha and sideshow questions to be nonsense and who refocuses the debate and his responses onto his strong points and the relevent issues. Your explanation completely makes the case as to why he would not be strong enough to win a debate over Obama. You can't be passive when the media narrative is already going to be you are too old and your ideas are too outmoded.
Originally Posted by SDW2001
That's total nonsense. They're only "getting it back" through porkbarrel spending, which he supposedly opposes.
"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." That's what he's doing. If he supports earmarks, then he supports them. After all, while I don't support them, there is a case to be made that Congress should allocate money instead of the executive branch. This where Paul begins the countdown to liftoff, because if he stopped there he would be fine. But no, he has to brag about how he's NEVER voted for an earmark despite the fact that he's personally requested them. Come on.
Exactly and again I can forgive what he does, and I can understand it but don't sit there and make the cause that you are principled and everyone else is riddled with terrible compromises related to political concessions when this clearly is in the same league. (along with Social Security) I mean honestly it isn't like we are paid political consultants or anything and we've both said "I voted for the earmark before I voted against it." It's easy to understand and no amount of long winded explanation about principles will excuse it and still leave Paul with the "principles" high ground. He's a guy who's been in Washington D.C. since 1978 and his record and actions show the same issues and baggage as anyone else.
That's because Paul's problem is generally not inconsistency. These simply show that he is not the paragon of virtue he's made out to be.
The main point too is that I cannot recall the last time someone endorsed a principle over a personality. They forgave Clinton his fling but not Bush his tax increase. On principle Bush did EVERYTHING right per our claimed centrist/lefist friends. He tried to balance the budget and consented to a tax increase. He nominated David Souter. He only took action on Iraq under U.N. consent and with broad help that went quickly and achieved a very limited goal.
He didn't get reelected. No one remember the claimed principles he was serving. The Democrats turned right around and crucified him with the very compromises he conceded to meet principles like a balanced budget.
Which leads to the next point, claiming a principle over a plan means others can argue about how you should meet that principle. "Ron Paul stands for a balanced budget but shouldn't that mean tax the fat cats?" You need to articulate a plan, not just mutter about the Constitution, the Founders and the Fed.
Their inconsistencies have been anything but overlooked. Romney has been grilled on healthcare and has had a consistent answer every time. He supports what they did in Mass, and doesn't want it implemented federally. It's not hard to understand. The only position which he's changed on blatantly is abortion, which he has also explained numerous times. He's been pro-life for years now. If anything, it's Paul who has escaped real criticism and scrutiny...because he's Ron Paul.
The point is that Romney even with all his compromises and problems real or imagined has much more support than Paul who should be such a clear, easily understood, and easy to explain choice. Instead Paul allows himself and what he wants to do get dismissed through lack of assertiveness and his own inability to explain it forcefully and clearly.
Originally Posted by jazzguru
You would rather let the government take their money and keep it to use elsewhere?
How is this different than what Romney and Gingrich explain? Would you rather Hillarycare have passed? Would you rather the Republicans never have achieved majority status and gotten a balanced budget for a few years? Would you rather Romney have never planted the seeds that are helping with conservative gains?
How is any of this any different? Here's a hint. It isn't and saying, but it's Ron Paul doesn't explain that and it is why his appeal has always been limited. Saying you don't have to explain because darn it, it's a principle doesn't work for liberals or conservatives (or libertarians) when you have to explain how you act in reality.
He's telling the truth. He's never voted for an earmark. What do you want to hear from him? Lies?
He's using a workaround. It's like saying oral sex isn't real sex.
And he's not made out to be a "paragon of virtue". Compared to his opponents he sure looks good, and his supporters are enthusiastic about that.
You (and most of his supporters) make him out to be the only uncompromised choice and the only one who will vote for what should be done instead of what is politically expedient. I'm not claiming those aren't some decent points. I'm saying that alone doesn't get you to 50+1%. You keep falling back on that argument while and then declare he's not claiming to be virtuous, principled, etc which is the real strong argument for electing him over others. That's called having your cake and eating it too.
Because all they've been able to come up with on Ron Paul is earmarks. You don't accept his explanation, but I think most people do. And really, compared to the larger problems we face, I don't think people are extremely concerned about earmarks right now.
I've come up with much more than that in this thread alone. Obviously I don't dig on tearing the man apart so we are keeping it civil but it isn't hard to act like a crazy leftist and see the lame arguments they would make to pick the man apart. As part of that civil discussion we aren't going to call the man racist, or hateful, crazy, uncompassionate or anything like that but the left will have no problem portraying him in a number of interesting ways and I've certainly hinted at them in this thread.