Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 8

It's not accumulated at all. That's sort of the point. (I don't no whether to put a laughing or crying smilie here.)

If there were funds accumulated to actually apply towards a promise then there might be hope. Instead there's a nice 20 trillion dollar hole as a starting point and a bunch of promises for the future.

No, it's not. Congress will never do it. Period.

When I want a conservative to be landing body blows against the Obama administration and knocking the guy out in fights, I don't want to hear feeble explanations for contrary actions like this one.

I'm not begrudging the man bringing money back to his district. I'm not saying his platform isn't a good one. I'm saying he's had forever to, even if necessary completely memorize a good means of explaining his actions here and instead it is just a muddled mush that will be exploited by the Democratic left.

This article notes Paul's earmarks and it should be noted, anyone claiming Paul is an outsider and not a part of Washington forgets the man has been there since the late 70's.

Am I saying it is wrong to know how Washington works? Not at all. Am I saying reform has to only come from outside of Washington, not at all. I'm saying if you want to win a general election, you can't have contradictions in your actions, explanations and solutions. Paul can't be principled, but then have to mumble through adding earmarks but not voting for them. The public has their eyes glaze over trying to understand the "principles" of such congressional maneuvering. It becomes akin to "I voted for the war before I voted against it." You can't declare you are the man to change Washington when you've already been there for 30+ years and haven't move the needle on change nor taken any sort of large leadership role there.

Ron Paul is a good man. I'd be happy to cast my vote for him as my representative. I'd be happy to have him as my doctor. He is not my first choice for my party nominee because issues like this still haven't been addressed or explained well by him.

Agreed. Like many Paul answers, I like the first 30 seconds, and then he goes into outer space. He should have just stuck with the "Congress should make the decisions" line. If pressed on his district, he should have said he supported them each on their own merits. But no, goes into orbit with contradictions.

We all know Ron Paul is not the best debater. And I agree he could have explained this much better than he did.

The bottom line is this: the government takes this money from his constituents and he wouldn't be a good representative if he didn't make an effort to get some of it back for them.

But when all is said and done, if every rep voted as he does, there wouldn't be earmarks in the first place.

Now I find it amusing that of all the issues there might be an appearance of inconsistency on, this and the Social Security issue are the only ones you can seem to find fault with.

Compare that with the inconsistencies, flip-flopping, and rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (healthcare, anyone?). For some reason, their blaring flaws can be overlooked - no, SHOULD be overlooked - because somehow they will be more consistent and good for this country as president than Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul wins in Iowa, you'll have to start taking him seriously.

I saw it and I frankly thought he had a poor debate overall. He was much better in the last one.

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.

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.


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.


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.

You would rather let the government take their money and keep it to use elsewhere?


He's telling the truth. He's never voted for an earmark. What do you want to hear from him? Lies?


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.


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'd rather not have earmarks at all. I certainly wouldn't claim to be against them while putting them in bills myself.


He voted for it before he voted against it. Gotcha.


Yes, he is, particularly by his supporters. You've practically deemed him the second coming of Christ.


Got it...so the inconsistency doesn't matter.

Absolutely ridiculous assertion. He's my candidate of choice, but I have NEVER made such a claim.

Come on man, give me at least a time mark on that. It's 20 mins long.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 using a workaround. It's like saying oral sex isn't real sex.


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.


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.

The piece below arrived in my inbox today from an acquaintance. I was partially sold on Ron Paul, but it appears as if he is just another establishment conman, dressed up as a libertarian.

He's a conman because a "real" libertarian making a trillion in cuts wouldn't have some opinion piece declare it to be genocide?



My thought is that I should be making even more money with my predictions.

Ron Paul just came up with a little home truth that has remained a taboo until now. Michele Bachmann hates Muslims.

It's not just Bachmann who "hates Muslims". Its the greater part of the Washington DC establishment (and a large segment of middle America) that hates Muslims. The hatred of Muslims (and Arabs) has been indoctrinated into the minds of mainstream America ever since the end of WWII.

If there is any discomfort re. Ron Paul's pointedly accurate statement, it would is that the little secret that nobody dared to discuss is now in the open. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform, but he is honest and straightforward, which is far more than can be said about *any* of the others, barring Gary Johnson.

Keep dreaming

Do you think Paul is honest?This man is bigoted and it has been proven again and again with his writings.

Bigotry? Did that ever lose anyone any votes? If Bachmann openly admitted her hatred for Muslims on TV, she would probably win the GOP nomination hands down.... and probably win the presidential election too....

Is there anyone in Washington DC with honesty? If you swim in a cesspool, you're going to emerge dirty, yes? Ron Paul has kept his nose relatively clean compared than the others, especially Newt Gingrich... who has more baggage than an airline terminal.

Paul is just lashing out because it has become clear over the last several debates that rather than just have a more isolationist foreign policy, that Paul would act as a outright passivist. Bachmann keeps hammering him on this and it is clear he would rather harm the messenger than address what he would do if Iran went nuclear as an example.

Any alternate foreign policy set would be preferable to the current, unsupportable economy-busting, paranoid, jingoistic global imperialism. We are pursuing the most destructive, "shooting ourselves in both feet", and most inappropriate-for-the-times model of all. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces, alongside civilian contractors were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.... a huge government run welfare program... sucking a huge proportion of revenue into a $ black hole that produces nothing of worth, and is a national security liability. Meanwhile, back home, the aging urban infrastructure continues to crumble....


To keep things in perspective here: Does anyone *honestly* believe that if, on joining the world's exclusive nuclear club, Iran is going to get ambitiously imperialist and start creating a new Persian Empire in the mid east? Or going ahead and "wiping out Israel"? These are the least likely set of outcomes, by far... its never, ever going to happen. Ahmadinejad is all bark... he fires off some undiplomatic rhetoric from time to time.. but he's not stupid. And he'll be off the political in due course.... either by the ballot, or by the bullet. And the latter possibility wonlt be anything to do with his local opposition.

This is a cheap, vote-catching piece of opportunism by Bachmann, who is preying on baseless fears which have been seeded throughout the US (and the industrial west) by the legions of pro-Israeli people in prominent positions in successive US administrations, alongside influential think tanks and foundations aligned with the Zionist geopolitical cause. And yes, she does hate Muslims... as does most of DC.

When Pakistan surprised everyone when they successfully tested the "Islamic Bomb" in the 1990s, who did that unstable nation (run by a crazy dictatorial thug) attack? Nobody.

I disagree it's jingoistic, paranoid or imperialist. I do agree it's over zealous at times and certainly economy-busting as a result. Certainly it could be worse, however. Paul's position is unrealistic though.


It's not welfare, and our infrastructure is not the decaying nightmare it's made out to be. That said, we should greatly consolidate our foreign presence. I'd rather see maybe 24 major bases and 75 ancillary bases around the world. 800 is FAR too many.


I believe it's quite possible. Two words: The Mullahs.


So because Pakistan didn't attack anyone, Iran won't?

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

^^^An interesting article touching on what the GOP (led by Newt Gingrich, no less) did to Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.

Will the GOP establishment try to do the same thing to Ron Paul if he wins in Iowa? Count on it.

Of course. You post this with such outrage. <gasp> They'll attack Paul if he wins!

Outrage? You got that from what I wrote? Wow.

Maybe not the right term. Definitely posted with some indignation though...perhaps surprise?

As for the nomination, it now looks like Gingrich is in his initial descent phase, with Romney climbing. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...s-front/46360/

The reality is that with Gingrich tanking, Romney's plan has worked. He hasn't gone whole hog in Iowa, but has run significant ads. The soon to be also rans did the rest for him (Bachman, Santorum). He didn't engage Gingrich or attack him at the recent debate, deciding to remain above the fray and focus on Obama. His focus has always been New Hampshire, where he is solidly pounding everyone.

As for Paul, he may or may not win Iowa. It really doesn't matter, because he won't be able to compete with Romney in NH or most other places. But right now, it's looking like Romney might even win Iowa. If that happens, the nomination is sealed.

Here is an interesting part of the article:

Well four years of Democratic House control, four years of a Democratic President and what will be at least 6 years of Democratic Senate control sure have done a lot about that haven't they?

Oh wait, they haven't. What happened with the Obama "shovel ready" stimulus of $800 billion? Oh yes, it bought votes.


This amounts to saying how dare you suggest the past could become the present and how dare you take them at their word. Ignore the past and ignore their statements isn't persuasive.


The problems in the Middle East aren't new. They aren't related to whether Bachmann likes or dislikes them. You make it sounds like all would be well if not for these mean people in Washington. That simply isn't and hasn't been true.


Ask yourself if Pakistan had overrun Kuwait what the response would have been. Now substitute Iran and the Gulf of Oman and all the countries that need and use it.


The savings could be considerable if we learned how to project power rather than having to be everywhere. As you note, there's a large expanse between pure passivism and just not wanting to be the cop of the world.


Good points.


Two more words:

Their history.


Pakistan also cannot limit the access to the sea of two historical rivals by closing off one little opening.


Of course they did that to Buchanan. Buchanan basically gave Clinton the election in 1992 due to his primary challenge to Bush. He split the party and Perot came in and cleaned up as a result. I've already told you that something will come up at some point with Paul and his newsletters. You don't claim to not know who was writing your newsletters and then claim to have the moral authority and principles to run the country.

Not at all. It's no secret the GOP establishment hates Paul. I merely meant to draw attention to the nasty tactics employed by the party in the past as precedent for what they will likely do if Paul wins.


I think Gingrich is just about done as the media's "flavor of the month" and those easily influence by the media (read the majority of voters) will lose interest. Romney will soon be back in the spotlight as the establishment candidate of choice (unless a new candidate enters the race).


A Paul win in Iowa could prompt "decided" voters to take another look at him and draw some significant support for him in New Hampshire and elsewhere in spite of media ignore/smear tactics.

Come on. You don't really believe that, do you? No way NH goes for Paul. He might stay alive there, but that's at best.

Did I stutter?

And we're back to being delusional. You literally just make stuff like that up with no backing, precedent or logical reason it might happen.

And now we're back to ad-homs. Please just say you disagree with me and state why.

It's not an ad-hom at all. You stated this:


I suppose you at least said "could," but other than that, it's based on pure fantasy. There is no logical reason, historical reason, or data point that supports this. It's literally a delusion.

I honestly don't mean it to attack you, despite how it must read. It would be fine if you said this was your hope, or that a Paul win "might, just might" make people reconsider him. But that's not what you've stated. It's just like stating that Paul can win as a third party candidate, or that he won't deliver the election to Obama if he runs as a third party candidate. Hope against hope! Never give up...never surrender! One man...left for dead! One mission!

It's simple, just leave the "you're delusional" part out of it and just state why you disagree with me.

"There is no logical reason, historical reason, or data point that supports this" would have more than sufficed.

You're focusing more on trying to portray me as a lunatic than actually stating why you disagree with me.

I'm really not trying to portray you as anything. You're obviously not a lunatic, as I would hope everyone can see. On the flip side, I don't think simply saying why I disagree is sufficient. Your statements on Paul (at least like this one) are just not reasonable. They do come off as wishful thinking at best. I'm not sure what else to call that. Anyway, I don't mean to insult you.

Romney now leading Iowa. Gingrich in third. If he wins, it's unlikely to be a long race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ublican_caucus

As I suspected, Gingrich's record, personality, and poor campaign organization are too much for him to overcome.

If Romney wins Iowa, he will be declared the Republican nominee by the establishment media.

If Paul wins, they will say it doesn't count.

Thanks for the link. I think this information does more to help Paul's reputation than hurt it. Another example of him "walking the walk".

Agreed.


Agreed again.


Agreed, but only because it won't actually count. Iowa has a very mixed track record of selecting the nominee. Romney was never expected to win Iowa, merely stay in the top three or even four. His anchor is New Hampshire. In other words, Romney will be the clear favorite because he outperformed expectations. On the other hand, Paul has gone all-in with Iowa. He's put all his eggs in that one basket, hoping momentum from a win will help in down the road. But it's clear that's not going to happen. He'll never win NH or in some of the purple states. So, a Paul win in Iowa is very likely meaningless.


I'll actually agree with that, though I think it also shows him to be as nutty as he comes across sometimes.