Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Art123 is right - the Ron Paul supporters must realize that his views are actually TOO conservative for the Republican party. As much as they may put up the front that they only want 51% on their side, they really do want to build a working majority that can accomplish their agenda. If they embraced all of Rep. Paul's ultra-conservative views, they would alienate a large population of social-justice, moderate conservatives. Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for a third-party organization. He would be able to build off of his youthful, conservative base into the future and perhaps inspire future leaders who share his views.
I will support Ron Paul and most important the message. Their is nothing ultra conservative about freedom and individual rights. What is ultra-moderate and bad for the country is more people who belief in the government is the answer and more loss of freedoms for the "common good"
I'll stand for freedom and the constitution before I vote for the mindless idiots who have no IDEA what HOPE or Change is yet once you look at your paycheck.
Many of Ron Paul's proposals appear as provocations. For example, it is not necessary to eliminate the Fed, but just its mandate, shifting its focus away from growth (loose monetary policy) to inflation and a balance between domestic production and consumption (sound money, which is the goal after all). Another example, it may not be necessary to eliminate the IRS, but just make sure that income tax brackets are few and that the rates are low.
Splintering the party would achieve nothing concrete, yet Ron Paul and his supporters still have the play hardball.
The problem is that many of his supporters are young and they may not have the wisdom to know when it is time to make a deal and achieve what is concretely possible at the moment.
What you have said is true, however none of the candidates are pushing (or even came close to pushing) those reforms. Ron Paul at least puts it as a goal that we can work towards. He is realistic in the sense that the Fed wouldn't be eliminated immediately but could be gradually wean out from making ridiculous attempts at correcting the economy. Such as buying subprime mortgages from brokers so the brokers won't go bankrupt. Once the subprime mortgages default, we all pay for it with the devaluation of the dollar and the brokers make a profit. Stuff like that, makes me suspicious about the motives of the Fed. Its not really a pro-people but a pro-corporation tactic and I have a problem with that. The other candidates are basically saying what the Fed has done is wonderful and please don't complain. Nobody has been forward thinking, albeit Ron Paul may be thinking about the distant future, it is a safe bet to go down his path then to just think "everything is wonderful and go incur more debt". Debt is what cause us to get in this mess (and businesses profitted a LOT from it), Ron Paul is trying to lead us out of debt with personal responsibility... the other candidates don't want you to have personal responsiblity just to burden yourself with other people's debts so they can incur more debt on their own and companies to continue to profit off of that... apparently American's like the idea that they can shift their debts to someone else's problems and we call it "entitlements", socialized programs, etc. etc.
I'll stand for freedom and the constitution before I vote for the mindless idiots who have no IDEA what HOPE or Change is yet once you look at your paycheck.
I don't consider myself an idiot for examining the candidates and choosing one who fits my views and stances on issues. I hope you don't either - we might all feel like a big nation of idiots if that were the case!
As far as the paycheck reference - I may be alone in my thoughts, here, but I feel downright good knowing that my tax money is going to support the country. As much as I'd appreciate the extra coin in my pocket, I realize the benefit of our tax dollars at work, and I'll give as much as necessary to secure our country's goals.
What you have said is true, however none of the candidates are pushing (or even came close to pushing) those reforms. Ron Paul at least puts it as a goal that we can work towards.
He is realistic ...
... in the sense that the Fed wouldn't be eliminated immediately but could be gradually weaned off from making ridiculous attempts at correcting the economy ...
... The other candidates are basically saying what the Fed has done is wonderful and please don't complain. Nobody has been forward thinking, albeit Ron Paul may be thinking about the distant future ...
Debt is what cause us to get in this mess ... Ron Paul is trying to lead us out of debt with personal responsibility...
... the other candidates don't want you to have personal responsibility, just to burden yourself with other people's debts so they can incur more debt on their own and companies to continue to profit off that ...
... apparently Americans like the idea that they can shift their debts to someone else's problems and we call it 'entitlements", socialized programs, etc. etc.
All agreed. What I'm saying is that in a democracy, it takes small steps to make meaningful changes. For example, the Federal budget was balanced, but it was two decades in the making.
Ron Paul has spelled out some supremely reasonable policy objectives, but has offered some radical solutions to achieve them.
I hope that, as the elections near, he and his supporters will put aside some of the radical rhetoric and focus on winning as many seats as possible in a spirit of harmony.
To think that Americans have one more choice for their leader than the people of Iraq did under Saddam is not much of a choice in my view.
If that were true, rather than simply hyperbole, it would be appalling. As it is, though, the choices this time are actually quite strikingly differentiated, to the extent which they are necessarily limited by our Constitution and its system of checks and balances.
Clinton offers a plodding, hyper-bureaucratic approach to governing, which is essentially an ossified rehash of the 1930s. Her core supporters, frustrated but embarrassingly prosperous middle-aged women, are a singularly bitter and unattractive force.
McCain offers a warmed-up revisitation of the Rockefeller-Taft wing of the Republican Party, seasoned with jingoism and the unpredictability of the crabby and geriatric personality of the standard-bearer. There is also the very real possibilty that may succumb while in office.
Obama is a callow if fascinating blend of post-orthodoxy and contemporary American reality, characterized by a striking lack of allegiance to traditional identity politics and a promise of the first President since Kennedy to truly understand the nature and methodology of the cool medium. He's a real choice -- if a risky one.
Finally, Ron Paul and the Libertarian fringe: Were Paul to be a serious candidate for chief executive, he would have virtually no suppport from any serious political leader in Congress, nor any popular base of support with which to govern. None of his proposals have even middling appeal, except as a way for folks to express frustration with the way history has turned out. He would be the first Presidential candidate ever to be a potential lame duck for his entire term of office.
What most Paul supporters ignore is the essentially limited power of the President to govern, except through use of the bully pulpit, mandated public opinion, and the enlistment of political allies. Paul is not a charismatic speaker or thinker. His poll numbers are anemic. He has no one in the political world to come forward and support him. He is at best a crank who happens to hold office in an obscure district. That he would be considered even a half-serious candidate for the Presidency is less the product of his abilities and political philosophy than the residue of frustration, much of it understandable, which a small group of former conservatives and isolationists feel about the way the country has drifted over during the Clinton/Bush era.
So we are blaming Ron Paul for a corrupted and pro-lobbyist Congress? So instead we should pick one of "them" instead because at least we will "try" to make everything worse... that is some logic..
So we are blaming Ron Paul for a corrupted and pro-lobbyist Congress? So instead we should pick one of "them" instead because at least we will "try" to make everything worse... that is some logic..
If you are commenting on my post, I would ask you to consider that I am not "blaming" anything on anyone. I am attempting to give reasoned view of why the choices we currently have are indeed meaningful (if flawed), and why Dr. Paul's candidacy is not.
To create change, you must have a viable candidate. Paul is not viable; thus, the efforts of his supporters constitute recriminations, not efforts at change.
To create change, you must have a viable candidate. Paul is not viable; thus, the efforts of his supporters constitute recriminations, not efforts at change.
I agree with the first part (for as much as I have a positive image of Ron Paul), but I believe your conclusion is premature, perhaps based on lack of knowledge.
Ron Paul supporters are engaged in an effort to organize Congressional nominations and a sizable number will run in the general election in November 2008.
Let's say a handful of them win. There is a good chance that both branches of Congress will be quite close to 50-50, so a united group within one of the parties focused on a few core issues could hold the balance of power, or at least significantly influence it.
Among other things, that would entail antagonizing the McCain camp to the point where they get his attention, but not to the point where they cause rupture.
Anyway, that's what I would shoot for in this election. Now, if his young supporters have the discipline to follow such a strategy ...
I don't consider myself an idiot for examining the candidates and choosing one who fits my views and stances on issues. I hope you don't either - we might all feel like a big nation of idiots if that were the case!
As far as the paycheck reference - I may be alone in my thoughts, here, but I feel downright good knowing that my tax money is going to support the country. As much as I'd appreciate the extra coin in my pocket, I realize the benefit of our tax dollars at work, and I'll give as much as necessary to secure our country's goals.
Lets review our "goals" shall we...
1. 9 trillion in debt. Your income taxes pay for the interest only on the debt.
2. 700 bases in 120 countries is this securing our goals.
3. Expanding the role of government to over spend and over regulate.
4. Last time I checked our only purpose in the constitution is to protect our rights and our country not others and UN mandated rules.
5. Governments goal is to protect from terrorists yet leaves the borders open, doesnt enforce visa rules and continues to tell me where are fighting them over their so we dont here. ( I'm confused)
6. We borrow money from communist in order for the government to fund it's spending.
7. If our goals are to secure liberty, freedom and prosperity why are TAX dollars being used to bail out corporations who corrupt and mismanage their company. That is not the role of government.
8. The Bill of Rights has been eroded.
9. Our Taxes go to pay for foreign governments defense, food and other wasteful spending.
10. If government needs tax to secure our goals I would first expect them to secure our rights by defending them and following the constitution. Which they do not.
So the sooner my government balances it's budget and starts making government smaller I see no reason why I should support the actions of a government that destroys from freedom, my income and my country.
I agree with the first part (for as much as I have a positive image of Ron Paul), but I believe your conclusion is premature, perhaps based on lack of knowledge.
Ron Paul supporters are engaged in an effort to organize Congressional nominations and a sizable number will run in the general election in November 2008.
Let's say a handful of them win. There is a good chance that both branches of Congress will be quite close to 50-50, so a united group within one of the parties focused on a few core issues could hold the balance of power, or at least significantly influence it.
Among other things, that would entail antagonizing the McCain camp to the point where they get his attention, but not to the point where they cause rupture.
Anyway, that's what I would shoot for in this election. Now, if his young supporters have the discipline to follow such a strategy ...
I wish anyone well who uses the current partisan divide as a way to exert a benevolent influence on our political system. I doubt, however, that your scenario has much chance of coming to fruition.
For one thing, the Democrats will hold close to a supermajority in both houses of Congress following the election. It will ths take more than a handful of Libertarian congresspeople to have any meaningful influence.
For another, I'm not sure even a handful of Libertarians will be elected to Congress. How many congressional districts gave Paul a plurality of votes in the recent GOP primaries? Unless I'm mistaken, the answer is none...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Facts on your taxes to secure our goals
