have YOU taken the time to see Ron Paul's Iowa debate responses?

[Bill T]

 Look at it this way. Perhaps you'll understand it better. We have TWO people we KNOW (without a doubt) that ONE of them WILL become president. These two people are going to receive 80 percent of the votes presented. The rest of the votes are divided between 5 other contestants that have zero chance in hell of winning. Even Ross Perot who spent big bucks couldn't make much of a dent in the two main competitors when he attempted to run for president.

Now lets apply the two different approaches of voting.

Thought 1.... Voting for someone who doesn't even make the news, Doesn't even stand a chance in hell, is just a name on a ballet with fictitious backing that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

A.) The voter casts his vote for this guy because he believes in him. The voter is happy that his vote counted for the "BEST" guy there is. (And it is the best guy!!). But this guy will NEVER be elected, his running mates have him outclassed beyond even being seen. In other words he is skunked so bad that his running is a joke. But your vote COUNTED for an individual that is extremely well fit for the job.

Thought 2..... Voting for the someone who has a chance to stop someone like Obama. Or the other side of the ilk.

A.) When voting for someone who HAS a chance, your vote is Guaranteed to go towards someone who WILL be elected. It may not be someone you think is qualified, someone you like, or someone you think will do a good job, but this someone is MUCH better than the alternative.

When voting thought 2, one thing is for certain, Voting against the worse of the two evils and not voting for the worthless competitors, guarantees your vote will NOT help that person (like Obama) get elected. Your vote is cast upon someone you know will have a chance of being in office, and will be against the person you do not like.

When voting thought 1, One thing is for certain, Your vote that could have helped the worse of two evils get elected, has gone for a candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of even being looked at. The result? You are actually helping the person you despise the most.
Is it better to cast a vote for a person who will not get elected but is qualified to the hilt.

or

Is it better to cast a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected, and will be much better than someone you despise. ..like Obama.

[Cuts Crooked]

If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama.

And you honestly think Ron Paul could? You're getting all worked up over a fringe candidate that has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, regardless of what happens in Iowa. American voters simply do not want this guy, or his politics, regardless of how much you wave the Constitution, or chant otherwise. There are a lot of ways to change this country. Betting your hopes on a fringe candidate who has NEVER polled more than 9% in 3 Presidential elections, is certainly not one of them.

Hmmm? How many times did Reagan take a shot at the nomination before he actually won one and became president? And what were his percentages in those attempts?

I'm sorry Bill, but the republican party has never run anyone like Paul, so there is no track record to look at and claim he cannot win if nominated.

And it has not been that long ago that Gingrich was actually behind Paul in the polls. But the leftist media is terrified of Paul and does everything in it's power to keep him isolated......which tells me something! And that same media tries very hard to keep Gingrich public......which also tells me something, they don't think he can beat Obama.......and neither do I!

What the republican party has been doing lately has not worked, it's time for a change....whether they do it now, or five years from now is the only real issue. All I know is that I will NOT vote for another damned progressive.

[Bill T]

I'm sorry Bill, but the republican party has never run anyone like Paul, so there is no track record to look at and claim he cannot win if nominated.

He'll never be nominated.

[Graybeard]

OK Bill T we've heard your opinion and like other things everyone has it stinks too. It's time for you to move on and give it a rest on this thread and on your campaign against Ron Paul. Find another dead horse to beat we've heard your views on this subject and pretty much no one here agrees with you so don't continue to rehash the same old tune.

In case you didn't pick up on it from Matt's post he is kinda on a banning kick lately for folks making an obnoxious nuisance of them selves. Just ask Billy if he's back from his ban yet.

[jimster]

Sounds to me like this whole argument is because the republican party pretty much is crap, sounds like ALL agree that is the problem, then the argument is if you don't vote republican Obama might win.  Bottom line for everyone here is the republican party is not conservative. 
I'm starting to take offense to the fact people would blame me because the republican party is not conservative and won't support the most conservative people.
Hey..it's not my fault.  If you need my vote, give me something to vote for.  If a republican supporter gets stuck with Obama for 4 more years, maybe you should blame THEM...and leave me alone.  Why is it the republican party does not have to work for my vote?  Why is that the republican party only counts on Obama being worse than Romney?  I'll vote for the person I want in the end.
So maybe everyone should start looking at the senate instead, and start finding some conservatives there, it's probably the only way you'll shut down Obama or Romney either way...2/3 vote can over ride either progressive liberal....Obama or Romney.
Republicans have already lost again...you just haven't admitted it yet.  Still...not my fault.  So there is this sign that I saw at a tea party deal once, it pretty much said it all..."Republicans suck as well"  and that folks is where we are at, and we even find ways to argue about that, even though we all agree that is the problem. 
Since the republican party has already lost either way...start looking at your senators and more people in the house...try to keep one step ahead.   You will need to shut down either Obama or Romney, or Newt....plus, even if Ron Paul was president, the congress is not right for him yet, so get congress in line.  Ron Paul or someone like him will fall into place after you fix that 500 plus people. 

[Cuts Crooked]

I donno Jimster. I've not been real happy with the republican party for a long time now. But I think they CAN be salvaged, once they get it through their collective heads that conservatism works and trying to "deal" with liberals doesn't. And yes, congress is not right for Paul now, which could change during the next election cycle, but it wouldn't be "right" for any true conservative candidate, would it? And a progressive like Newt, or a rino like Romney, would be facing the same issue with congress that Oweblamoe is currently facing.

[blind ear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo

[Matt]

[nw_hunter]

I'm not surprised there's no response to this video.Most of the people on the forum who don't like Paul and talk about him as if he doesn't exist , or is just a crazy old man, are only parroting what they have heard their mainstream media hacks say about him. Lie's  or  half truths are all they will get from them.

Facts aren't really important it would appear to many voters in America today.They would rather have someone who sounds or looks good! I do think this new generation is starting to come around.If you look at the faces in the crowd when RP speaks, they are for the most part people your age and younger.My age bracket is seen less, and that's a durn shame!

I'm really encouraged by hearing some young Democrats speak highly of Paul.His hardest struggle imo, is getting past the Primary. I believe he would take it to Obama in the general.You cannot win without drawing votes from the opposition, and I think he could do it. Great video Matt.......Thanks!

[Matt]

I'm really encouraged by hearing some young Democrats speak highly of Paul.His hardest struggle imo, is getting past the Primary. I believe he would take it to Obama in the general.You cannot win without drawing votes from the opposition, and I think he could do it. Great video Matt.......Thanks

I am even more encouraged by the fact that my sons generation are extremely motivated to seek out Liberty and Freedom. When my oldest now 18 first moved in with us a little over a year ago he was so brain washed into thinking that the government was supposed to take care of us from cradle to grave that it at times caused conflicts between us. Now a year later he has made a complete turn around and is very much anti big government and is a big Ron Paul supporter. He has also converted all of his friends who shared his original misguided mindset and they too are HUGE fans of Liberty. The biggest shock I guess was all it took was telling them the truth about how we got into this mess in the first place and then asking them what was the best way out and every time the answer was the same... SMALLER GOVERNMENT


Matt

[BBF]

What "RIGHT" do we have to tell Iran or any other country what they can and can't do?


Really curious.  Talk about arrogance.


If you attack us (the US or our allies) be prepared for holly s--t to be rained down on you.  Where do we get the idea we can dictate to other countries???


I believe it is the hallmark of police states to "arrest" you BEFORE you commit a crime against the "People" AKA the current regime.

    1 to the above ! Amazing how you can dicated to those that can't defend themselves on an equal footing. I call that bullying !!
 
BTW. Gov. Huntsman just showed how ignorant he is about China despite him being there for a number of years by saying that if he became President he would encourage contact with Chinese dissidents to further democracy there. One of the most asinine statements I've heard from the candidates.

[jimster]

The last two posts....  +1 for me. This is why I pick Ron Paul over all others to start with.  He seems to understand you can't keep messing with other countries and starting half ass-ed wars that turn into into police actions for years after and never end, if they do end, you gained nothing but lost valuable lives and gobs of money you did not have.  He also thinks the smaller the government the better, and seems to be the only one willing to to say both parties are totally at fault, which is probably why the republican party does not like him...he thinks they are messed up as well and he says it out loud.  So they call him an isolationist...cause I guess they like running into other countries and policing them and taking over...only the small ones though, don't want to take a chance of getting beat up by the larger countries who do the same thing.  I like Ron Paul because he realizes we are corrupt to the core, and it's pretty hard right now to find any other candidate that admits all this openly.  I also like what kind of president he said he would be compared to what we are used to.   

I would be a different kind of president. I wouldn't be looking for more power.
Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I don't want to run
the world, I don't want to police individuals' activities and their lifestyle.
That's an entirely different philosophy but its very much in our tradition and
in the tradition of our Constitution.

 

[scootrd]

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. -Thomas Jefferson

[Matt]