FOX: If Ron Paul Wins in Iowa, Iowa Caucuses Will Be Discredited

Why can he not be elected? I continue to hear this over and over. A radical Marxist who associates with terrorists and violent revolutionaries, who does not share the same ethnicity as the majority of the nation was elected.

Why on earth could Ron Paul not be?

 

And VP is a worthless job.

 

Wow Dasein i had you all wrong.

 

Honestly, I might do the same.

If Obama signs the NDAA, I might do it as a protest vote with or without him getting the nomination.

I'm leaning more towards Nader as a write-in though.

 

I don't think so, unless you believe having the opinion that Paul won't win the primary is a slight. And Wallace doesn't even express this view as his opinion, but as the view of the GOP establishment. He says this opinion may be "right or wrong."

Well I personally would only vote for the best candidate who I feel is viable as well as having a good chance of defeating Obama. I feel this is the best way to get the best candidate in office, as opposed to making an ideological statement that might make me feel good about myself.

 

Faux has been doing this (*)(*)(*)(*) to RP for a loooooong time. They are all about the status quo GOP.

I certainly hope Paul wins the GOP nomination.

 

Doesn't change the simple fact that he is but go ahead and embarrass yourself explaining the difference.

 

Actually I always read and his opinion that Paul will be called what he is isn't psychic.

Thats like starting a thread on Obama and predicting he will be called a liberal.

 

LOL You believe him? ROFLOL

 

Why would I embarrass myself? I appear to be the only one of the two of us that's even aware of the difference, I'd submit you've already embarrassed yourself and I'm just driving the nail in the coffin.

http://individualist-journal.blogspot.com/2007/05/non-interventionism-vs-isolationism.html
http://www.newworldradical.com/2011/09/isolationism-vs-non-interventionism.html

From horse's mouth:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM"]Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism: Ron paul Explains - YouTube[/ame]

 

I hope people can change......

 

HAHAHAHAHA Now thats funny. You are about as far left as you can go.

But go ahead, list all your conservative principles you share with Paul. I could always use a good laugh.

I hope everyone is paying attention to Dasein's reply.

 

Why do you hold such hostility to someone who leans to the left? Is it wrong for left leaning folks to support Ron Paul? Why?

 

Iowa isn't a predictor of the nominee. Bush beat Reagan in Iowa. Pat Buchannon had a strong Iowa showing. It just doesn't mean much.

 

LOL I don't care how he defines isolationist. I care HOW its defined.

Lets look at the definition and what he has advocated.

i·so·la·tion·ism (s-lsh-nzm)
n.
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

Ron Paul showed, during the Iowa debate, that he disputes what an isolationist is. Isolationism does not mean not even trading with other countries. That is not isolationism; it is protectionism. Caroline B. Glick tells her readers what isolationism is in Jewish World Review. It means

withdrawing to [one’s own, presumably fortified, borders] and leaving the rest of the world’s nations to fight it out among themselves.

Ron Paul said during the Iowa debate, as he always says, that America has nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by fighting in any war off our borders. Again and again during the Iowa debate he returned to this theme. Even when moderators were asking him about the economy, Paul spoke about “militarism” and “bring[ing] the troops home.”

He also argued with former Senator Rick Santorum about whether the United States, or any of its allies, is under any threat at all. The key subject: Iran, and whether it has nuclear weapons or wants to build them. Paul flatly said no.

The war drums keep beating! Iran has no air force! They can’t make enough gasoline! And you talk about their acquiring nuclear weapons?

Ron Paul ignores the Iranian navy, which has deployed in the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and through the Suez Canal to the eastern Mediterranean.

Separately, Paul wants to lift all trade sanctions against Cuba. That prompted FrontPageMag.com to offer a “history lesson” that all is not as Paul says it is in Cuba.

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/

More:

Brooks may have been referring to Paul’s support for ending all U.S. foreign aid to Israel (as well as to all other countries). Or maybe to Paul's suggestion that the Iranian nuclear threat is “blown out of proportion” and that instead of sanctions, we should be “"maybe offering friendship to them." (Who knows? Maybe Paul's old newsletters were even a factor.)

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/12/08/3090654/what-would-ron-paul-do-for-israel

Now would you like to embarrass yourself further and claim that isn't advocating abstaining of relationships with other countries?

Go right ahead

Another great article explaining how isolationism will never work again in the modern world.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/07/we-cant-go-home

 

As Anikdote has already proven, you don't know what you're talking about.

(Everybody enjoy my reply?)

 

So trading with all countries is "abstaining relationships"? Are you really this dense?

Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).

Thats Ron Paul and thats not "his definition" thats the (*)(*)(*)(*) definition.

 

Yes I did.

You ran away like I knew you would from listing ANY conservative principles you hold with Ron Paul even though you claim you would vote for him.

Anther fraud is born.

Try not to make it so easy to expose you next time.

 

That's a good question.

I look forward to the reply.

 

If Paul wins the nominations I'll seriously consider voting for him over Obama. Only because this country really needs to drop it's intervention policies. And Obama's not going to do that.

I'll just have to hope he doesn't get the support in congress to do any of the stupid crazy economic policies he proposes.

 

Did you even read?

The definition of isolationist was given:

n.
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

He wants to bring all the troops home. Stop all foreign aid and not protect any trade routes which would be the result.

That is the definition of an isolationist.

Try addressing the actual definition of the word and what he has promised to do.

 

Well, you know about running away.

You ran away from me here: http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/221613-fox-news-epic-fail-8-6-8-8-a.html

And here: http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...essages-displace-ca-park-nativity-scenes.html

Surprised you were brave enough to even show up on on of my threads after being beaten so badly.

 

Please name all the conservative policies you agree with Ron Paul on.

 

Because its a fraud. Anyone who is liberal would never vote for Paul. They are lying which is why they can't list anything beyond his isolationist policies on war and trade.

Dasein was the perfect example of this.