Dear Cons, why not Ron Paul?

Why arent you all going to vote for RP?

After all;

You claim youre more;

fiscally sensible

better able to understand the constitution

self supporting

responsible

Than all liberals, as such surely you would all have the principles and the guts to vote for RP.

So why not? Even we libs can respect this man.

 

Why don't you vote for someone in the Green Party? You call yourselves progressives? You really claim to care for the environment? Prove it! Vote for Ralph Nader. Who cares if he isn't on the ballot write him in....if you have the guts. Even we conservatives have some respect for the guy.

 

It's his courage to put American interests before those of the Israeli right-wing.

 

The evil result of selfish single-isue voters.

 

This is an easy one RA... most conservatives want smaller, less intrusive government.

The Green Party wants to use the power of government to control people and their property - so right from the git-go, it is a non-starter for most conservatives.

I'm not a Republican, or what by today's definition would be considered a conservative - I am a Libertarian; but as such I am a supporter of Ron Paul. Ron Paul would be the first to ell you, it doesn't matter what supposed justification is used by those who seek to empower government - be it "for the chi'ren; for the environment; for the poor, etc"... doesn't matter what alruistic carrot is dangled in front of the naive, unsuspecting masses - in the end, the crime against the people is the empowerment government.

Eventually, and predictably, the government will become all-powerful - as it is now becoming - and our freedom will be lost completely; as it soon will be.

Take heart though... totalitarianism is at the heart of environmentalism; and we'll be there soon enough. The leadership of both wings of the Big Government Party are committed to destroying America, and destroying our freedom. So in the end, your side will win no matter what.

 

I was speaking to the op (who is a foreigner, didn't realize that when I made that post) and anyone else who considers themselves left-wing and/or votes for the Democratic Party. This goes both ways. Libs in America aren't supporting a 3rd party candidate. Everyone is dissatisfied with Obama yet most of the left-wingers (not to be confused with run-of-the-mill Democrats) will vote for him again.

Just to be clear: If Ron Paul wins the nomination you bet your sweet ass I'll vote for him. But if he doesn't then I will not split the right-wing vote and hand Obama over his reelection.

 

I suppose he's a respectable sort.

But fundamentally he's a walking pile of false dichotomies, and one that isn't the best communicator, which doesn't help either.

What I mean by the false dichotomy bit is that he's good at identifying what's wrong with the status quo, much better than most.

However he then provides his solution like it's the only one. For example, as he paints it, there is either Zimbabwe or gold and nothing in between. No, a gold standard is what you're left with IF you (and the other great powers) completely screw up fiat currency. But the fiat dollar as a world currency is incredibly powerful. It's like saying the solution to legal access to alcohol is to lock yourself away in jail or you're going to do a drunk driving hit and run and wind up there eventually.

Sometimes he also seems to be stuck in the 18th century. A time when wars weren't decided in the opening hours by airstrikes.

That said I liked him in congress. As I said, he is good at identifying what's wrong with the status quo and I do think he usually points in the right direction, just far to far out. But in congress that would be mitigated. As a president? Ouch.

 

Libertarians should adopt a less pessimistic attitude.

The only way a truly libertarian minimalist Government would ever come into existence is if the Republic actually broke up into a bunch of smaller countries and one of them was Libertarian.

This is a great time to be a Libertarian IMO. The Supreme Court is actually enforcing the Constitution. By the time of the 2012 elections it will have radically defined the scope and limits of the Commerce Clause. Free Speech has been deemed absolute, The 2nd amendment has been deemed nearly absolute, with certain caveats. The liberals are in tears as the entire set of Democratic Reforms they rammed through over a two years is slowly being defunded, dismantled or otherwise Abolished by court order. The system is working exactly as it's supposed to.

I heartily believe that they will define the commerce clause in the narrowest possible terms. In terms that would make Ron Paul happy.

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks the 14th and 16th amendments are immoral is just nuts. They form the bedrock of Post-Civil-War America's social contract.

Respecting the Constitution means respecting ALL it's amendments, not just the ones you agree with.

 

I tend to agree. If he became president and did everything he says he'll do.....let's just say world news (as well as local) will be more interesting.

People really underestimate the good America is responsible for around the world. Be careful what you wish for I guess.

 

I'm with ya...

It's early, my eyes are only half open, didn't pick up on the jist of your OP.

Europeans are, for the most part, completely lost... hundreds of years of turmoil and bloodshed, and they still plow ahead on the same disasterous path - as if the 20th century never happened, they're on their way to doing it again. Sadly, American's have decided to join their march over the cliff.

The western worlds march into the gulags is truly an amazing thing to watch... brainwashed masses - no amount of reason, common sense, or historical example can penetrate the fog that envelopes them.

Truly amazing.

 

I would answer these points, but they seem rather vague so Ill just get to the heart of it.

Do any of you believe that you really can get the smaller government you wish for, with vastly reduced spending, with any other candidate?

Isnt it the case that every other canadidate will in fact simply perform the same old GOP trick of keeping the rich rich, the poor poor and the middle class desperate - all the while making various excuses why spending isnt going to be controlled?

Isnt it the case that all other conservative options here have more to gain by appealing to corporate interests before they appeal to you once in power?

 

Environmeltalism is a concern but its not a core concern of the left.

If it were you would have an interesting reposte to my query.

However, historically the left has been much more interested in employment and wages.

 

I'm probably with Paul on most social and economic issues, but his foreign policy which is 'none' or which he allows the Iranian nutcase to build nukes so as to bomb Israel and any Western nation seems to me to be a tad dovish/feckless--resembling more of what we see and get from the lib crowd.

 

Thankfully the Green Party isn't just about the environment. It's the party for "progressives" in America. So progressives should vote for what they believe in rather than whatever Democrat is on the ballot.

 

Interesting point. But falling outside the dem / gop split the green party is also a third rail in US politics, and as such theres about as much less reason to vote for it as its not a viable proposition. If the green party were some faction in the Dem party youd have a point - but theyre not.

Just like the reason Bachmann and RP both work in the GOP, they and we all know voting outside the split is not a good proposition.

However, voting for RP, who is inside the GOP, and is a GOP candidate, is a truly viable proposition - so would you vote for him of you were a registered gop party member today?

 

Interesting. Isnt his foreign policy more akin to the founding fathers and the consititution?

Surely entangling yourself for so long abroad has brought you much pain and cost.

 

It's raised the quality of life for every single person in Western Civilization. We guard the silk road, just like the Romans.

 

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him, if not I'll vote for whoever does.

 

The founders weren't saddled with or apprehensive of a possible worldwide threat and menace such as with a Hitler or with Islamic radicalism. Our founders didn't have the fear and or reality of dealing with a foreign invasion like a 9/11. Once our founders got their independence from Britain--they felt pretty much secure from another foreign threat. We can't say the same in today's climate of radical jihad lurking round every corner. Gotta keep up with times and use whatever military mission needed to finish the job.

 

The US navy at the time also wasn't responsible for the security of the entire world's ocean trade routes either. That role was England's at the time.

 

Qed...(all caps)

 

Interesting point, but i dont really see you as a true conservative in any case.

Although you hate unions, your still mostly a centre ground forum member.

 

Hmmm. Who's views would you actually concur with?

Anyone's or is the only principle you have one of getting the GOP back in power?

 

Lol. Love that con thinking '9/11 was a foreign invasion'! Like Red Dawn but smaller. Cooked up just right put the wind up unknowing Americans. Kudos on a job well done.


Ah, the 'times were very different argument'. This tactic seems to be employed by the right to both defend an intervetionist foreign policy while the constitution is also used to attack the changes in domestic policy that have occurred in the 20th century.

Isnt this thus just the same unprincipled nonsense weve come to expect from the GOP?

Surely RP offers you a consistent ideology.

 

My goal is to move America over to the right. If we can move it far to the right fantastic. If we can only move it enough to repeal Obama'scare, well, it's better than nothing. If our economy can only go back to the way it was under Bush, hell, I can live with 5.5% unemployment and $1.80/g gasoline.