Why is Ron Paul not President?

Lone Star Times ^

[mnehring]

BTW, you do know that Paul’s American Conservative Union lifetime rating is the same as McCain’s, right?

[djsherin]

That’s a legitimate point. And I’ve said before the Paul isn’t perfect (I think). We SHOULD have declared war on Afghanistan. I guess his reasoning must have been that we were only there to get rid of the Taliban, but that’s shaky at best since the Taliban ran the government. Anyway, you bring up a good point and I won’t defend Paul there.

[Xenophon450]

As would I.

[lormand]

"Actually, that is a very good point Lormand."

You sound surprised. This is par for the course. :)

[PhilCollins]

I agree that Giuliani and Thompson didn’t win any primaries or caucuses. They’re less significant than Paul because he’s in Congress.

[lormand]

I critique him *BECAUSE* he is significant.

In terms of winning the nomination or presidency, then yes, he is insignificant.

[mnehring]

We SHOULD have declared war on Afghanistan. I guess his reasoning must have been that we were only there to get rid of the Taliban, but that's shaky at best since the Taliban ran the government. Anyway, you bring up a good point and I won't defend Paul there.

Didn't need to, Article 1, Section 8 also gives Congress the authorization to 'define and punish offenses against the laws of nations'. Using this authority, you can broaden your war powers to pursue an enemy that isn't associated with a specific nation and crosses borders freely. By using existing treaties (laws of nations) agreed to through the UN as a tool, we are able to get more allies to have legal justification to join us. This isn't, as some say, obeying the UN, we are just using them as a tool and using existing treaties to help us. The Constitution, after all, says very specifically that treaties are to be considered high law of the land.

[weegee]

Houston PING

[PastorTony]

So then he has this group of supporters, what are those in this branch of the GOP doing to reach out to these people. Seems like mocking them really isn’t going to win them over

[djsherin]

The people I’m talking about aren’t conspiracy theorists. I’ve had conversations with them specifically about conspiracies and none of them really find much credibility to any of them. Again, I’m only talking about a small number of people.

[Baron OBeef Dip]

Also, wasn’t ol’ Phil Gramm once a democrat?

[djsherin]

Again, good point. I’m a little distracted right now with reading thermocouples and heating/cooling devices made by a company called Bemco... it’ monotonous and my head hurts.

Wasn’t our object (in addition to getting Osama) however to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban once they didn’t agree to help?

[lormand]

"And now we’re bogged down in nation building, something Bush ran against in 2000."

911 has changed some of us, and some of us are still stuck with our heads in the sand at our own demise.

Here's something that history will definitely support....

George Bush is saving your ass whether you like it or not.

[lormand]

"Also, wasn’t ol’ Phil Gramm once a democrat?"

Yep, like so many of us at one time.

[djsherin]

Yes I’m aware. I don’t think it means anything though. McCain is by any definition a statist (not nearly as much as Obama, but still) while Ron Paul is claerly not, so a number doesn’t tell the full story. I admire the man for his military service, but not his political. I’m annoyed that we chose him over a broad field of other candidates.

[Jay Redhawk]

On most issues Paul is to the right of McCain. I see very little to be chuckling about.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I don't know why people make a big deal out of a person
having many marriages.
The wedding vows state “for better or worse, in sickness
on in health, until death do you part, unless you find
someone you like better”. :)

[big'ol_freeper]

Ron Paul is not president because he is the conservative equivalent of Dennis Kucinich. He is a nutcase.

[lormand]

"So then he has this group of supporters, what are those in this branch of the GOP doing to reach out to these people. Seems like mocking them really isn’t going to win them over"

That assumes that they are united in all issues. The core of Ron Paul's supporters are anti-war kooks. Of this group, most are one issue morons and party interlopers who are only trying to cause chaos in the GOP. The GOP does not need anti-war kooks, because they are bad for the party, and worse for the country that is actively trying to save their asses.

Ron Paul does not even ID himself as a Conservative, but instead peppers himself with the Libertarian label.

However, it is harder for the GOP to attract libertarians with nominees like McCain. The GOPs drift to the center is also not helping. If the GOP is no longer the party of Conservatism, then who the hell needs them anyway?

[djsherin]

I disagree. He has been a HUGE disappointment. I'll concede he's better than the alternative, but there are so many things that he has done that slap conservatism in the face. I'm not anti-war by any means, I just like to be more cautious than most people and I'm certainly not in favor of an immediate pull out. We made a commitment and I think we need to see it through until we have given the Iraqis a relatively safe, free, and functioning country. I would have preferred a heavy fight in Afghanistan over Iraq though. A lot of my analysis is what we should have done and how we should have done it. I realize pulling out of Iraq would leave a power vacuum for the likes of Iran to fill.